Urban mega project development is prevalently adopted in many different cultures for urban (re-)development. It has been regarded as a most important asset for the city, having the potential of revitalising an attractive image for the city, and encouraging private investment. Much attention has been given to its initial stage of decision-making and the socio-economic effects afterwards, but there’s a lack of investigation into how the project is designed, implemented and developed over time. Therefore the focus of the research is the “designing” of urban mega projects: how is urban mega project designed, who are the actors involved, how do they interact with each other, and how has the design evolved through time. The assumption is that urban design is a negotiation tool in urban mega project development, in that the elements of designing the built environment that can be controlled or influenced by various stakeholders act as mediation of actor relations, creating situations where certain stakeholders acquire more gains while others do not. The designs of the physical elements (buildings, public space etc) are reflections of these activities and the outcome is the result of collective efforts. The research chooses to approach the question by studying changes made to urban design schemes. The stories of stakeholder relations unfold with the twists and turns in the design development, thus making it possible to discern the reasons for these changes. Two case studies, namely CityLife in Milan and Taipingqiao Redevelopment in Shanghai are investigated. By studying public planning documents and private negotiation covenants, interviewing relevant stakeholders, and more importantly, by analysing the designing process of the projects and the related design products, the case studies aim at understanding the power relations of stakeholders and how their interactions collectively shape the projects that are still undergoing uncertainties. These aspects are framed by the “3E” framework, namely the expectations and the expertises of different stakeholders, and the environment they operate in. The key conclusions are as follows. First of all, the role of urban design in urban mega project is sometimes deified. From a process prospective, instead of a medium that facilitates negotiations and cooperations and that gives reference to the future actions, urban design in real life projects sometimes tends to be a random by-product produced by these interactions. Urban design as a negotiation tool is only effective when it is not restricted to the design of the built environment, but also include the design of precesses and frameworks. Also urban design itself is not the tabula rasa, but instead preconditioned by the current decision environment, predominant mode of decision making and the nature of stakeholder relationships. Therefore from a product perspective, urban design is sometimes more of a by-product of debates produced by concerns other than design itself, and this undermines its ability in delivering better environment for the people. Secondly, through unveiling the decision-making and struggling of different stakeholders, the stereotype of “greedy developers and almighty designers“ should be reconsidered, and rather than engaged in a “battlefield“ situation, they could co-design the project based on common interests. Last but not least, it’s important that the public authority has a clear vision for the city’s future to guide urban development projects, and sets a stable yet flexible framework to facilitate the negotiation and collaboration of a myriad of stakeholders. The value of this research is not restricted to understanding the mechanisms of specific case studies. It provides more materials for reflecting upon the approach of seeing urban design as both a product and a process and showing how these two seemingly separate notions inform each other.
Lo sviluppo urbano in mega progetto è prevalentemente adottato in molte culture diverse per lo sviluppo e il rilancio urbano, ma c’è una mancanza di indagine sul modo in cui il progetto è stato delineato, implementato e sviluppato nel tempo. Pertanto, l’attenzione della ricerca è sulla determinazione di mega progetti urbani: come si delinea un mega progetto urbano, chi sono gli attori coinvolti, come interagiscono tra di loro e come si è evoluto il progetto nel tempo. Si presume che il design urbano sia uno strumento di negoziazione nello sviluppo di un mega progetto urbano, attraverso il quale gli elementi di progettazione dell’ambiente edificato possono essere controllati o influenzati da varie azioni di soggetti interessati , intese come mediazione o come rapporti tra gli attori, creando situazioni in cui alcune parti interessate ci guadagnano di più, al contrario di altre. La ricerca affronta la questione studiando i cambiamenti apportati agli schemi di design urbano. Le storie delle relazioni tra le parti interessate si svolgono tra colpi di scena e svolte nello sviluppo del progetto, rendendo così possibile discernere le ragioni di questi cambiamenti. Degli studi su due casi, vale a dire CityLife a Milano e Taipingqiao Redevelopment a Shanghai sono oggetto di indagine. Studiando documenti pubblici di pianificazione e le alleanze di negoziazione tra privati, intervistando le parti interessate relative e, quel che conta di più, analizzando la procedura di determinazione dei progetti ed i relativi prodotti del design, tali studi si prefiggono lo scopo di comprendere le relazioni di potere tra le parti interessate e come