英语论文网

mple, it is impossible to quantify the symbolic value of renaissance that these architectural marvels bestow. These ‘cathedrals of mobility and progress’ (Meeks, 1956; Richards and Mackenzie 1986; Peters and Novy 2012) inspire pride among the people and soon become the identity of that epoch. They epitomise gateway to a city and a place of interest for citizens and visitors alike. Soon these landmarks symbolise more than just progress and modernity. They convey sentiments of longing, nostalgia, farewell and the joy of reunion. As nineteenth-century French writer Théophile Gauthier once put it, “These cathedrals of the new humanity are the meeting points of nations, the centre where all converges, the nucleus of the huge stars whose iron rays stretch out to the end of the earth” (cited in Richards and Mackenzie, 1986, p.3).

 

However, with high amount of capital at risk today, especially in real estate development, investors expect more than just momentary admiration and prestige value, they require solid tangible benefits. Image alone will not alter urban redevelopment trends or change people’s mobility patterns. A look into the disastrous modernist planning schemes of earlier decades indicate that a detailed, forced comprehensive planning is very difficult to implement effectively and results in unexpected and often undesirable effects (Scott 1998). In fact many areas are indeed apparent results of Garreau’s ‘law of unintended consequences’ (1992 p.464). Making it important for planners today to recognise the need for future planning grounded in local context; and taking into account local differences in institutions, culture and economy (Healey 1997 pp.40-41). Thus a detailed approach to a comprehensive masterplan is being seen as undesirable, as the diversity, coincidence and confusion that are typical of many vibrant urban areas depend to a large extent on the self-organisation of those areas (Soja 1991; Sorkin 2001 p.13). In simple words attractive spaces cannot be developed, they evolve over time. The theory at the frontier of urban planning today is of a more strategic planning approach (Albrechts, Healey, and Kunzmann 2003; Healey et al. 1997; Hamedinger et al. 2008; Wiechmann 2008). Allowing a certain amount of flexibility and openness over the implementation period.

 

This does not signal that the era of mega-project is over as prophesised by many; but rather signifies that individual high-profile flagship projects should now more carefully be contextualized within larger strategic master plans for high-profile, billion-dollar, multi-purpose, mixed-use mega-project complexes (Bianchini et al. 1992; Carrière and Demazière 2002; Demazière et al. 1998; Peters 2009). Furthermore, the fast and slow mobility transits should be combined, ushering the era of intermodality (Sebastian 2011). Such an approach will reduce path dependencies of mega-projects.

 

Emerging theories regarding urban competitiveness and urban quality

Surely then there must be a way of evaluating the mega-projects. An interesting approach undertaken本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。