Mixed-use megaprojects on state-owned land have been increasingly occurring around the world over the past few decades. This article reviews the body of literature that has emerged on these projects during this period and investigates a number of projects more deeply by reviewing original planning documents and undertaking interviews with government officials, consultants, and other insiders. Project motives, delivery methods, and built outcomes have been examined in order to contextualize their emergence and proliferation, leading to a typological understanding, defined in this article as competitive precinct projects. A content analysis of 30 reviews covering 42 mixed-use megaprojects in 20 countries reveals remarkable global consistency in thematic criticisms. Framed in this article as the “five consistent criticisms of ‘global’ mixed-use megaprojects,” they pose a significant barrier to addressing increasingly complex urban challenges as well as to their successful management from inception to delivery. While the consistent criticisms represent patterns that have endured within a globally active urban development type for over three decades, this research shows that rather than being a neoliberal hegemony, there are mixed political and ideological aims and outcomes across projects and sometimes within the same project. A typological understanding allows patterns to be examined and understood, variances and hybridity to be evaluated, and more sophisticated future directions to be mapped out in the pursuit of broader based and city-scale project outcomes.
AndersenJ. (2003). Gambling politics or successful entrepreneurship? The Ørestad project in Copenhagen. In MoulaertF., RodriguezA., & SwyngedouwE. (Eds.), The globalized city: Economic restructuring and social polarization in European cities.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
5.
AnderssonR., QuigleyJ. M., & WilhelmssonM. (2005). Agglomeration and the spatial distribution of creativity.Papers in Regional Science, 84(3), 445–464. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2005.00049.x
6.
De AngelisM. (2014). The political economy of global neoliberal governance.Review, 28(3), 229–257.
BachmannM. (2007). Berlin-Adlershof: Local steps into global networks. In SaletW., & GualiniE. (Eds.), Framing strategic urban projects: Learning from current experiences in European urban regions (pp. 115–145). London, England: Taylor and Francis.
BarnesJ., ColenuttB., & MaloneP. (1996). London: Docklands and the state. In MaloneP. (Ed.), City, capital and water.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
BattyM. (2011). Cities, prosperity, and the importance of being large.Environment and planning B: Planning and design, 38(3), 385–387. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1068/b3803ed
BeauregardR. (2005). The textures of property markets: Downtown housing and office conversions in New York City.Urban Studies, 42(13), 2431–2445. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500380345
14.
BookK., EskilssonL., & KhanJ. (2010). Governing the balance between sustainability and competitiveness in urban planning: The case of the Orestad model.Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(6), 382–396. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.557
15.
BoydellS., & SearleG. (2014). Understanding property rights in the contemporary urban commons.Urban Policy and Research, 32(3), 323–340. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2014.901909
BruzeliusN., FlyvbjergB., & RothengatterW. (2002). Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects.Transport Policy, 9(2), 143–154. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00014-8
18.
BunnellT. (2013). Encountering Kuala Lumpur through the “travel” of UMPs. In Del CerroG. (Ed.), Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view (pp. 61–82). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
19.
CampbellH., TaitM., & WatkinsC. (2013). Is there space for better planning in a neoliberal world? Implications for planning practice and theory.Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 45–59. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13514614
CastellsM. (1989). The informational city: Information technology, economic restructuring and the urban regional process.New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
22.
City of Freiburg. (2015). Vauban. Retrieved from www.vauban.de
23.
DalyM., & MaloneP. (1996). Sydney: The economic and political roots of Darling Harbour. In MaloneP. (Ed.), City, capital and water.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
Danish Ministry of Finance. (1992). Act on Ørestaden.
25.
Del CerroG. (2013a). The alleged Bilbao miracle and its dicontents. In Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view (pp. 27–60). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
26.
Del CerroG. (2013b). Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view.Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
27.
DesforG., & JørgensenJ. (2004). Flexible urban governance: The case of Copenhagen's recent waterfront development.European Planning Studies, 12(4), 479–496. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000212740
28.
DickenP. (1992). Global shift: The internationalisation of economic activity.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
29.
DickenP. (2007). Global shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy (5th ed.). London, England: Sage Publications.
30.
DoveyK. (2005). Fluid city: Transforming Melbourne's urban waterfront.Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
DoveyK., & SandercockL. (2002). Hype and hope.City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 6(1), 83–101. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810220142853
33.
FainsteinS. (2008). Mega-projects in New York, London and Amsterdam.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 768–785. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00826.x
34.
FainsteinS. (2010). The just city.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
FlyvbjergB. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview.Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj
39.
FriedmannJ. (1986). The world city hypothesis.Development and Change, 17, 69–83.
40.
GaardmandA. (1991). Plan og metode: Om den rationalistiske planlægnings nedtur og om morgendagens metode.Copenhagen, Denmark: Arkitekten Planstyrelsen.
41.
GiddensA. (1990). The consequences of modernity.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
42.
GlaeserE., KallalH., ScheinkmanJ., & ShleiferA. (1992). Growth in cities.Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126–1152.
43.
