Vertical (sub)urbanization in Zurich’s northeast: The Valley along the Glatt as both a metaphor and mediating structural elementin Aguiar, Luis; Senese, Donna; French, Diana (Eds.) The Elgar Companion to Valleys: Social, Economic and Cultural Perspectives (in press)
Background on Urban and Regional Planningin Brinkmann, R. (Ed.) . In: Brinkmann R. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability (2021)
Sustainable development has been a subject of urban planning for three decades now. Planners and practitioners now have a wealth of materials, catalogues, readers, and textbooks at their disposal that discuss local problems and practices. The problem, however, is that sustainable development is a very broad and often contradictory concept that is difficult to implement, and has since become a vector for market-led, exclusionary, urban development and planning. Little progress has been achieved, especially in regard to social equality. At the time of this writing, the global pandemic was also unfolding, which demanded priorities in health care on one hand and opened up new questions about sustainable development on the other. If sustainability and post-pandemic planning (for sustainability) is to be taken seriously, it is imperative to identify, reassert, and re-center social injustices in the productive processes that generate urban and regional spaces. There is a risk that social polarization will widen further still and that it too will be market-led as governments struggle with the crisis. Practitioners need to be careful about how people are included and can benefit from planning practice. There is inspiration from planning theory. Knowledge of public interest, differing epistemologies and ontologies, problems of racism and class, and a revival of kindness in political democratic are some ideas that publicly funded urban and regional planning offices can promote and assert – in the interests of sustainability.
Digital urban development - How large digital corporations shape the field of urban governance (DIGI-GOV)Report (2021)
DIGI-GOV is a research project that aims to understand (I) the role of large digital corporations (LDCs) in digital urbandevelopment, (II) how the presence of LDCs in urban planning practice challenge pre-existing modes urban governance, and (III) how LDC-led urban development constitutes a new relational geography of digital cities. DIGI-GOV is thus a chance to call attention to this critical shift in the ways that contemporary digital cities are constructed, planned, mediated and governed. DIGI-GOV expands on prior research that examined Alphabet Inc.’s digital city project in Toronto that raised a number of important issues forurban planners, development practitioners, and urban studies scholars – even if this particular digital city project was ultimately unsuccessful. DIGI-GOV expands this research because the range of services that LDCs provide has increased in both volume and centrality; more and more public and private institutions rely on LDCs for essential digital infrastructures. There is an urgent need to study the trajectories of urbanization that are rolled out under the leadership of LDCs and the tensions in urban governance that are unleashed. DIGI-GOV will shed light on four further cities in addition to Toronto, which have been challenged by the presence of LDCs—namely, Seattle, Washington D.C, Bissen, and Eemshaven. The selected cities are some of the few exemplary cases available where LDCs have secured their position in the local urban field. Through qualitative methodological approaches, DIGI-GOV will tease out how these cities are relationally connected through LDC-led urban development, and what scholars and practitioners can learn from these experiences. Examined together, one can scratch at the surface of, and unearth, this new emerging relational geography.
Policy failure in urban governance: the case of large digital corporationsPresentation (2021)
This paper draws upon the branch of urban studies literature known as policy mobilities (McCann 2011) and, particularly, policy failure (Temenos & Lauermann 2020) to understand the strategic practices of large digital corporations (LDCs) in urban development. While it is a relatively new phenomenon that LDCs are appearing as important actors in the field of urban development, their role has moved beyond being simply the producers of new technological products that supposedly make cities more efficient, green and smart. They are, for example, in the background, forging their central position in the functioning of cities by taking up space (land, water, bodies) for so-called essential urban infrastructures such as data centers (Carr 2021) needed to support their technologies. At the same time, they are also driving the production of what we refer to as their symbolic spaces of LDC-style digital cities. These are Amazon’s HQ2 and the digital city that was proposed by Sidewalk Labs Toronto (daughter firm of Alphabet Inc.), projects that epitomised both their importance in the field and the height of their technological innovation. Yet, striking about these cases is that, with the exception of the HQ2 in Arlington, these projects never materialized. In this paper, we argue that this was not a coincidence. Rather, both Amazon and Alphabet effectively mobilized a strategy of policy-making that has recently received attention in the urban studies literature: policy failure (Lovell 2017; Temenos & Lauermann 2020). Viewing these cases through the lens of policy failure shows that LDC-led digital cities is not so much about producing flashy cities equipped with avant-garde technologies as it is about endorsing a post-political mode of urban governance that drains public institutions of time and resources and reconfigures state-society relations. This is a cautionary tale for practitioners, who need to understand and watch out for the flags of this disingenuous behaviour.
When Alphabet Inc. plans Toronto's waterfront: New post-political modes of urban governancein Urban Planning (2020), 5(1), 69-83
‘Smart cities’ has become a hegemonic concept in urban discourses, despite substantial criticism presented by scholarly research and activism. The aim of this research was to understand what happens when one of the big digital corporations enters the field of real estate and land use development and urban planning, how existing institutions respond to this, and how modes of urban governance are affected. Alphabet Inc.’s plans for Toronto’s waterfront provided insights into these questions. Our investigations traced a complex web of place-making practices that involved all levels of government, the general public, and networks of actors throughout the private sector. Methodologically, the discourse was reconstructed with local fieldwork, interviews with key actors, participating in tours and public meetings, and secondary sources. It was found that Alphabet Inc.’s plan to build a world-class digital city contained some lessons for urban studies and urban planning practice. First, Alphabet Inc.’s plans, which unfolded amidst initiatives to expand the knowledge economy, confirmed concerns that the trajectory of neoliberal, market-driven land use and speculation along the waterfront remains unchanged. Second, digital infrastructures are potentially a Trojan Horse. Third, it was seen that municipalities and their modes of urban planning are vulnerable to the political economic manoeuvrings of large corporate power. Fourth, Alphabet Inc. operates as a post-political package driven by a new coalition of politics, where the smart city is sold as a neutral technology. The controversies surrounding the project, however, stirred a civic discourse that might signal a return of the political.
Mobility policy through the lens of policy mobility: The post-political case of introducing free transit in Luxembourgin Journal of Transport Geography (2020), 83
This viewpoint paper addresses the issue of fare-free public transport (FFPT) in the context of policy mobility, the strand of urban studies literature that examines how policy formulations developed in one place tend to ‘travel’ and inform and inspire plans elsewhere as good or best practices. We argue that the promotion of policies may not reflect a serious attempt to solve a sustainability or socio-economic issue. Rather, the institutions in charge have different targets in mind. FFPT in Luxembourg is thus more a reflection of a post-political process where politics are severed from the political.
Just because they say it is sustainable development, it does not mean that it is: Sustainable development as a master-signifier in Swiss urban and regional planningE-print/Working paper (2020)
With stunning green landscapes, exemplary public transport, and picturesque walkable cities, Switzerland often occupies the public imaginary of a place that has tackled sustainable development. This research, however, looks under the hood and finds that this development path supports not only modes of capital accumulation, but also certain less sustainable patterns of development and governance. This paper examines this apparent paradox by looking at the role of sustainable development as a master-signifier in Swiss urban development processes. Empirical observations were made in the Glatt Valley of Switzerland, where governing officials of small municipalities are confronted with coordinating urban development under growth pressure within cantonal and federal policy frameworks that claim sustainable development. It can be seen that sustainable development is an empty master-signifier that policy makers engage to justify the quilting of a certain hegemonic discourses of power that reflect in further uneven urban development. By reproducing business as usual market-led urban growth, fragmentation is maintained as are social spatial disparities are entrenched.
Sidewalk Labs closed down – whither Google’s smart city?in Regions - E-Magazine (2020), (7),
This article was adapted, revised and updated from the original, “Sidewalk Labs is closing down – Lessons from Toronto’s realpolitik” published at Urbanization Unbound, the blogspot of urban geographers at the Department of Geography and Spatial Planning of the University of Luxembourg, edited by Constance Carr and Markus Hesse.
