In this paper we question the political and financial drivers of urban development in the contemporary context of multiactor and multilevel governance. We focus on the processes that drive spatial planning and large-scale development projects in the inner periphery of three metropolitan areas: Amsterdam, Paris, and Milan. Peripheral development is conceptualized as the outcome of the realignment of three major sources of urban power: the national government, the core city, and large market investors. Early research has largely demonstrated how each of these elements influences metropolitan transformations, often separately, with special focus on economic logics of development. We propose to instead empirically investigate the political drivers of the changing relationship between these three powers. Focusing on three particular projects, we show how different spatial outcomes of peripheral development spring from a particular articulation of the relationship between the three sources of power. These relationships are pinned over electoral strategies of power consolidation, political confrontation between emerging parties, and their (dis)connections with business interests.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG“Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus?”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series201237: 89–103.
2.
AltermanR (2001) National-level Spatial Planning in Democratic Countries: An International Comparison of City and Regional Policy-making, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
3.
BalducciA“Policies, plans and projects”. disP2003152: 59–70.
BogartW T (2006) Don't Call it Sprawl: Metropolitan Structure into the Twenty First Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BontjeMBurdackJ“Edge cities, European-style: examples from Paris and the Randstad”. Cities200522: 317–330.
8.
BrennerN (2004) New State Space, Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
CampbellH“Planners and politicians: the pivotal planning relationship?”. Planning Theory and Practice20012: 83–85.
10.
CrouchCLe GalèsP“Cities as national champions?”. Journal of European Public Policy201219: 405–419.
11.
De MaesschalckF“The politicisation of suburbanisation in Belgium”. Urban Studies201148: 699–717.
12.
DesjardinsX“La bataille du Grand Paris”. L Information géographique201074: 29–46.
13.
DownsA“An economic theory of political action in a democracy”. Journal of Political Economy195765: 135–150.
14.
FainsteinS S“Mega-projects in New York, London and Amsterdam”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research200832: 768–785.
15.
FourcautAFlonneauMFourcautABellangerEFlonneauM“Les relations entre Paris et les Banlieues: une histoire en chantier”. Paris/Banlieues: Conflicts et Solidarietés2007Paris: Creaphis, pp. 9–43.
16.
GrahamSMarvinS (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition, London: Routledge.
17.
GrantJ L“Theory and practice in planning the suburbs: challenges to implementing new urbanism, smart growth, and sustainability principles”. Planning Theory and Practice200910: 11–33.
18.
GreenwoodDNewmanP“Markets, large projects and sustainable development: traditional and new planning in the thames gateway”. Urban Studies201047: 105–119.
19.
HalbertL“The decentralization of intrametropolitan business services in the Paris region: patterns, interpretation, consequences”. Economic Geography200480: 381–404.
20.
HealeyP“Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space”. European Planning Studies200614: 299–320.
21.
Janssen-JansenL B“From Amsterdam to Amsterdam Metropolitan Area: a paradigm shift”. International Planning Studies201116: 257–272.
22.
JonasA E G“City-regionalism: questions of distribution and politics”. Progress in Human Geography201236: 822–829.
23.
JonesM R“Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance”. Environment and Planning A199729: 831–864.
24.
JonesM“The rise of the regional state in economic governance: ‘partnerships for prosperity’ or new scales of state power?”. Environment and Planning A200133: 1185–1211.
25.
KantorPLefèvreCSaitoASavitchHThornleyA (2012) Struggling Giants: City-region Governance in London, New York, Paris, and Tokyo, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
26.
KeilR“Governance restructuring in Los Angeles and Toronto: amalgamation or secession?”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research200024: 758–781.
27.
KnoxP L (2008) Metroburbia, USA, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28.
LascoumesPLe GalèsP“Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments? From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation”. Governance200720: 1–21.
29.
LauterPvanEikerenP (2012) Een nieuwe politieke kaart: Ruimtelijke verschillen in politieke voorkeuren verklaard, Delft: Burau Lauter.
30.
LefèvreC“Metropolitan government and governance in western countries: a critical review”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research199822: 9–25.
31.
LefèvreCJouveBLefèvreC“La Région Île de France, une metropole ingouvernable”. Metropoles Ingouvernable2002Paris: Elsevier, pp. 37–60.
