13 Megaprojects as an Instrument of Urban Planning and Development …
155
As instruments of urban planning and development, megaprojects include hightechnology, sophisticated and non-standard technology, contemporary design, and
ICT management. MPs are initiated by global economic restructuring and policymakers, and supported by neoliberal urban development policies, often with transnational financial support and top political structure. UMPs promote interests of various property developers, but usually with state mobilization of public funds. Gellert
and Lynch (2003) claim that MPs require coordinated flows of international finance
capital. The spread of gains for the society is connected with direct government
commitment to public benefits (Fainstein 2009).
MPs include substantive changes in the legal, economic and political framework.
They have a special power and special status, an inherent nature, and a “special
regime” of implementation (Altshuler and Luberoff 2003). They are not always
planned in advance, but integrated ex post into planning documents. MPs represent
a mode of urbanization (Roy 2003) and a “collateral” instrument against illegal,
irregular and informal construction in cities of the South.
A major problem in megaproject policy is misinformation about the costs and
benefits, and high risks. The “megaproject paradox” includes risky scenarios, underestimated costs, overestimated benefits and revenues, undervalued environmental
impacts, overvalued economic effects (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003), as well as legal
and ethical issues. Flyvbjerg (2014b) argued about the “iron law of megaprojects”—exceeding the budget and time-frame, a lack of accountability, and delays.
He also indicated on the so-called “survival of the unfittest”, i.e., building the worst
projects instead of the best.
The key challenges, risks, and uncertainties in planning of UMPs ought to be identified, considered, and managed, including complex nature of UMPs; external shocks;
stakeholders; governance changes of contract conditions; new legal and financial
instruments, etc.
13.2.1 Applied Approach
In analyzing the urban megaproject Belgrade Waterfront, we combined a contextually
appropriate approach, benchmarking and some elements of the phronetic planning
approach. These approaches focus on the syncretic forms of urban and development
policies and the current discourse analysis in Serbia (Zekovi´ c et al. 2015a).
13.3 Example of the Belgrade Waterfront Project
As a result of a number of exogenous and endogenous factors, a collapse of strategic
thinking, research, and governance exists in Serbia for almost three decades. In
developmental terms, after the socio-economic growth and development in the 1980s,
the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, regional wars, international isolation and
155
As instruments of urban planning and development, megaprojects include hightechnology, sophisticated and non-standard technology, contemporary design, and
ICT management. MPs are initiated by global economic restructuring and policymakers, and supported by neoliberal urban development policies, often with transnational financial support and top political structure. UMPs promote interests of various property developers, but usually with state mobilization of public funds. Gellert
and Lynch (2003) claim that MPs require coordinated flows of international finance
capital. The spread of gains for the society is connected with direct government
commitment to public benefits (Fainstein 2009).
MPs include substantive changes in the legal, economic and political framework.
They have a special power and special status, an inherent nature, and a “special
regime” of implementation (Altshuler and Luberoff 2003). They are not always
planned in advance, but integrated ex post into planning documents. MPs represent
a mode of urbanization (Roy 2003) and a “collateral” instrument against illegal,
irregular and informal construction in cities of the South.
A major problem in megaproject policy is misinformation about the costs and
benefits, and high risks. The “megaproject paradox” includes risky scenarios, underestimated costs, overestimated benefits and revenues, undervalued environmental
impacts, overvalued economic effects (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003), as well as legal
and ethical issues. Flyvbjerg (2014b) argued about the “iron law of megaprojects”—exceeding the budget and time-frame, a lack of accountability, and delays.
He also indicated on the so-called “survival of the unfittest”, i.e., building the worst
projects instead of the best.
The key challenges, risks, and uncertainties in planning of UMPs ought to be identified, considered, and managed, including complex nature of UMPs; external shocks;
stakeholders; governance changes of contract conditions; new legal and financial
instruments, etc.
13.2.1 Applied Approach
In analyzing the urban megaproject Belgrade Waterfront, we combined a contextually
appropriate approach, benchmarking and some elements of the phronetic planning
approach. These approaches focus on the syncretic forms of urban and development
policies and the current discourse analysis in Serbia (Zekovi´ c et al. 2015a).
13.3 Example of the Belgrade Waterfront Project
As a result of a number of exogenous and endogenous factors, a collapse of strategic
thinking, research, and governance exists in Serbia for almost three decades. In
developmental terms, after the socio-economic growth and development in the 1980s,
the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, regional wars, international isolation and