"Keine Schwarzseher" Forscher der Universität Luxemburg unterstützen Jugendliche von "Fridays for Future"Article for general public (2019)
Luxembourg’s free public transport sounds great, but it won’t help people get from A to BArticle for general public (2019)
Review "Inside Smart Cities – Place, Politics and Urban Innovation"in disP : The Planning Review (2019)
Luxembourg’s free public transport sounds great. It isn'tArticle for general public (2019)
This is a reproduction of Carr/Hesse's 2019 "Luxembourg’s free public transport sounds great, but it won’t help people get from A to B" published Jan 16, 2019, in The Conversation. Available at:https://theconversation.com/luxembourgs-free-public-transport-sounds-great-but-it-wont-help-people-get-from-a-to-b-109695
Smart Cities: Selbstzweck oder zum Wohl der Städte?Article for general public (2019)
Die Idee der intelligenten Stadt – „Smart City“ – hat in den letzten Jahren unsere Fantasie beflügelt. Viele glauben, dass hier die Zukunft der Stadt liege. Die digitale Optimierung von Gebäuden, Kommunikations- und Verkehrsinfrastruktur begeistert Politiker, Wirtschaftsführer und die breite Öffentlichkeit. Alle wollen smart sein – ohne dass man jeweils wüsste, was genau eine Smart City ist. Von Constance Carr* Dies hat einen gewissen Wettlauf der Innovationen ausgelöst, wobei die Entwicklungsgeschwindigkeit ein solches Tempo erreicht hat, dass der Appetit der Technologieindustrie und der Städte, hier mitzuspielen, unersättlich erscheint. Die Digitalisierung ist insofern ein wichtiger Aspekt der Stadtentwicklungspolitik weltweit. Luxemburg bildet hier keine Ausnahme und strebt eine führende Position in der digitalen Entwicklung an.
Introducing Luxembourg: Ephemeral Sustainabilitiesin Krueger, Rob; Freytag, Tim; Mössner, Samuel (Eds.) Adventures in Sustainable Urbanism (2019)
Table of Contents 1. Constructing Sustainable Development Robert Krueger, Tim Freytag and Samuel Mossner 2. The Rise of Sustainable Urban Development Robert Krueger, Tim Freytag, and Samuel Mossner 3. A Tale of Two Cities: Christchurch, New Zealand, and Sustainable Urban Disaster Recovery Tim Baird and C. Michael Hall 4. Reworking Newtown Creek Winifred Curran and Trina Hamilton 5. From Sprawling Cowtown to Social Sustainability Pioneer: The Sustainability Journey of Calgary, Alberta Freya Kristensen 6. The Greenest City Experience: Exploring Social Action and Social Sustainability in Vancouver, Canada Marit Rosol and Cristina Temenos 7. Introducing Luxembourg: Ephemeral Sustainabilities Constance Carr 8. Montpellier Écocité: From Growth Machine to Sustainability? David Giband 9. Building Ecopolis in the World’s Factory: A Field Note on Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city I-Chun Catherine Chang 10. Sustainable Empire? Michal Kohout 11. Middle-Class Family Enclavism and Solidarity from a Distance Notes from a Field of Contradictions in Dortmund, Germany Susanne Frank 12. A Conclusion? Or, Toward a New Beginning? Robert Krueger, Tim Freytag, and Samuel Mossner
Smart Cities, ‚big politics‘ und die Privatisierung der urbanen GovernanceArticle for general public (2019)
Die Diskussion über Smart Cities hat in den letzten Jahren einen regelrechten Hype in Stadtpolitik, -forschung und -wirtschaft hervorgebracht. Die digitale Optimierung von Gebäuden, Quartieren oder ganzen Stadträumen, so könnte man Smart Cities definieren, hat auch Luxemburg erfasst. Während das Wirtschaftsministerium die Vision einer intelligenten digitalen Spezialisierung verfolgt, präsentiert sich die Hauptstadt seit geraumer Zeit als Bühne der Smart City. Als Kontrast zu diesen Bildern analysieren wir ein prominentes Beispiel, das die Vision einer kontrollierten, technologisch und ökonomisch durchoptimierten Stadt vermittelt – Quayside, das Konversionsprojekt der Alphabet Inc. in Torontos Hafengebiet.
Free Transit in Luxembourg: A case of post-political urban governance through policy mobilityin Witlox, Frank (Ed.) Moving Towards More Sustainable Mobility and Transport through Smart Systems - Proceedings of the BIVEC-GIBET Transport Research Days 2019 (2019)
The socio-spatial production of non-market housing in urban regions under growth pressure: Thinking comparatively and relationallyPresentation (2018)
This paper explores non-market housing in urban regions under growth pressure, and aims to open up a conversation about how modes of housing and related policies might be conceptualized in urban geographical scholarship, in order to broaden the possible range of housing policy measures beyond the rather narrow imperative of market solutions, that prevail here and elsewhere. The project is extension of a larger project that I have been working on for many years together with Markus Hesse examining spatial planning problems in urban regions under growth pressure. We began with exploring sustainable spatial development in Luxembourg, then we studied of regional governance in Switzerland for comparison, and now we are moving on towards one component that is central to the topic: housing and housing in non-market contexts. But how might one effectively conceptualize housing, given what we know about recent scholarship in urban studies? I'd like to argue that (1) there is much to be learned with urban comparison; (2) following the policy mobility literature, simply importing ready-made templates would be, at best (!), risky; (3) Storper's (2014) application of bricolage is useful inspiration for understanding urban transformation processes that are forever changing and in flux.
