Presented at the Megacities, Megaregions, and Spatial Planning Symposium, June 28-29, 2007, Atlanta, GA.Chapter 1:
Megacities and Megaregions:
Frontiers in Spatial PlanningPresented at 8:50 AM on June 28, 2007

Contant, Cheryl K.

Leone de Nie, Karen

Ross, Catherine L.

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech

Defining Megacities and   Megaregions: The Need for U.S. Spatial PlanningChapter 1: Megacities and Megaregions:  Frontiers in Spatial PlanningCheryl Contant, Catherine Ross, Karen Leone de NieWhy a New Planning Approach?    Geographical scale of problems grown    – Development around urban areas spreading out farther– Water scarcity– Habitat Loss– Commuting distances longer– Growing gap between “haves” and “have-t ”no s– Reduced limits to communication and mobilityWhy a New Planning Approach?    Economic activities global  – Jobs moved to workforceCommunication instantaneous–  – Competitiveness defined more at regional scale with increase mobility   – Infrastructure needs increasing to keep paceWhy a New Planning Approach?    Current planning approaches  – Scale of authority at city and/or county levelFunding linked to property values wealth–     , , and inequities– Emphasize command and control regulation     and authority– Often insulated from citizen activity and      political actionWhy a New Planning Approach?    1 Spatial mismatch of planning strategies.      and current and future problems and opportunities2. Coordinated approach needed across current political and legal boundaries    Useful Constructs Megacity– Traditionally, city of 10 million residents or two or more linked cities with total population of 10 million or more– In U.S., only New York City and Los Angelesf f– With relaxed de inition or U.S. development pattern adjustment, use 3 million populationCharacterized by:–  Relatively high density population and employmentConcentration of economic activityUseful Constructs Linked Megacities – Several megacities, often in a corridorConnected by infrastructure–   – Substantial interactions between/among areasSoutheast U S example–  . . MSAs 1950MSAs 1973MSAs 1990MSAs 2003Useful Constructs Megaregion– Linked megacities and areas tied to them byNatural environment Flows of goods, services, and peopleShared resources (labor, infrastructure, federal funding, natural resources)Social or cultural identityPolitical boundaries (counties, states)Weak boundariesUseful Constructs Megaregion– Captures the economic, social, and population core– Delineates the natural, economic, and social connections between cities, metropolitan    areas, and rural placesUseful Constructs Spatial Planning – Intention approach to “coordinate the spatial and territorial dimensions of sectoral policies” (Nadin, 2002)– Secures convergence and coordination between various sectoral policies   .– Explicitly draws attention to the location-based characteristics of importance to     economic, infrastructural, social, and environmental policiesQuestions to Explore  Why plan spatially at megaregional level?     – Comparative advantage over status quoCompetitive advantage–  – Shared prosperity – greater social equityQuestions to Explore  How plan spatially at megaregional level?     – Defining boundaries of megaregionLessons learned from elsewhere–    – Spatial plan look likeChanges to planning activities and policies–      – How implemented – top-down or bottom-upQuestions to Explore  Implications– How do megaregions relate to one anotherHow do megaregions relate to non–      -megaregions– Is planning at the megaregional level more       “sustainable” than the status quo

Defining Megacities and Megaregions: The Need for U.S. Spatial Planning

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/32488/1/mmsp_2007_ross_contant_leonedenie.pdf

Defining Megacities and Megaregions: The Need for U.S. Spatial Planning

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech