154
S. Zekovi´ c et al.
influence of private investors. This paper will analyze the conceptual framework
of the UMPs in the context of post-socialist city. After presenting the theoretical
background related to urban planning and governance of megaprojects and highlighting their role and common features, the research will focus on the experience
of Belgrade Waterfront Project (BWP).
13.2 Theoretical Background
The key research objectives are the analyses of the theoretical background of the role
of megaprojects as an urban development instrument, as well as empirical analysis
of the BWP experience and its potential development impacts.
The theory and methodology of urban planning and megaprojects faces complex
issue of social contextualization of urban planning and governance, investment, and
regulations. Since the 1970s and 1980s, under the pressure of globalization, the
cities have started economic transformation according to the “Post-Fordist” development of different services, properties, high technology, etc. Different nature of
urban development is linked to the political goals (Scott and Storper 2015), which
shape the urban theory of global/world cities (Sassen 2008; Cochrane 2006; Brenner
1998, 2004).
Castells (1972), Lefebvre (1970) and Harvey (1973) supported a concept of the
city as a theater of class struggle, and citizens’ rights to urban space. Brenner (1999),
Cochrane (2006) and Harvey (2012) suggested the re-conceptualization of older
concerns on urban politics and governance. Harvey (2012) pointed to neoliberal
domination in the changing nature of political governance scales (from cities over
states to the global level). In accordance to new political-economic doctrines, the
reorganization on national level gave new inputs for urban governance. Harvey (1989)
identified the shift from managerial into entrepreneurial governance, i.e., from the
focus on urban services to the promotion of economic growth. These intentions
are often realized through mega-development projects, speculative construction and
political economy of place.
Top-down urban planning approach by megaprojects opens research on urban
governance. Many researchers point to the top-down approach in planning UMPs
and to the bottom-up public resistance to claiming urban spaces (Flyvbjerg et al.
2002; Davis and Dewey 2013; Kennedy et al. 2011). But, even with well-developed
bottom-up methods, the management of complex systems is inherently problematic
(Slaev 2017). Sellers (2002) criticized the central role of international business elites
and the influence of external capital on urban-policy making. Swyngedouw (1996)
indicates that the state seeks to attract capital through place-based interventions in
urban regions. He argued that large urban development projects have “less democratic and more elite-driven priorities.” Political impulses are very important in the
creation of urban MPs, but top-down approach offers no possibilities for democratic
negotiations.
S. Zekovi´ c et al.
influence of private investors. This paper will analyze the conceptual framework
of the UMPs in the context of post-socialist city. After presenting the theoretical
background related to urban planning and governance of megaprojects and highlighting their role and common features, the research will focus on the experience
of Belgrade Waterfront Project (BWP).
13.2 Theoretical Background
The key research objectives are the analyses of the theoretical background of the role
of megaprojects as an urban development instrument, as well as empirical analysis
of the BWP experience and its potential development impacts.
The theory and methodology of urban planning and megaprojects faces complex
issue of social contextualization of urban planning and governance, investment, and
regulations. Since the 1970s and 1980s, under the pressure of globalization, the
cities have started economic transformation according to the “Post-Fordist” development of different services, properties, high technology, etc. Different nature of
urban development is linked to the political goals (Scott and Storper 2015), which
shape the urban theory of global/world cities (Sassen 2008; Cochrane 2006; Brenner
1998, 2004).
Castells (1972), Lefebvre (1970) and Harvey (1973) supported a concept of the
city as a theater of class struggle, and citizens’ rights to urban space. Brenner (1999),
Cochrane (2006) and Harvey (2012) suggested the re-conceptualization of older
concerns on urban politics and governance. Harvey (2012) pointed to neoliberal
domination in the changing nature of political governance scales (from cities over
states to the global level). In accordance to new political-economic doctrines, the
reorganization on national level gave new inputs for urban governance. Harvey (1989)
identified the shift from managerial into entrepreneurial governance, i.e., from the
focus on urban services to the promotion of economic growth. These intentions
are often realized through mega-development projects, speculative construction and
political economy of place.
Top-down urban planning approach by megaprojects opens research on urban
governance. Many researchers point to the top-down approach in planning UMPs
and to the bottom-up public resistance to claiming urban spaces (Flyvbjerg et al.
2002; Davis and Dewey 2013; Kennedy et al. 2011). But, even with well-developed
bottom-up methods, the management of complex systems is inherently problematic
(Slaev 2017). Sellers (2002) criticized the central role of international business elites
and the influence of external capital on urban-policy making. Swyngedouw (1996)
indicates that the state seeks to attract capital through place-based interventions in
urban regions. He argued that large urban development projects have “less democratic and more elite-driven priorities.” Political impulses are very important in the
creation of urban MPs, but top-down approach offers no possibilities for democratic
negotiations.