Sustainability in small states: Luxembourg as a post-suburban space under growth pressure in need of a cross-national sustainabilityin Brinkmann, Robert; Garren, Sandra J. (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Sustainability: Case Studies and Practical Solutions (2018)
Integrative planning of post-suburban growth in the Glatt Valley (Switzerland)in Raumforschung und Raumordnung (2018), 76(2), 109-122
This paper addresses conditions of post-suburban urbanisation. Our empirical base is drawn from observations of integration initiatives in the region of the Glatt Valley, a rather undefined area extending from the City of Zurich towards the airport and spreading over a number of small municipalities. Under growth pressure, municipalities are coordinating housing, transportation, and economic activity, and this is generating new post-suburban forms. To understand these processes, qualitative methods were used, relevant documents surveyed, and conversational interviews with actors in the area conducted. A process of infrastructure consolidation was observed, which moved towards integrating functional pathways and optimising capital accumulation, and attracting and catering for business development and high-income earners. To date, the region has proved to be diverse and dynamic, while also furthering certain modes of fragmentation and social stratification. The results reveal post-suburban forms that are place specific and path dependent insofar as they are driven by particular arrangements of governance that emphasise a certain mode of integrative planning. This form of post-suburban growth is also producing new forms of fragmentation. Abstract This paper addresses conditions of post-suburban urbanisation. Our empirical base is drawn from observations of integration initiatives in the region of the Glatt Valley, a rather undefined area extending from the City of Zurich towards the airport and spreading over a number of small municipalities. Under growth pressure, municipalities are coordinating housing, transportation, and economic activity, and this is generating new post-suburban forms. To understand these processes, qualitative methods were used, surveying relevant documents, and conducting conversational interviews with actors in the area. Observed was a process of infrastructure consolidation towards integrating functional pathways and optimising capital accumulation, attracting and taking care of business development, and high-income earners. To date, the region reveals itself to be diverse and dynamic, while also furthering certain modes of fragmentation and social stratification. The results reveal post-suburban forms that are place-specific and path dependent insofar as they are driven by certain arrangements of governance that emphasise a certain mode of integrative planning. This form of post-suburban growth is also producing new forms of fragmentation. Keywords Post-suburban, Switzerland, Zurich, Glatt Valley, integrative planning, governance Kurzfassung Dieser Beitrag befasst sich mit Bedingungen der post-suburbanen Entwicklung in der Schweiz. Die empirische Basis bilden Beobachtungen von Raumplanungs- und Governancepraktiken im Glattal, einem nicht klar abzugrenzenden Gebiet, welches sich von der Stadt Zürich bis jenseits des Flughafens erstreckt und viele kleine Gemeinden umfasst. Unter Wachstumsdruck koordinieren die Gemeinden den Wohnungsbau, die Verkehrsplanung und die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Somit entstehen neue post-suburbanen Räume. Auf Basis qualitativer Methoden wurden die Urbanisierungsprozesse in der Region analysiert. Relevante Dokumente wurden ausgewertet, und Interviews mit Akteuren der Region wurden durchgeführt. Beobachtet wurde ein Prozess der Konsolidierung von Infrastrukturen zur Optimierung der Kapitalakkumulation. Dieser fördert die Anziehung von Betrieben, pflegt die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und die Ansiedlung einkommensstarker Haushalte. Bis dato entfaltet sich die Region vielfältig und dynamisch, fördert aber auch Formen der Fragmentierung und der sozialen Schichtung. Die Ergebnisse zeigen ebenso post-suburbane Formen, die ortsspezifisch sind und welche sich durch historisch gegebene Governancestrukturen und damit verbundene spezifische Modelle der integrativen Raumplanung ergeben. Diese Form von post-suburbanem Wachstum produziert neue Muster der Fragmentierung. Schlüsselwörter Post-suburban, Schweiz, Zürich, Glattal,· integrative Planung, Governance
Examining Regional Competitiveness and the Pressures of Rapid Growth: An interpretive institutionalist account of policy responses in three city regionsin Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space (2018)
This paper is premised on the notion that actors play a central role in shaping their institutional contexts. The paper adds to scholarship in this area by bringing together three disparate cases with a common analytical entry point: the city region. Despite their multiple scales and different sites of governance, these cases are united by a common theme, exemplified in each city region: addressing the contradictions of rapid development, in particular rapid growth and competitiveness. Using the conceptual framework of interpretive institutionalism, we examine how dilemmas, in this case the pressure of rapid growth in regions, are informed by the different traditions for understanding the role of the market in delivering project outcomes. Our findings show this difference in institutional norms and the variance among the different paradigms.
Powerful sustainable development master - signifiers in urban planning discourses (abstract)in de Melo, JJ; Disterheft, A; Caeiro, S; Santos, RF; Ramos, TB (Eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference: Rethinking Sustainability Models and Practices (2016)
Be constructive! Situating sustainability research at the nexus of positivism and reflective positionalityPresentation (2016)
Sustainable development remains a powerful concept across European and global fields of policy-making. Spurred by the all-encompassing threat of climate change, the rhetoric of a great transformation successfully occupies current policy and practice. However, in contrast to the doom and gloom predictions, and in stark contrast to the sheer magnitude of the challenge of dealing with such complex set of problems, recent policy ideas and recipes seem trivial, and overly rationalised and optimistic. With respect to this, there are two interrelated issues that will be explored in this session. First, much of this new rationality of sustainability moults into popular labels such as ‘green’ or ‘smart’ where the city is the primary setting. This search for practical solutions in the city is further buttressed by the ‘sustainability business’ and associated green-washing practices that have emerged, as well as a variety of tools to assess, monitor, evaluate, and certify sustainability initiatives (indicators, metrics, and planning orthodoxies such as density, integrated, or holistic planning) that have become standard practice. Scholars have been active to identify the pitfalls here: Elgert & Krueger (2012) discussed the epistemology of metrics; Wiig (2015) interrogated the corporate strategy of a multi such as IBM behind ‘smart city’; Angelo & Wachsmuth (2015) criticised ‘methodological cityism’ in political ecology; Purcell (2006) showed the limits to localism; Mössner (2013) exposed socio-political limits of green cities. These criticisms highlight that there is something else to explore beyond current notions of sustainability. In this session, we explore further critiques of existing attempts, as well as conceptions of sustainability that embrace more contemporary imaginaries of urban geographies. These include critical reflections on super-optimist projects such as transition towns, or green cities (e.g. localism, methodological city-ism, green-washing in urban marketing), and thoughts on the disparity between the normative of sustainable development and current policy realities (How has this disparity changed? How is it produced? What lays outside the current lens? How has green urbanism changed over time and across places?). The second issue relates to expectations of knowledge proliferation in academia, as research communities are increasingly embedded in contradictory settings, expected to provide results and not problems, to be frank but constructive, and moreover, to be elite, excellent, income-generating as well as critical. In this respect, there is thus good reason to analyse the research-policy nexus, as Woods & Gardner (2011), Pain (2006), and Beaumont et al. (2005) have explored, examine the construction of knowledge claims as Rydin (2007) has explained, and rework some considerations with regards to rationalist modes in sustainable development and emerging sustainability modernities. We thus also want to interrogate the tensions between the construction of positivist sustainability on the one hand, and the position of the critical researcher on the other hand – the treading of the fine line between Dennis Judd’s (2005) claim that urban scholars tend to assume that “everything is always going to hell” (Judd 2005) and Elbert Hubbard’s classical “positive anything is better than negative nothing” (Hawthorne 1902). Concrete questions addressed here are: Who is producing claims to knowledge in practices of sustainable development urbanism? What are the possibilities and limitations for researchers to balance constructive interventionism with realistic limits of sustainable development and all its complexities, messy politics, wicked problems that are observed in human geography? How is it possible to pursue state-led contract work while maintaining critical integrity? What are relevant reflections the ontology, methodology and ethics of applied SD research practice?
Blending Scales of Governance: Land Use Policies and Practices in the Small State of Luxembourgin Regional Studies (2016), 50(6), 944-955
Blending scales of governance: land-use policies and practices in the small state of Luxembourg, Regional Studies. While multilevel governance is helpful in understanding the logics behind integrated sustainable development policies, this paper argues that relational multi-scalar approaches more accurately explain actual land-use transformations in the small state of Luxembourg. These conclusions are based on surveys of planning policies and observations of land-use patterns related to housing and retail. Additionally, over 60 interviews were performed with local actors. The results reveal how actors blend scales of governance to override national directives to exert changes in land use. Blending scales is not always strategic or advantageous, but is an unavoidable process that characterizes interactions in a small state.
Quilting around the master-signifier of sustainable developmentScientific Conference (2015, October)
Sustainability? Local opportunities and scalar contradictionsPresentation (2015)
In 2014, a colleague and I guest edited a Special Issue of Local Environment. Focus was on the urban and local scale as it is often postulated to be the most appropriate site of sustainability intervention. But we were also interested in mechanisms of change that higher levels of authority are not able to engage. Clearly, there is a rich diversity of initiatives: Ideas are abound, technologies are available, and projects already exist in a variety of forms and at various stages of maturity. In this way, the issue contributes to the growing catalog of sustainability efforts. Significant, however, was that local initiatives must be viewed not as isolated events, but in association the wider multi-scalar contexts that enable them or inhibit them. If making a better planet ultimately means invoking change on a broad scale – which is the broad goal of sustainable development, sustainability, or sustainability transitions – then ideas have to originate with one or a few bodies, and there must be a process of translating the emerged new practice to anchor it at wider-reaching scales. In this way, the general course can be changed. Yet, it is a path that treads the fine line between alternative niches and mainstream, between counter and accepted practice, between the visionary ‘lone (eco)hero’ and conventional operations, between real change in the mainstream and expropriation of the alternative by the mainstream. At this point, a paradox often arises as local initiatives transgress from micro-local to wider, established and well known spheres. This tension – between what enables and what constrains actors interested in sustainability transitions – is the focus of this contribution.