GrubbauerM. (2013). “Global” architecture as a contradictory signifier: Lessons from Hamburg's and Vienna's urban megaprojects. In Del CerroG. (Ed.), Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view (pp. 185–210). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
44.
HansenA. L., AndersenH. T., ClarkE., & LundA. (2001). Creative Copenhagen: Globalization, urban governance and social change.European Planning Studies, 9(7). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431012007980
45.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism.Oxford, England; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
HeldD., McGrewA., GoldblattD., & PerratonJ. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture.Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
47.
HeraudB. (1966). The new towns and London's housing problem.Urban Studies, 3(1), 8–21.
48.
HinsleyH., & MaloneP. (1996). London: Planning and design in Docklands. In MaloneP. (Eds.), City, capital and water (pp. 37–64). London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
HsiehH. F., & ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687HYDC (Hudson Yards Delivery Corporation). (2014). Hudson Yards. Retrieved from http://www.hydc.org/html/home/home.shtml
50.
JacobsJ. (1961). The death and life of great American cities.New York, NY: Random House.
51.
JessopB. (2013). Putting neoliberalism in its time and place: A response to the debate.Social Anthropology/ Anthropologie Sociale, 21(1), 65–74. doi: 10.1111/1469-8676.12003
52.
LarnerW. (2003). Guest editorial: Neoliberalism?Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21, 509–512. doi: DOI: 10.1068/d2105ed
53.
JohnstonJ., & CleggS. (2012). Legitimate sovereignty and contested authority in public management organization and disorganization: Barangaroo and the grand strategic vision for Sydney as a globalizing city.Journal of Change Management, 12(3), 279–299. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2012.673071
54.
JonasA., & WilsonD. (Eds.). (1999). The urban growth machine: Critical perspectives, two decades later.Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.
KellyJ.-F., & MaresP. (2013). Productive cities: Opportunity in a changing economy (Vol. 5). Melbourne, Australia: Grattan Institute.
57.
KingA. (2004). Spaces of global culture: Architecture, urbanism, identity.London, England: Routledge.
58.
KnowlesR. D. (2012). Transit oriented development in Copenhagen, Denmark: From the Finger Plan to Ørestad.Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 251–261. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.009
59.
KoolhaasR. (1998). SMLXL.New York, NY: Monacelli Press.
60.
LangJ. (2011). City branding. In BanerjeeTridib, & Loukaitou-SiderisA. (Eds.), Companion to urban design.London; New York: Routledge.
LeesL., SlaterT., & WylyE. (Eds.). (2010). The gentrification reader.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
LehrerU., & LaidleyJ. (2008). Old mega-projects newly packaged? Waterfront redevelopment in Toronto.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 786–803. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00830.x
64.
LoboB. (2013). Urban megaprojects and local planning frameworks in New York City, Paris and Sao Paulo. In Del CerroG. (Ed.), Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view (pp. 131–160). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
65.
MajoorS. (2008a). Disconnected innovations: New urbanity in large-scale development projects.Amsterdam, Netherlands: Uitgeverij Eburon.
66.
MajoorS. (2008b). Progressive planning ideals in a neoliberal context: The case of Ørestad, Copenhagen.International Planning Studies, 13(2), 101–117. doi: 10.1080/13563470802291978
67.
MajoorS. (2009). The disconnected innovation of new urbanity in Zuidas Amsterdam, Ørestad Copenhagen and Forum Barcelona.European Planning Studies, 17(9), 1379–1403. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310903053547
68.
MaloneP. (1996). Dublin: Custom house docks. In MaloneP. (Ed.), City, capital and water.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
69.
MaloneP. (Ed.). (1996). City, capital, and water.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
MarcuseP. (1997). Glossy globalization. In DroegeP. (Ed.), Intelligent environments: Spatial aspects of the information revolution (pp. 29–47). Amsterdam, Netherlands; New York, NY: Elsevier.
71.
MarshallR. (2003). Emerging urbanity: Global urban projects in the Asia Pacific Rim.London, England; New York, NY: Spon Press.
72.
MarxK. (1978). The Marx-Engels reader part II: Selections from Capital, Vol. 1. In TuckerR. (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader (pp. 308–343). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
73.
McGuirkP., WinchesterH., & DunnK. (1998). On losing the local in responding to urban decline: The Honeysuckle redevelopment. In HubbardP., & HallT. (Eds.), The entrepreneurial city: Geographies of politics, regime and representation.Chichester, England: Wiley.
74.
MellanR. (2015). Docklands development director, Places Victoria. Interview with M. Harris. Melbourne, September 25.
75.
MenzlM. (2014). HafenCity Hamburg GmbH Sociologist. Interview with M. Harris. Hamburg, November 13.
76.
Min JooY. (2013). New town developments in Korea: Then and now. In Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view (pp. 3–26). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
77.
MontgomeryJ. (2007). The new wealth of cities: City dynamics and the fifth wave.Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
78.
MorettiE. (2013a). Are cities the new growth escalator? InWorld Bank's Sixth Urban Research and Knowledge Symposium.Barcelona, Spain.
