دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی پاسخگویی در مشارکت های بازسازی شهری: نقشی برای مراکز طراحی - نشریه الزویر

1. Introduction

Partnerships in urban development reflect the ‘wicked’ nature of regeneration efforts, often requiring attention to a range of investment and programmatic interdependencies. “Taxpayer revolts, tax and expenditure limits, cutbacks in federal grants, a deep recession, and the pervasive pall of public opprobrium for things governmental”, to quote Peterson (1985, p. 34), are some of the challenges that have reinforced this trend. To this end, partnerships have achieved what Hodge and Greve (2007) describe as an ‘iconic status’ in urban administration. Partnerships in the context of the ‘entrepreneurial city’ have been associated with the delivery of large scale schemes, often involving significant attention to the civic design. Investments in waterfronts, streetscapes, and public plazas are some examples. As Goldstein and Mele (2016) have however recently pointed out, a large literature on partnerships focuses on questions of motivations and outcomes, while the ‘inner workings’ of these arrangements are yet to be fully explored. This paper contributes to this scholarship by highlighting the utility of analytic constructs derived from a broader literature on governance, most notably so from the field of public administration. In that literature, the study of approaches to task delegation and performance monitoring defines a research agenda on the relations between principals and their agents, and is particularly insightful of how the question of accountability should be approached in the design of regeneration partnerships.

5. Conclusion

The aesthetization of place and the elevation of commercial concerns are hallmarks of a ‘neo-liberal turn’ in urban development, and contribute to a list of grievances about present-day civic design initiatives delivered through regeneration partnerships. In an era where public-private partnerships have been ‘naturalized’, these developments echo the concerns of critics who have chronicled disturbing trends in the channeling of public powers for private pursuits (Hackworth, 2007). This, naturally, could not have occurred if accountability mechanisms were not concurrently compromised. The investigation of institutional arrangements that strengthen social accountability in regeneration partnerships with a civic design component is therefore timely. In practice, the risks to social accountability are often compounded when cities are hamstrung by resource constraints. As is evidenced in this study of two major redevelopment efforts (‘Canalside’ and ‘Larkinville’ in Buffalo, NY), the involvement of design centers (the New York City-based Project for Public Spaces and the University at Buffalo-associated Urban Design Project, respectively) in civic visioning and plan-making can be a critical factor in furthering social accountability.

In the context of partnerships, design centers are uniquely positioned for this task when they help deliver responsive, and locallysensitive civic visioning. In both cases, engaged efforts to focus the projects on the celebration of local history and community uses have been widely lauded (Coalition for Economic Justice, 2010; Hata, 2012; Nussbaumer, 2012). As the evidence suggests, design centers in resource-challenged Buffalo were able to address challenges of leverage in negotiating public-realm-enhancing exactions, as well as challenges pertaining to informal outsourcings of the public space components of the plan. This has contributed to the all-important task of creating realistic local expectations of outcomes. The lessons should incentivize local jurisdictions to discriminate in favor of development partners who are accepting of the involvement of non-partisan research, policy, and design outfits.