Integration als konzeptioneller Baustein und Widerspruch der nachhaltigen Raumplanungin Raumplanung (2015), 182
Raising Sustainabilityin Planning Theory & Practice (2015)
The contributions that follow in this issue of the Interface address some operationalisations of sustainable development that have prevailed in planning policy in recent years.
Panel Discussion on Sustainable Neighbourhoods: A view on cooperative housing modelsPresentation (2014, December)
Whither sustainability? Governance and regional integration in the Glatt ValleyScientific Conference (2014, July 11)
Discourse Yes, Implementation Maybe: an Immobility and Paralysis of Sustainable Development Policyin European Planning Studies (2014), 22(9), 1824-1840
Sustainable development policies are on the move. Cities the world over are reposition-ing, repackaging and remarketing themselves as green and sustainable, and sustainable development is the moniker imported to spark the process. At the same time, sustainable development, as a normative point of departure, is itself going through cycles of reinterpretation and re-composition. The research in this paper aims to understand this process by mapping the trajectories of sustainable development policies, and understanding sustainable development as a contextually grounded policy in motion. In Luxembourg, as planners are confronted with finding ways to manage growth, sustainable development has come to permeate all levels of the planning system. To understand how this came into being, research methods were employed that include document screening and a series of conversational interviews that were later transcribed and coded. In so doing, the discourse around sustainable development policy could be reconstructed and analysed. The results showed that the multi-scalar, cross-national, and simultaneously micro-level governance structures pose many obstructions to the implementation of sustainable development policies that are imported from abroad. Thus, policy is ultimately immobile, and a policy paralysis can be spoken of.
Sustainability – The travelling paradoxical master-signifierScientific Conference (2014)
Sitting at the nexus of the scholarly literatures of discourse theory, integrative planning, and policy mobility, and this paper shows that the usage of sustainability as a master-signifier results not only in new policy discourses, but also in further social spatial contradictions. In both Luxembourg and in Switzerland, governing officials are confronted with coordinating development under growth pressure. In this context, sustainability, along with respective integrative planning procedures, arrives as a guiding principle that enables policy makers to clump together certain sets of disassociate problems in attempts to bring so called order out of disorder. While some aggregation may occur, further fragmentation – and new sets of challenges – is the consequence. Sustainability as the master-signifier, thus, performs a quilting function around which policy-makers can orient, bundle certain sets of problems under a single ideology, and attempt order. The ideology has, however, certain material implications. It is a travelling master-signifier.
Rescaling sustainability? Local opportunities and scalar contradictionsin Local Environment (2014), 19(6), 567-571
Dreizig Jahre Transformation und trotzdem noch ganz am Anfang? Der Wandel in Beckerich von der Agenda 21 zur Transition Townin Planung Neu Denken (2014)
25 Jahre nach Beginn der lokalen Agenda 21 sind die Maßnahmen und Verständnisse lokaler nachhaltiger Entwicklungsprozesse vielfältig. Die Forschung zu lokalen Transformationen konzentriert sich zumeist auf einzelne zeitlich und thematisch abgegrenzte Phänomene des Wandels. In einer explorativen Fallstudie in der Luxemburger Gemeinde Beckerich wurde ein langjähriger Transformationsprozess auf die Zusammenhänge und Wechselwirkungen der einzelnen Maßnahmen untersucht. Es zeigte sich eine deutliche Kontinuität in der Entwicklung, die sich auf unterschiedliche Handlungsfelder ausbreitet und ein zunehmend konsequenteres Nachhaltigkeitsverständnis verfolgt.
The space of flaws – on the contradictions of integrated planning in a fragmented environmentPresentation (2013, November)
In this paper, we critically investigate policy strategies that attempt to control spaces (housing) and flows (mobility) through so called integrative approaches, hypothesizing that they are flawed in design and ineffective in implementation. The research looks at processes in the small state of Luxembourg, which has pursued a niche strategy of national sovereignty development through a highly successful transition from an industrial based economy to one that rests on financial services, and a high degree of internationalization. This development trajectory, however, has created a set of deeply fragmented office-archipelagos that squeeze out housing, and generate massive commuter traffic. In response to these pressures, planning officials formulated a set of spatially integrative sustainable development guidelines that postulated sector integration, drawing upon normative orientations (central place theory), and prioritizing international objectives of European consolidation over local integration. Yet, they are flawed. A constructivist method was undertaken including document surveys, conversational interviews, and participant observation. Our results show that this centralist approach fails in meeting its mark, because instead of addressing problems of uncoordinated and conflicting authorities within and beyond the nation, they assume a clean system-wide durable “Russian Doll” architecture of state and institution. The result is further fragmentation through integration.
Sustainable Spatial Development in Agglomeration Luxembourg and in the Glatt ValleyPresentation (2013, October)
Agglomeration Luxembourg and Zurich North: A research exercise in relational urban comparisonPresentation (2013, June)
The SUSTAIN_GOV research team aims at investigating sustainable spatial development policies in the context of governance, both with respect to both Luxembourg and, by way of comparison, Switzerland, a country: often considered at the cutting edge of innovative approaches in spatial planning policies in Europe; similar to Lux in terms of economic success, a high degree of internationalisation, and patterns of urbanization; with a model of spatial planning grounded in the legal and political context of direct democracy, which may provide insights into modes of participation and horizontal consensus building in Luxembourg. Particular focus is placed on the so called Glattal-Stadt in the area of Zurich Nord. The primary objective is to examine ways obstacles in governance can be overcome to realize programmes of integrated sustainable development. The project builds directly on the foundations established by the “SUSTAINLUX Project” that has thus far shown that the Grand Duchy’s policy, planning practices, and institutions of governance remain underdeveloped. In light of intense urbanization pressures, the strong strains on land resources and infrastructure, and the political dilemmas these issues raise, policy, planning and governance practices in the Grand Duchy fail to implement strategies of development, and are particularly deficient in the domain citizen involvement in public decision-making. Through relational comparative study, SUSTAIN_GOV aims to bring into focus a more nuanced scientific understanding of par-ticipation, governance, and integrated sustainable spatial development, and an in-depth evaluation of existing spatial planning, policy, and governance patterns in the Grand Duchy. The research is informed by set of conceptual approaches that shape current urban and re-gional literatures: 1) the organizing processes of social, institutional, and political arrangements as seen in the works of Krueger and Gibbs 2012); 2) Brenner's (2004) work on state restructuring, scale and re-scaling; and, 3) the ‘comparative turn’ in urban studies as seen in the works of Ward (2010) and Robinson (2011).
