Speaker
Description
The spatial dimension, distribution, and organization of property significantly influence urban dynamics and the political capacity to implement regenerative programs as well as their types. Beyond abstract planning concepts and strategic intentions, property owners of buildings and land ultimately hold direct power and control over the built environment. From this perspective, ownership patterns—whether more centralised or fragmented—play a crucial role in understanding two key aspects: (1) the openness of a given area to spontaneous and often unpredictable, hard-to-control processes of change, and (2) the ease, or difficulty, with which local municipalities can coordinate urban renewal efforts.
While the relationship between the spatial dimension of property and urban renewal policies has been explored in the literature for a long time, a robust theoretical framework is needed better to navigate this complex issue in more abstract terms. Such a framework could assist both scholars and practitioners in engaging with broader reflections, among others, on urban regeneration.
To illustrate this topic, this talk draws on two contrasting research projects focused on "disadvantaged neighbourhoods" in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. One project examines the regeneration of large housing estates owned by big housing companies, while the other investigates dense, highly mixed urban areas owned by numerous small private individuals. By exploring these concrete examples, the study highlights how differing ownership patterns influence responsibilities and approaches to design and regeneration. This work aims to provide valuable insights into the interplay between property ownership patterns and urban regeneration at the neighbourhood scale.
References
Cozzolino, S., & Moroni, S. (2024). Action, Property and Beauty: Planning with and for Emergent Urban Complexity. Taylor & Francis.
Köberl, M., Wurm, M., Droin, A., Garbasevschi, O. M., Dolls, M., & Taubenböck, H. (2024). Liveability in large housing estates in Germany–Identifying differences based on a novel concept for a walkable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 251, 105150.
Kropf, K. (2018). Plots, property and behaviour. Urban Morphology, 22(1): 5-14.
Debray, H., Kraff, N. J., Zhu, X. X., & Taubenböck, H. (2023). Planned, unplanned, or in-between? A concept of the intensity of plannedness and its empirical relation to the built urban landscape across the globe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 233, 104711.
Shaffer, B.D. (2009). Boundaries of order. Auburn (AL): Ludwig von Mises Institute
Webb, B., Webber, S. (2017). The implications of condominium neighbourhoods for long-term urban revitalisation. Cities, 61: 48-57.
Habraken, N.J. (1998). The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built Environment. Cambridge (Mass.):The MIT press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Sennett, R., & Sendra, P. (2020). Designing disorder: Experiments and disruptions in the city. Verso Books.
| Keywords | Property; Ownership; Regenetation; Neighbourhood; Adaptability. |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