79.
MorettiE. (2013b). The new geography of jobs.Boston, MA; New York, NY: Mariner Books.
80.
MoulaertF., RodriguezA., & SwyngedouwE. (2003). The globalized city: Economic restructuring and social polarisation in European cities.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
81.
NewmanP., & ThornleyA. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems, and planning projects.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
82.
OakleyS. (2014). A Lefebvrian analysis of redeveloping derelict urban docklands for high-density consumption living, Australia.Housing Studies, 29(2), 235–250. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2014.851175
83.
OakleyS., & JohnsonL. (2011). The challenge to (re)plan the Melbourne docklands and Port Adelaide inner harbour: A research agenda for sustainable renewal of urban waterfronts. Paper presented at the State of Australian Cities National Conference, Tuesday, 29 November–Friday, 2 December, 2011, Melbourne.
84.
OakleyS., & JohnsonL. (2012). Place-taking and place-making in waterfront renewal, Australia.Urban Studies, 50(2), 341–355. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012452328
85.
OakleyS., & RofeM. (2005). Global space or local place? The Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment and Entrepreneurial Urban Governance.Refereed Paper at the State of Australian Cities: National Conference05, 1–16.
86.
OldsK. (2001). Globalization and urban change: Capital, culture, and Pacific Rim mega-projects.Oxford, England; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
OruetaF. D., & FainsteinS. S. (2008). The new mega-projects: Genesis and impacts.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 759–767. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00829.x
89.
Pandis IverothS., VernayA. L., MulderK. F., & BrandtN. (2013). Implications of systems integration at the urban level: The case of Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm.Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 220–231. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.012
90.
PeckJ. (2001). Neoliberalizing states: Thin policies/hard outcomes.Progress in Human Geography, 25(3), 445–455. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201680191772
91.
PeckJ. (2003). Geography and public policy: Mapping the penal state.Progress in Human Geography, 27(2), 222–232.
92.
PeckJ. (2005). Struggling with the creative class.International Journal of Urban and Regional Rese, 29(December), 740–770.
PonziniD. (2013). Branded megaprojects and fading urban structure in contemporary cities. In Del CerroG. (Ed.), Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view (pp. 107–130). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
95.
PorterM. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition.Harvard Business Review (Nov–Dec).
96.
RandolphB., & TiceA. (2014). Suburbanizing disadvantage in Australian cities: Sociospatial change in an era of neoliberalism.Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(s1), 384–399. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12108
97.
RofeM. (2010). “I want to be global:” Theorising the gentrifying class as an emergent elite global community. In LeesL., SlaterT., Wyly, & Elvin (Eds.), The gentrification reader.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
98.
SassenS. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
99.
SchroepferT., & HeeL. (2006). Sustainable urban housing: Design ideals and ideas for Vauban.Scopus, 30(4), 281–292.
100.
SeguchiT., & MaloneP. (1996). Tokyo: Waterfront development and social needs. In MaloneP. (Ed.), City, capital and water.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
101.
ShawK. (2013). Docklands dreamings: Illusions of sustainability in the Melbourne docks redevelopment.Urban Studies, 50(11), 2158–2177. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013478237
102.
ShawK. (2014). Melbourne's Creative Spaces program: Reclaiming the “creative city” (if not quite the rest of it).City, Culture and Society, 5(3), 139–147. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2014.07.002
103.
SiemiatyckiM. (2013). Riding the wave: Explaining cycles in urban mega-project development.Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 16(2), 160–178. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2013.797904
104.
SklairL. (2013). The role of iconic architecture in globalizing urban megaprojects. In Del CerroG. (Ed.), Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view (pp. 161–184). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
105.
SmithN. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city.London, England; New York, NY: Routledge.
106.
SojaE. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical studies of cities and regions.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
StimsonR. (1995). Processes of globalisation, economic restructuring and the emergence of a new space economy of cities and regions in Australia. In BrotchieJ., BattyM., BlakelyE., HallP., & NewtonP. (Eds.), Cities in competition: Productive and sustainable cities for the 21st century (pp. 58–87). Melbourne, Australia: Longman Australia.
109.
SuitnerJ. (2015). Imagineering cultural Vienna: On the semiotic regulation of Vienna's culture-led urban transformation.Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript-Verlag.
110.
SwyngedouwE., MoulaertF., & RodriguezA. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy.Antipode, 34(3), 542–577.
111.
Taşan-KokT. (2010). Entrepreneurial governance: Challenges of large-scale property-led urban regeneration projects.Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 101(2), 126–149. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00521.x
ZillerA. (2004). The community is not a place and why it matters—case study: Green Square.Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 465–479. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0811114042000296353
121.
ZimmermannJ., & EberW. (2014). Consideration of risk in PPP-projects.Business, Management and Education, 12(1), 30–46. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2014.03
122.
ZukinS. (1992). The city as a landscape of power: London and New York as global financial capitals. In BuddL., & WhimsterS. (Eds.), Global finance and urban living: A study of metropolitan change (pp. 195–223). London, England: Routledge.