Integration vs. fragmentaion: spatial governance for land and mobility (extended abstract)in Hesse, Markus; Caruso, Geoffrey; Gerber, Philippe; Viti, Francesco (Eds.) Proceedings of the BIVEC-GIBET Transport Research Days 2013 (2013, May)
Integration vs. fragmentation: Spatial governance for land and mobility – the case of LuxembourgPresentation (2013, May)
Introduction We critically explore a set of policies that attempt to control the interplay of spaces (housing) and flows (mobility) through so called integrative approaches. The research looks at processes in the small state of Luxembourg, which has pursued economic na-tional sovereignty by positioning itself in cross national flows as an attractive niche for economic development. In recent years, this has unfolded as the highly successful transition from an industrial based economy to one that rests on financial services and a high degree of internationalization. This development trajectory, however, has cre-ated a set of deeply fragmented growth poles, most notably the office-archipelagos that have emerged across the country. Development was and still is concentrated at preferred locations such as the office town of Kirchberg, the emerging research city (Cité des Sciences) in Esch-Belval, the office islands at the Southern periphery of the Capital City (such as Cloche d’Or), or in Munsbach, a small town just 15 kilometres East of Luxembourg City. Developments at these poles stand in stark contrast to, and have put pressure on, the rather micro-local oriented infrastructure and built environment seen throughout the rest of the country. In effect, these growth poles have put pressure on the real es-tate market, squeezing out housing due to the profit gap between office, retail and housing rents. Further, they generate massive commuter traffic, the majority of which is still organized around the private automobile. Finally, they also ensure a certain sense of disintegration in terms of urban design. In response to the dynamics named above, planning officials formulated a set of spatially integrative sustainable development guidelines that postulated sector integra-tion, drawing upon normative orientations (central place theory), and prioritizing in-ternational objectives of European consolidation over local integration. Mobility issues, particularly the flow of people (goods are handled as well, but this is a different story), are a most critical component of this development trajectory. Our research interest is to clarify whether the deliberately “integrated” planning strategies are appropriate in the context of an increasingly fragmented spatial pattern, and the related system of institutional fragmentation that polarizes the two hegemonic levels of governance – the national and municipal. Conceptual framework In conceptual terms, our research lends to Stead/Meijers’ (2009) critique of ‘integra-tion’ in spatial regards and also critical review of contemporary planning philosophy by Allmendinger/Haughton (2009). It particularly confronts the good intentions of spatial planning with the ‘hard’ realities of political economic development, which seems to be particularly relevant concerning the case of Luxembourg, with its ex-traordinary success story and business model of providing a safe haven for financial industries and modern services. “The notion of spatial planning is slippery. This malleability is important in allowing these notions to gain rapid and widespread acceptance, in a process which simul-taneously manages to place them within the policy mainstream and marginalize or co-opt dissenting voices. “ (A&H 2009, 2547) Spatial planning as a win-win project that presents “’planning’ as: (i) having ‘moved on’ from its previous incarnations and all the critical baggage that it had picked up, (ii) seeming to provide a progressive alter-native to the ‘ planning retreat’ of early neoliberal experiments , whist (iii) accommo-dating an adapted Third Way neoliberal agenda.” Allmendinger and Haughton encapsulated the problem: “advocates of spatial plan-ning share a naivety about the nature of contested spaces and thee role of spatial plan-ning. The assumption is that spatial planning, if undertaken in an open, transparent, and collaborative way will lead to consensus and , ultimately, better development. But experience shows that intractable tensions may be eased through at the level of pro-ducing strategic documents, only for problems to surface at the level of implementa-tion.” Further, “the realpolitik of planning allows the system to be hijacked and abused, not least, by those intent on preserving the status-quo.” Methodology, research strategy In our paper, a constructivist approach was practiced, including an extensive docu-ment survey, a series of conversational interviews with experts from various fields of engagement, and participant observation. These materials were then carefully and sys-tematically assessed through the application of qualitative research techniques (tran-scription, coding, and interpretation). Our empirical data was drawn from the research project SUSTAINLUX that was conducted between 2010 and 2013, and funded by the Fonds National de la Recher-che (FNR), Luxembourg. The general aim of this project was to critically assess the rationale behind and strategies towards achieving a sustainable spatial development in Luxembourg, with a particular emphasis placed on spatial governance and related strategies and practices. Housing and mobility were two fields where we engaged in a more detailed investigation. Before summarizing the research, our major findings were jointly discussed with, and thus fed back to, a selected number of interviewees, in order to situate our interpretations in the wider realm of possible lines of thought. It turned out that, though our findings can be considered being quite critical, this second round of conversation revealed a high degree of consensus among the participants, concerning our attempt to assess and interpret the findings most appropriately. Major findings - The Integrated Approach doesn’t meet the Mark Our overall finding was that the steps and measures undertaken by the government towards achieving a sustainable spatial development are indeed effectively flawed, and the concept of integration is part of the problem. Such policies, at least, fail to re-solve the critical situation described above. Just as Stead and Meijers (2009, 326) can identify five factors – political, institutional, financial, procedural, behavioural – that inhibit integration, our results show that the “centralist”, density- or integration-based approach fails in meeting its mark, primarily for three reasons: First, an overstated policy of decentralized concentration, which is viewed as being integrative from the state level creates severe spatial imbalances at local levels; as long as office floor space continues to increase (and this indeed represents the current unique selling point of Luxembourg as an ideal business setting and location), decen-tralized concentration deepens the functional and thus spatial mismatch, instead of resolving the issue; Second, these policies are also limited in terms of their objective to optimize com-muter traffic, since concentration is only targeted at one end of the mobility chain (destination wise), whereas the other ends (the origins of the commuter flows) are lo-cated rather remotely and are quite dispersed. It appears difficult to co-ordinate these flows by traditional transit systems. This is first evident in the documents. All the maps show only Luxembourg (In-nenministerium et al. 2004; Ministère de l’Intérieur 2003). Indeed there are concep-tions of the Grand Region, (where Luxembourg is placed at the centre). Transport plans and densities are located solely within the nations boundaries. At a meeting of ESPON in November 2011, one panellist suggested subsidizing neighbouring munic-ipalities across the border in Belgium or France. This was met with widespread scep-ticism in the audience. The reaction reflects the unwillingness or inability, which may be grounded on practical rather than political reasons, to transcend national borders. Third, instead of addressing problems of uncoordinated and conflicting authorities at various spatial scales, the strategies presume a clean system-wide durable “Russian Doll” architecture of how state and municipalities interact and collaborate. Hooghe and Marks (2003; 2004) are often credited with the Russian Doll metaphor of Europe-an governance: General-purpose jurisdictions (Type I) describe governance arrange-ments that include a specified number of governments from the local to the interna-tional, whereby the smaller jurisdictions are contained within wider ones. While their work has been widely questioned (Mahon and Keil, 2009; Brenner et al., 2003; Af-folderbach and Carr in review; Jessop, 2005), the central concept is reflected in Lux-embourg’s spatial planning policies. Reminiscent again of Allmendinger and Haugh-ton (2009), the assumption is that policy can be asserted in an orderly and predictable manner if only the correct actors are gathered at the right time and place. Spatial Planning policies were largely informed by European strategies and initia-tives. As a member state, Luxembourg was to carry forward with its corresponding commitments. In line with these responsibilities, local politicians formulated the spa-tial arrangement of Luxembourg territories. Further, national ministries were net-worked in order to bring their expertise to the table. The final step was to give the Sector Plans legal backing so that they can be instituted with ease. It is clear that Lux-embourg governing officials understand their political structure as a collection of dis-crete jurisdictional units neatly ordered under a national level. These jurisdictions are further general purpose (not task specific) and are organized across two levels of mu-nicipal and federal government. The spatial planning guidelines are explicitly integrative. The features of integrative policies defined by Stead and Meijers (2009) can be observed - comprehensiveness, aggregated topically, encompassing. Integrated policies address issues that “transcend the boundaries of established policy fields, and that do not correspond to the institutional responsibilities of individual departments,” (Stead and Meijers, 2009, 321). This is clearly seen as the Sector Plans were created by