32.
LipsetM SRokkanS (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives, Toronto, ON: The Free Press.
33.
McGuirkP“Geographies of urban politics: pathways, intersections, interventions”. Geographical Research201250: 256–268.
34.
MajoorS J H“The disconnected innovation of new urbanity in Zuidas Amsterdam, Ørestad Copenhagen and Forum Barcelona”. European Planning Studies200917: 1379–1403.
35.
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2011 Ontwerp Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte Den Haag..
36.
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012 MIRT Projectboek 2012 Den Haag..
37.
MollenkopfJ H (1994) A Phoenix in the Ashes: The Rise and Fall of the Koch Coalition in New York City Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011 Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040 [Structural vision of Amsterdam 2040], Gemeente Amsterdam..
39.
Municipality of Milan, 2011 Piano del Governo del Territorio [Plan of territorial government], Comune de Milano..
40.
Municipality of Paris, 2001 Grand Projet de Renouvellement Urbain [Grand project of urban regeneration], Mairie di Paris..
41.
NichollsW J“Power and governance: metropolitan governance in France”. Urban Studies200542: 783–800.
42.
OliverJ EHaS E“Vote choice in suburban elections”. American Political Science Review2007101: 393–408.
43.
OosterlynckSAlbrechtsLMoulaertF (2011) Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts for Change, London: Routledge.
44.
OrfieldM (2002) American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality, Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
45.
PainK“Examining ‘core-periphery’ relationships in a global city-region: the case of London and South East England”. Regional Studies200842: 1161–1172.
46.
PhelpsN AWoodAM“The new post-suburban politics?”. Urban Studies201148: 2591–2610.
47.
PhelpsN AWoodA MVallerD C“A postsuburban world? An outline of a research agenda”. Environment and Planning A201042: 366–383.
48.
PinsonGLe GalèsP (2005) “State restructuring and decentralization dynamics in France: politics is the driving force”Paris: RTN urbeurope.
49.
RacoMStreetE“Resilience planning, economic change and the politics of post-recession development in London and Hong Kong”. Urban Studies201249: 1065–1087.
50.
RhodesRAW“The hollowing out of the state: the changing nature of the public service in Britain”. The Political Quarterly199465: 138–151.
51.
Roodbol-MekkesP Hvan der ValkA J JKorthals AltesW K“The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century”. Environment and Planning A201244: 377–395.
52.
SaletW“Rescaling territorial governance: the responsiveness of spatial and institutional strategies to changing socio-economic interactions”. European Planning Studies200614: 959–978.
53.
SaletW“Rethinking urban projects: experiences in Europe”. Urban Studies200845: 2343–2363.
54.
SaletWThornleyAKreukelsA (2003) Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning, New York: Spon Press.
55.
SaviniF“Who makes the (new) metropolis? Cross border coalition and urban development in Paris”. Environment and Planning A201244: 1875–1895.
56.
SaviniF“The governability of national spatial planning: light instruments and logics of governmental action in strategic urban development”. Urban Studies2013a50: 1592–1607.
57.
SaviniF“Political dilemmas in peripheral development: investment, regulation, and interventions in metropolitan Amsterdam”. Planning Theory and Practice2013b14: 333–348.
58.
SaviniF“What happens to the periphery? The political tensions of post-industrial development in Milan”. Urban Affairs Review201450: 180–205.
59.
SavitchH VKantorP (2002) Cities in the International Marketplace: The Political Economy of Urban Development in North America and Western Europe, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
StoneC N“Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: a political economy approach”. Journal of Urban Affairs199315: 1–28.
61.
SwanstromT“Semisovereign cities: the politics of urban development”. Polity198821: 83–110.
62.
SubraP (2012) Le Grand Paris: Géopolitique d'une ville mondiale, Paris: Armand Colin.
63.
SwyngedouwEMoulaertFRodriguezA“Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy”. Antipode200234: 542–577.
64.
Van der CammenHde KlerkL (2012) The Selfmade Land, Antwerp: Spectrum.
65.
WilkinsonC“Social-ecological resilience: insights and issues for planning theory”. Planning Theory201211: 148–169.
