Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ioannou, Byron
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Nicolaou, Lora, Serraos, Konstantinos, Spiliopoulou, Georgia
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i4.2266
Resumo: The article approaches different concepts of Large Urban Developments (LUDs) as products of the notion of a “spatial fix” (Harvey, 2001), which explains why built or natural environments can be deployed in the process of creating opportunities for new investments. Greece and Cyprus are two countries in the south of the European Union that underwent delayed urbanisation and significant land fragmentation in the form of small size private ownerships and with limited experience in comprehensive development. Greece has adopted a well-structured but complex spatial planning system, bureaucratic with limited effectiveness, adaptability or flexibility of delivery processes. On the other hand, Cyprus has a flexible but centralized system, effective in processing change but problematic in regulating quality in the built environment. Both countries recently experienced major financial crises. In the early 2010s, both governments promoted, as part of an economic recovery policy, extensive real estate development on public or privately-owned land with emphasis on LUDs as ways of addressing economic shortfalls. Inappropriately, LUDs have been primarily “conceived” as opportunities to attract foreign investments rather than a means of tackling crucial current deficiencies. New spatial planning frameworks merely add greater “flexibility” to the system in order to accelerate large private real estate investment. The article attempts to reveal, through case studies’ reviews, the impact of LUDs in countries with no infrastructure or experience in accommodating large-scale investment. It explores how the experience in Greece and Cyprus differs in terms of the relevant legislation adopted, the effectiveness in fulfilling its primary objective in attracting investment, and what are the possible social and environmental consequences on the planning acquis.
id RCAP_29d04421bba43e2f7bdf2fa96b58b6fa
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2266
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planninglarge urban developments; planning framework; spatial fix; spatial planningThe article approaches different concepts of Large Urban Developments (LUDs) as products of the notion of a “spatial fix” (Harvey, 2001), which explains why built or natural environments can be deployed in the process of creating opportunities for new investments. Greece and Cyprus are two countries in the south of the European Union that underwent delayed urbanisation and significant land fragmentation in the form of small size private ownerships and with limited experience in comprehensive development. Greece has adopted a well-structured but complex spatial planning system, bureaucratic with limited effectiveness, adaptability or flexibility of delivery processes. On the other hand, Cyprus has a flexible but centralized system, effective in processing change but problematic in regulating quality in the built environment. Both countries recently experienced major financial crises. In the early 2010s, both governments promoted, as part of an economic recovery policy, extensive real estate development on public or privately-owned land with emphasis on LUDs as ways of addressing economic shortfalls. Inappropriately, LUDs have been primarily “conceived” as opportunities to attract foreign investments rather than a means of tackling crucial current deficiencies. New spatial planning frameworks merely add greater “flexibility” to the system in order to accelerate large private real estate investment. The article attempts to reveal, through case studies’ reviews, the impact of LUDs in countries with no infrastructure or experience in accommodating large-scale investment. It explores how the experience in Greece and Cyprus differs in terms of the relevant legislation adopted, the effectiveness in fulfilling its primary objective in attracting investment, and what are the possible social and environmental consequences on the planning acquis.Cogitatio2019-11-21info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i4.2266https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i4.2266Urban Planning; Vol 4, No 4 (2019): Large Urban Developments and the Future of Cities; 31-422183-7635reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2266https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2266/2266https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/628https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/629https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/630https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/710https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/711https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/712Copyright (c) 2019 Byron Ioannou, Lora Nicolaou, Konstantinos Serraos, Georgia Spiliopoulouhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessIoannou, ByronNicolaou, LoraSerraos, KonstantinosSpiliopoulou, Georgia2023-01-26T21:15:33Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2266Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:21:42.078897Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
title Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
spellingShingle Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
Ioannou, Byron
large urban developments; planning framework; spatial fix; spatial planning
title_short Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
title_full Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
title_fullStr Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
title_full_unstemmed Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
title_sort Large Urban Developments as Non-Planning Products: Conflicts and Threats for Spatial Planning
author Ioannou, Byron
author_facet Ioannou, Byron
Nicolaou, Lora
Serraos, Konstantinos
Spiliopoulou, Georgia
author_role author
author2 Nicolaou, Lora
Serraos, Konstantinos
Spiliopoulou, Georgia
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ioannou, Byron
Nicolaou, Lora
Serraos, Konstantinos
Spiliopoulou, Georgia
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv large urban developments; planning framework; spatial fix; spatial planning
topic large urban developments; planning framework; spatial fix; spatial planning
description The article approaches different concepts of Large Urban Developments (LUDs) as products of the notion of a “spatial fix” (Harvey, 2001), which explains why built or natural environments can be deployed in the process of creating opportunities for new investments. Greece and Cyprus are two countries in the south of the European Union that underwent delayed urbanisation and significant land fragmentation in the form of small size private ownerships and with limited experience in comprehensive development. Greece has adopted a well-structured but complex spatial planning system, bureaucratic with limited effectiveness, adaptability or flexibility of delivery processes. On the other hand, Cyprus has a flexible but centralized system, effective in processing change but problematic in regulating quality in the built environment. Both countries recently experienced major financial crises. In the early 2010s, both governments promoted, as part of an economic recovery policy, extensive real estate development on public or privately-owned land with emphasis on LUDs as ways of addressing economic shortfalls. Inappropriately, LUDs have been primarily “conceived” as opportunities to attract foreign investments rather than a means of tackling crucial current deficiencies. New spatial planning frameworks merely add greater “flexibility” to the system in order to accelerate large private real estate investment. The article attempts to reveal, through case studies’ reviews, the impact of LUDs in countries with no infrastructure or experience in accommodating large-scale investment. It explores how the experience in Greece and Cyprus differs in terms of the relevant legislation adopted, the effectiveness in fulfilling its primary objective in attracting investment, and what are the possible social and environmental consequences on the planning acquis.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-11-21
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i4.2266
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i4.2266
url https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i4.2266
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2266
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2266/2266
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/628
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/629
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/630
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/710
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/711
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/downloadSuppFile/2266/712
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2019 Byron Ioannou, Lora Nicolaou, Konstantinos Serraos, Georgia Spiliopoulou
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2019 Byron Ioannou, Lora Nicolaou, Konstantinos Serraos, Georgia Spiliopoulou
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Urban Planning; Vol 4, No 4 (2019): Large Urban Developments and the Future of Cities; 31-42
2183-7635
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130663663697920