representatives from a cross-section of national ministries. But it is not only the actors that are cross-governmental. The topics themselves are cross-disciplinary. Some have called this type of policy “holistic” (ibid.) as they try to attempt to address topics of a broader scope than those bound within the frameworks of isolated functional systems. Ten years after their inception, the Sector Plans still await legal ratification. So long as the Sector Plans are not passed, the national government relies on the so called, Convention Agreements. These are contracts that oblige signing Municipalities to act following a set of agreement requirements (Bentz 2011). Often Municipalities receive said rewards (subsidies, for example) for achieving named goals. Recently, the Convention Agreements have come into play to endorse the three growth poles of the nation: the City of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette (Sud), and the Nordstad. The Convention Agreement approach has achieved limited success. For this reason, Spatial Planning officials continue to endorse legal ratification of the Sector Plans. As already noted elsewhere (Carr, forthcoming; Affolderbach and Carr, in review), the lethargy is likely a sign of domestic structural mismatches. “The political structure that characterizes Luxembourg land-use planning today is one that was founded on notions of municipal autonomy, relatively horizontal modes of negotiation, and indi-vidual private property rights where land-owners and local politicians are the gate-keepers to land-use,” (Carr, forthcoming). The nation is divided into 106 Municipali-ties, each of which define land-use and zoning, and the majority of which are sparsely populated such that many know Municipal land-use decision-makers personally. Fur-ther, many local politicians fulfil second function as Chamber Deputies in Parliament. The small state government architecture thus reveals a variety of conflicts of interest, and the distribution of power and decision-making is hotly contested, particularly be-tween the state and the municipalities. Further impeding a clean system-wide architecture in which spatial planning can be implemented, are respective relations between gatekeepers to land-use and the private sector. High land prices and low land taxes have endorsed speculation. Moreover, the sometimes not very transparent means of land-use designation, created in part as a result of horizontal closely knit governance networks, have led some to wonder if pro-jects that are likely to be realized are those that promise to be lucrative. The result is further “fragmentation through integration.” Conclusion Although it has to be acknowledged that Luxembourg represents a rather specific case of an emerging medium-sized, cross-border metropolitan area, there are some lessons to be learned in more general terms. These lessons refer particularly to the long-standing debate on integrative spatial planning and the so-called nexus of ‘driving and the built environment’. Our research confirms the literature that has critically dis-cussed the integration of spaces and flows in more analytical, less normative terms. Integration turns out to be more complex than often suggested, and cannot simply be managed by establishing integrated policy concepts. This is even more so given the complex arrangement of horizontal and vertical modes of governance. Also, it is widely acknowledged that the various elements of urbanisation are characterized by obviously different, often competing or contradictory logics of development. The ways that places and flows interact and conflict with one another, how they are changing over time, and also how they are subject to contested debates, leave enough space for further investigation and claims for developing a more adaptive and flexible, less rigid policy model. Additions, maybe to be folded into conclusion..? • Clearly, the goal is clearly to address changing needs that require not only transcending and joining-up otherwise distinct administrative and conceptual boundaries, but also purposefully making the most from the benefits that can be extracted from such synergies. Normatively, integrated policy can address, at least in theory, the need “to overcome artificial organizational boundaries; to tolerate a significant degree of uncertainty and probability in the policy-making process; to interact closely with stakeholders and citizens; and, signif-icantly, to engage in flexible, creative and systemic thinking which is “holistic” rather than linear or partial in character” (Givoni et al. 2013, 2). • Yet, one wonders if the underlying goals have been addressed in the Luxem-bourgish system. Not only is there a clear lethargy of legalizing the set of inte-grative policies, but it appears that they have not succeeded in overcoming the “isolationist” or “piecemeal” (Givoni et al. 2013, 3) approach characteristic of traditional Luxembourg to land use. In the worst case, integrated planning may have been conceived instead, “from above” to be applied “below” and with force if necessary. • Is there a way to strategically advance “joined-up government” and “integrat-ed policy” towards effective policy intervention? This question was raised by Givoni et. al (2013). • Without claiming to have discovered a blue-print for successful policy design, they find that the key lies in a “policy packaging” process that has “deep and holistic appreciation of policy subsystems, together with a structured approach” • It would seem that these are certainly lacking in the present system of inte-grated planning in Luxembourg. References Affolderbach, Julia, and Constance Carr. submitted for review. “Blending Scales of Governance: Land Use Policies and Practices in a Small State.” Regional Studies Special Issue forthcoming Allen, John, and Allen Cochrane. 2007. “Beyond the Territorial Fix: Regional As-semblages, Politics and Power.” Regional Studies 41 (9): 1161–1175. Bentz, Myriam. 2011. “Staatlich-Interkommunale Kooperationsprozesse Im Bereich Der Stadt- Und Regionalentwicklung.” In Raumordnung in Luxemburg/ A-ménagement Du Territoire Au Luxembourg, edited by Tobias Chilla and Christian Schulz, 190–205. Luxembourg: Éditions Guy Binsfeld. Faludi, Andreas. 2012. “Multi-level (territorial) Governance: Three Criticisms.” Planning Theory & Practice 13 (2): 197–211. Givoni, Moshe, James MacMilllan, David Banister, and Eran Feitelson. 2013. “From Policy Measures to Policy Packages.” Transport Reviews 33 (1): 1–20. Hooghe, Lisbet, and Gary Marks. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Ty-pes of Multi-level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233–243. Innenministerium, Transportministerium, Ministerium für Öffentliche Bauten, and Umweltministerium. 2004. “An Integrated Transport and Spatial Development Concept for Luxembourg (IVL)”. L.A.U.B. Gesellschaft für Landschaftsana-lyse und Umweltbewertung mbH. http://www.ivl.public.lu/documents/de/IVL_Bericht_Januar_2004_-_integral1.pdf. Jessop, Bob. 2005. “The Political Economy of Scale and European Governance.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 96 (2): 225–230. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00453.x. Jonas, Andrew E G. 2006. “Pro Scale: Further Reflections on the ‘scale Debate’ in Human Geography.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31 (3): 399–406. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00210.x. Jordan, A. 2001. “The European Union: An Evolving System of Multi-level Govern-ance ... or Government?” Policy & Politics 29 (2): 193–208. Jordan, Andrew. 2008. “The Governance of Sustainable Development: Taking Stock and Looking Forwards.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Poli-cy 26 (1): 17 – 33. doi:10.1068/cav6. Marks, Gary, and Liesbet Hooghe. 2004. “Contrasting Visions of Multi-level Govern-ance.” In Multi-level Governance, edited by Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders, 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministère de l’Intérieur. 2003. “Programme Directeur D’Amenagement du Territoire”. Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. http://www.miat.public.lu/publications/amenagement_territoire/index.html. Stubbs, Paul. 2005. “Stretching Concepts Too Far? Multi-level Governance, Policy Transfer and the Politics of Scale in South East Europe.” Southeast European Politics VI (2): 66–87.
Market Rulers: Interpretive institutionalism and market-based sustainabilityPresentation (2013, April)
This paper examines market based urban sustainability policy through the lens of interpretive institutionalism. Interpretive institutionalism, an approach that emerged in British political science and has been applied to geographical analyses of governance (c.f. Bevir and Rhodes 2006; Krueger and Gibbs 2010; Krueger and Gibbs 2012), is an analysis of how institution are created, sustained or modified through the ideas and actions of individuals’ (Bevir and Rhodes, 1999: 225). The actions of individuals are therefore not governed by their institutional position or institutional rules; rather, ‘how meanings and actions, are created, recreated and changed in ways that produce and transform institutions’ (Bevir, 2003: 460). Interpretive institutionalism views institutions like economic actors or firms: as creations of broader social processes, as well as the agency of actors working to construct them and act through them. Institutions can be seen not only as administrative and political organizations, but also as ‘the rules, norms and practices, which structure areas of social endeavour’ (Coaffee and Healey, 2003: 1982). Hence, ‘institutional rules may be consciously designed and clearly specified (as in structural plans and operating procedures) or take the form of unwritten customs and conventions’ (Lowndes and Wilson, 2001: 632). This paper examines how such rules are made under ‘market-based’ conditions to urban sustainable development: so-called ‘New Urbanism’ or ‘Smart Growth’ in the US. Here we examine how actors shape and reshape what the positivist social sciences consider ontologically fixed relationships. We explore these policies in three contexts: the US, England, and Luxembourg. This comparative approach enables us to understand how these policies travel across space and are re-embedded in place, and thus to move beyond the particular case study to understand how actors intervene in markets in new and interesting ways.
