Lecture 4: Urban Entrepreneurialism ( Key Characteristics of urban…
Lecture 4: Urban Entrepreneurialism
Post second world war, new transportation, suburbanisation, globalisation and expanding population had led to a critical time of urban entrepreneurialism as cities had to be re-built.
Governments jumped to opportunity as purveyors of city building. Known as
as they funded and planned construction of these cities.
Washington DC is an example of a planned city, from a birds-eye view it is built in a calculative way.
Brasilia is another planned city. Deliberately built to look like an eagle looking from atop. Built specifically in the center of the country to signify it as a capital city.
Milton Keynes is a planned city, with modernist architecture
calls it the British Brasilia
From the 70's/80's, employment and economic development became a devolved issue and neoliberalism came into sweep.
The likes of austerity, 1986 big bang, oil price rises, faith in free market, declining power of the state and rise of the market saw governments fragment and global companies become more involved in creating growth for city management.
Cities have become commodities for business. A place to attract flows of international capital. We see a shift from
seeing a mix of actors, institutions and communities urbanising
Key Characteristics of urban entrepreneurialism
in strategy meetings
There has been a shift from planning to strategising (
. Urban governance is about embodying entrepreneurial spirit for the good of the city e.g. what you can build for London for the best and then how can we make a blueprint for cities to follow.
These urban models are aims for the city. E.g. the
is set on historical strategies to promote social cohesion and economic growth. (
Degan and Garcia, 2012)
Bilbao Effect (Plaza et al, 2009
is another example in Bilbao , Spain where flagship cultural assets were created . The likes of museums and art galleries were built in a port city creating a positive catalyst effect. (
Leicester has attempted to replicate this success with '
Most developments are part public body and part private company. You get a contract negotiated by a public body but funded by the private sector.
E.g. MediaCityUK was a project involving the National Gov./BBC/Salford University. When the BBC aimed to decentralise itself from London in 2009 to be more representative of the UK, Salford won the bid. However the Peel group owned the land and gave permission in exchange for it holding the power to write contract terms.
Peel saw the likes of freelance employment having to go through them. And as Salford, a working class area, had more BBC workers move in, the threshold for the borough to receive governmental grants was deprived. Peel manipulated the government for their own interests.
Cities placed into hierarchies according to factors like air quality or hospital access.
These rankings have proliferated into the ideologies of city development. It has become a competition. Cities enact certain policies to be rewarded with a feat or tagline.
Cities are so desperate for a ranking they brand themselves internationally. Declining NYC in the 70s was revitalized by
who created the I <3 NY sign.
However this was a
as whilst the image of the city was changing, the government enforced tax breaks for corporations to settle and reduced public spending so amenities were privatised and affordable housing decreased, linking to gentrification.
This relates to power and making a city have more influence by inviting more powerful and affluent people in. Another example is Lincoln, Nebraska which advertises and glamorises the beauty of its city through branding but turns a blind eye towards its poor racial relations etc.