“Report on the Third workshop of the RSAN ‘Ecological Regional Development’in Regions Magazine (2013), 289(1), 27-28
Review of “Knowledge Economy and the City by Ali Madanipour”in Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie = Journal of Economic & Social Geography (2013), 104(1), 120-122
Governance for Sustainable Spatial Development – a comparative study of Luxembourg and SwitzerlandReport (2013)
The project, SUSTAIN_GOV, aims at investigating sustainable spatial development policies in the context of governance, both with respect to Luxembourg and, as a comparative ap-proach, to the Swiss planning system and urban transformation processes in the Glattal-Stadt. SUSTAIN_GOV builds directly from the strong conceptual and empirical foundations estab-lished by the “SUSTAINLUX Project” (CO9/SR/01) that has thus far shown that despite the intense urbanization pressure, the strong strains on land resources and infrastructure, and the political dilemmas these issues raise, policy, planning and governance practices in the Grand Duchy remain underdeveloped, particularly in the domain citizen involvement in public deci-sion-making. SUSTAIN_GOV brings into sharper focus a more nuanced scientific under-standing of participation, governance, and integrated sustainable spatial development, and an in-depth evaluation of existing spatial planning, policy, and governance patterns in the Grand Duchy. The proposed research is informed by a robust and contemporary set of conceptual approach, that shape current urban and regional literatures. The research design follows a qualitative methodological approach.
Transforming Under Growth Pressure: Grassroots Sprawl or Top Down and SmartPresentation (2012, July)
At the turn of the millennium, it was decided that Luxembourg should target four percent economic growth in order to best sustain existing quality of life standards. This target has largely been met as Luxembourg’s growth, which was mainly driven by the financial industry and a non-resident labour force, has averaged around five percent annually. Emerging out of a quasi-rural and industrial landscape, Luxembourg has come under the considerable growth pressures associated with a tertiary economy. It is thus facing particular challenges with respect to sustainable development. As a result, Luxembourg planning officials formulated spatially integrative sustainable development guidelines that postulate a polycentric growth model while targeting sufficient provision of housing, preventing sprawl, preserving green spaces, densifying growth poles, and enhancing public transportation. This research examines these strategies that are designed to manage growth and compares it with existing local land use practices. The small size of the Grand Duchy and narrow functional relationships between the capital city and the rest of the country justify treating the whole country as an integrated city region. The absence of a regional administrative level implies direct and strong policy dependencies between the national political and administrative levels. In this paper, particular attention is given to national policy mechanisms and their translation and implementation at the local level. The analysis reveals a number of challenges particularly with respect to enforcement and interpretation related to existing power relationships and different development visions adopted by the municipalities. Observations of the organization and capital flows of retail and commerce, housing and real estate development patterns, and the governance patterns that structure both illustrate how national smart growth policies of integrated smart growth can turn into grassroots sprawl or a governance of dispersal.
Sustainable Spatial Development: Discourse Yes, Implementation MaybePresentation (2012, June)
This paper presents progress achieved within the context of SUSTAINLUX (a research project funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg) and collaborative studies with the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.The research has aimed at critically examining the approach of sustainable development, in the context of Luxembourg’s urban and regional governance structures (Carr, Hesse, and Schulz 2010), that have transformed and rescaled (Brenner 1999) against tertiarization of the economy, and Europeanization of the political arena (Schulz 2009; Becker forthcoming) – processes that have had significant impact on the affordability of housing and infrastructure for mobility. To date, the research methods have included mapping the literature and actors relevant to the sustainable integrated development discourse in Luxembourg, performing interviews with practitioners in the field and exploring the role and limitations of this normative discourse in Luxembourg’s social spatial transformation (Carr 2011). Particular attention was paid to structures of decision-making and its relationship to the prevailing real estate market. In addition, comparative research was performed in collaboration with Prof. Krueger. This presentation will talk about the results and conceptualize them within the framework of policy mobility, as has been discussed in recent literature such as Ward (2006), Temenos and McCann (forthcoming), and González (2010). In this way, clear barriers to implementation to sustainable development goals can be identified. References Becker, Tom. forthcoming. “Europäisierung der Städtepolitik ? Das Beispiel ‚CIPU’ in Luxemburg.” Europa Regional. Brenner, Neil. 1999. “Global as Reterritorialisation: The Re-Scaling of Urban Governance in the European Union.” Urban Studies 36(3):431-451. Carr, Constance. 2011. “Luxembourg Sustainable Spatial Development Policy: General Milestones and Circuits.” Laboratoire de Géographie et Aménagement du Territoire. Carr, Constance, Markus Hesse, and Christian Schulz. 2010. “Sustainable Spatial Development in Luxembourg (SUSTAINLUX).” Laboratoire de Géographie et Aménagement du Territoire. Retrieved (http://wwwen.uni.lu/research/flshase/laboratoire_de_geographie_et_amenagement_du_territoire/research/ongoing_projects). González, Sara. 2010. “Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in Motion’. How Urban Regeneration ‘Models’ Travel and Mutate in the Global Flows of Policy Tourism.” Urban Studies 1-22. Schulz, Christian. 2009. “Luxemburgs Wirtschaft.” Pp. 116-117 in Der Luxemburg Atlas du Luxembourg, edited by Patrick Bousch et al. Calbe: Hermann-Josef Emons Verlag. Temenos, Christina, and Eugene McCann. forthcoming. “The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix.” Environment and Planning A. Ward, Kevin. 2006. “‘Policies in Motion’, Urban Management and State Restructuring: The Trans-Local Expansion of Business Improvement Districts.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(1):54-75.
Urban Development in Luxembourg: sustaining ambiguous fault lines of powerPresentation (2012, April)
Unpacking Luxembourg Governance through Sustainable Development PolicyPresentation (2012, February)
Luxembourg has an almost two century history of cross-border political economic interdependence, whether that was through the Zollverein and expansion of the railroads during the 19th century, the steel industry that remains largely intact, or the banking and related services sector that dominates the Luxembourgish economy today. Luxembourg has also cultivated deep cross-border connections through its role in the European Union, and establishment of itself as one of the centres for important EU institutions. These structures overlay its otherwise feudal and agricultural legacy. This has led to a political structure that some complain is non-transparent and undemocratic, but that others notice is horizontal, direct, and entails shorter power distances. It has also led to a demos whose membership is defined by the usual legal parameters of nationhood, but at the same time is inter-reliant on cross-border competencies and cycles of de- and reinvestment, as well as personal relations. These paths of governance are easily traced through the mobility of Luxembourg’s sustainable development policies. In so doing, it can be seen that the uncertain governance structure that operates simultaneously multi-scalar, cross-national, and informal, which poses many obstructions to the implementation of environmental policy and renders the normative of sustainable development, that permeates all levels of planning in Luxembourg, postpolitical.
Mobilizing Sustainability, Fixing Competitiveness: An examination of policy mobility Lux-embourgPresentation (2011, November)
The movement of policies across space, often referred to as policy mobility, has been a vibrant area of discussion in the geographical literature in recent years (c.f. McCann 2011; González 2010; Larner and Laurie 2010; Peck and Theodore 2010; Ward 2006; Peck 2002). In particular, scholars have brought forth geographical concepts of relationality and territoriality, along with post-structural accounts of the social construction of knowledge and power, to provide sophisticated and complex accounts of the spatial flows of urban policies and their contingent ‘local’ expressions. In the tradition of urban geography and analysis, mobility stories tend to come from paradigmatic cases, such as Barcelona, Vancouver, New York and others. This paper brings to this conversation a policy mobility story from the rather specific, non-paradigmatic case of Luxembourg. In recent years Luxembourg’s welfare state has developed spatial development policies embedded in the rhetoric and practice of sustainability in an attempt to counteract the contradictions of the State’s rapid development. Much of this policy account emerged from the transfer of ideas and practices from neighboring countries and the European Union. While certainly similar to other new economy spaces in terms of tensions, Luxembourg’s unique system of governance and social and cultural context may yield new insights into the policy mobility literature. The paper thus seeks to contribute to the policy mobility literature by bringing into the fold a case study from a somewhat unique urban context, Luxembourg, concerning the under-explored area of policy mobility domain, urban sustainable development. We hypothesize that Luxembourg’s specific urban policy context could reveal limitations of current approaches. Further, by focusing on sustainability as a policy ‘fix’ for spatial planning, we expect to capture additional nuance of the politics of capital accumulation in a highly fragmented, increasingly relational urban and regional setting.
Current Observations of Spatial Development and the Normative of SustainabilityPresentation (2011, June)
Examining Sustainable Spatial Development in LuxembourgPresentation (2011, May)
As founding member of several European and international institutions (EU, OECD, NATO, UN), host to several institutions of the European Union (Parliament Secretariat, Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank), and ranked 16th among global financial centers (City of London 2010), Luxembourg’s smallness is enigmatic, but also offers a unique opportunity to study global processes operating within a small frame. This paper presents progress achieved in, and collaborative to, the SUSTAINLUX research project, funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Unlike its neighbouring nations, Luxembourg seems only just entering a post-flexible era (if at all). The financial ruptures since 2008 have had relatively little impact, and as such, Luxembourg grapples with spatial structural changes associated with its post-industrial and prospering tertiary economy. Its comparably young sustainable development policy is primarily challenged by recent demographic changes, and its geographical specificity. Of its 503,000 residents, roughly 200,000 are landed immigrants. On each working day, the nation’s population increases circa 50% as workers from neighbouring nations enter the country and commute to work. Each day, the City of Luxembourg’s population doubles in size – and its nodal position at the crossroads that lead to Cologne, Paris, and Brussels, is continually strengthening in importance. Concurrent pressures on the real estate market rates pose a real barrier to settlement within or near the capital city (Becker and Hesse 2010). There are thus strong impacts at the local level with high pressure on the provision of housing and transportation infrastructure, which result in conflicting trajectories in terms of sustainable land-use. The fields of housing policy and mobility are thus promising case studies towards a more thorough analysis of the significance, policy relevance, barriers, and shortcomings of sustainable spatial development strategies. The research aims at critically examining the approach of sustainable development, in the context of Luxembourg’s urban and regional transformations and corresponding governance structures (Carr, Hesse and Schulz 2010). While city planners are confronted with finding ways to manage growth, the normative of sustainable development permeates all levels of planning. The first part of this paper will map the literature and discourse on sustainable development in Luxembourg, and summarize the role and limitations of this normative discourse in its social spatial transformation. The second part of this paper will introduce the research agenda of Prof. Krueger, who will pursue research collaborative to SUSTAINLUX, adding a comparative dimension to the study. He will describe his aims to: 1) understand the institutional milieu of sustainability governance in Luxembourg and how it compares internationally; 2) develop an understanding of how actors work and how these practices reproduce certain outcomes; 3) understand how actors’ perceptions affect the form and function of sustainability governance; and 4) assemble the data from aims 1-3 to develop a triangulated analysis of institutional change that is both actor-centric and sensitive to the contextual constraints of the system. This comparative approach will be of interest to social scientists who study how actors understand and shape their policy milieus in different political and geographical contexts, in relation to sustainability. References Becker, T. and Hesse. 2010. “Internationalisierung und Steuer metropolitaner Wohnungsmärkte – Das Beispiel Luxemburg” Information zur Raumentwicklung.“ 5: 403-415. Carr, C., Hesse, M., and Schulz, C. 2010. „Sustainable Spatial Development in Luxembourg (SUSTAINLUX)” Funded by FNR (CO9/SR/01), Working Paper 1, Laboratoire de Géographie et Aménagement du Territoire City of London (2010) “Global Financial Centres 7.“ City of London. Krueger R. & D. Gibbs. 2007. (ed.), “The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe.” New York: The Guilford Press.
Review “Nations of Flesh and Blood by Jackie Hogan”in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (2011), 35(1), 217-218
Sustainable Spatial Development in Luxembourg: Conflicting trajectories of Housing and MobilityPresentation (2010, September)
At the “heart of Europe” lies an often overlooked and little nation: Luxembourg. As founding member of several European and international institutions (EU, OECD, NATO, UN), host to several institutions of the European Union (Parliament Secretariat, Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank), and ranked 16th among global financial centers (City of London 2010), it is by no means insignificant. Luxembourg’s smallness is in many ways enigmatic. Yet at the same time, it offers scholars of urban studies a unique laboratory in which to study global processes operating within a small frame. This paper presents the recently started research project entitled Sustainable Development in Luxembourg, which has been funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche. The project aims at assessing the current efforts and national and local policy instruments in with regards to their contribution to sustainability goals in spatial development. Unlike its neighbouring nations, Luxembourg seems only just entering a post-flexible era (if at all). The financial ruptures since 2008 have had relatively little impact, and as such, Luxembourg continues to grapple with spatial structural changes associated with its post-industrial and prospering tertiary economy. Its comparably young sustainable development policy is primarily challenged by recent demographic changes, and its geographical specificity. Of its 503 000 residents, roughly 200 000 are landed immigrants. On each working day, the nation’s population increases circa 50% as workers from Lorraine, Wallonia, Saarland, and Rhineland-Palatinate enter the country and commute to work. Each day, the City of Luxembourg’s population doubles in size – and its nodal position in an ever growing Grand Region at the crossroads that lead to Cologne, Paris, and Brussels, is continually strengthening in importance. Concurrent pressures on the real estate market and low rental vacancy rates pose a real barrier to settlement within or near the capital city. Rising of real estate prices, and rapid land-use changes have led to fast growth of outlying municipalities inside and outside of its national borders. There are thus strong impacts at the local level in terms of urban development, with high pressure on the provision of housing and transportation infrastructure, and result in conflicting trajectories in terms of sustainable land-use objectives and the preservation of green spaces within the country. The fields of housing policy and mobility are thus promising case studies towards a more thorough analysis of the significance, policy relevance, barriers, and shortcomings of sustainable spatial development strategies. This research aims at critically examining the discourse of sustainable development, in the context of Luxembourg’s urban and regional transformations and corresponding governance structures. And while sustainable development and sustainability remain highly contested concepts just as they are more ubiquitous than ever as urban planning tools (e.g. Krueger and Gibbs 2007; Newig et. al 2007), the case of an Luxembourg poses questions concerning management within and across borders and thus possible stories of insiders and outsiders, winners and losers. References Becker, T. and Hesse. 2010. “Internationalisierung und Steuer metropolitaner Wohnungsmärkte – Das Beispiel Luxemburg” Information zur Raumentwicklung.“ 5: 403-415. City of London (2010) “Global Financial Centres 7.“ City of London. Krueger R. & D. Gibbs. 2007. (ed.), “The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe.” New York: The Guilford Press. Newig, J., Voß, J.-P. & J. Monstadt. 2007. “Governance for Sustainable Development in the Face of Ambivalence, Uncertainty and Distributed Power: an Introduction.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9 (3-4), 185-192
Gender, Race, and National Identity: Lasting Categories of an Urbanized Planetin Thirdspace: a Journal of Feminist Theory & Culture (2010), 9(2), 254
Poststructural Difference and Lefebvre’s Minimal Difference. Are they Categorically Exclusive?Presentation (2009, November)
Symbolic Planning Politics in a Region of Ongoing Decline. The Restructuring Model of IBA Emscher Park (1989-1999)in Porter, L.; Shaw, K. (Eds.) Whose Urban Renaissance? An international comparison of urban regeneration policies (2009)
Immigration, Rights and Culture: Three Approaches to the Urbanin Topia : Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies (2005), 13(Spring), 153-160
Berlin: Reunified but not in one Piecein Paloscia, R. (Ed.) The Contested Metropolis: Six Cities at the Beginning of the 21st Century (2003)
Berlin: from MetropoLUST to MetroLOSTin Paloscia, R. (Ed.) The Contested Metropolis: Six Cities at the Beginning of the 21st Century (2003)
Alternative Urban Publics: Between Repression and Emancipationin Paloscia, R. (Ed.) The Contested Metropolis: Six Cities at the Beginning of the 21st Century (2003)