il loro interagire dia forma collettivamente ai progetti che sono ancora coperti da incertezze. Le principali conclusioni sono le seguenti. Prima di tutto, il ruolo del design urbano in mega progetto urbano è a volte esaltato. L’assetto urbanistico nei progetti di vita reale, a volte, tende ad essere un sottoprodotto casuale, derivato da queste interazioni e, come strumento di negoziazione, è efficace solo quando non si limita alla progettazione dell’ambiente edificato, ma include anche la progettazione di processi e contesti. Il design urbano è precondizionato dall’ambiente delle decisioni correnti, la modalità predominante del processo decisionale e dalla natura delle relazioni tra le parti interessate. In secondo luogo, attraverso la rivelazione del processo decisionale e le lotte tra i diversi soggetti interessati, dovrebbe essere riconsiderato lo stereotipo di “sviluppatori avidi e progettisti onnipotenti”; piuttosto che impegnarsi in una situazione da “campo di battaglia”, potrebbero collaborare nel progetto sulla base di comuni interessi. Ultimo, ma non di minor conto, è importante che l’autorità pubblica abbia una visione chiara del futuro della città, per guidare progetti di sviluppo urbano e stabilisca un quadro fermo, eppur flessibile, per facilitare la negoziazione e la collaborazione di una miriade di soggetti interessati. Il valore di questa ricerca non è limitato alla comprensione dei meccanismi di studi di casi specifici. Essa fornisce più materiali per riflettere sul metodo di vedere l’assetto urbanistico come fosse sia un prodotto che un processo e mostrando come questi due concetti, apparentemente separati, si informano l’uno con l’altro.
Designing urban mega projects. An investigation on stakeholders and urban design products in Milan and Shanghai
ZHU, JINGYI
2015/2016
Abstract
Urban mega project development is prevalently adopted in many different cultures for urban (re-)development. It has been regarded as a most important asset for the city, having the potential of revitalising an attractive image for the city, and encouraging private investment. Much attention has been given to its initial stage of decision-making and the socio-economic effects afterwards, but there’s a lack of investigation into how the project is designed, implemented and developed over time. Therefore the focus of the research is the “designing” of urban mega projects: how is urban mega project designed, who are the actors involved, how do they interact with each other, and how has the design evolved through time. The assumption is that urban design is a negotiation tool in urban mega project development, in that the elements of designing the built environment that can be controlled or influenced by various stakeholders act as mediation of actor relations, creating situations where certain stakeholders acquire more gains while others do not. The designs of the physical elements (buildings, public space etc) are reflections of these activities and the outcome is the result of collective efforts. The research chooses to approach the question by studying changes made to urban design schemes. The stories of stakeholder relations unfold with the twists and turns in the design development, thus making it possible to discern the reasons for these changes. Two case studies, namely CityLife in Milan and Taipingqiao Redevelopment in Shanghai are investigated. By studying public planning documents and private negotiation covenants, interviewing relevant stakeholders, and more importantly, by analysing the designing process of the projects and the related design products, the case studies aim at understanding the power relations of stakeholders and how their interactions collectively shape the projects that are still undergoing uncertainties. These aspects are framed by the “3E” framework, namely the expectations and the expertises of different stakeholders, and the environment they operate in. The key conclusions are as follows. First of all, the role of urban design in urban mega project is sometimes deified. From a process prospective, instead of a medium that facilitates negotiations and cooperations and that gives reference to the future actions, urban design in real life projects sometimes tends to be a random by-product produced by these interactions. Urban design as a negotiation tool is only effective when it is not restricted to the design of the built environment, but also include the design of precesses and frameworks. Also urban design itself is not the tabula rasa, but instead preconditioned by the current decision environment, predominant mode of decision making and the nature of stakeholder relationships. Therefore from a product perspective, urban design is sometimes more of a by-product of debates produced by concerns other than design itself, and this undermines its ability in delivering better environment for the people. Secondly, through unveiling the decision-making and struggling of different stakeholders, the stereotype of “greedy developers and almighty designers“ should be reconsidered, and rather than engaged in a “battlefield“ situation, they could co-design the project based on common interests. Last but not least, it’s important that the public authority has a clear vision for the city’s future to guide urban development projects, and sets a stable yet flexible framework to facilitate the negotiation and collaboration of a myriad of stakeholders. The value of this research is not restricted to understanding the mechanisms of specific case studies. It provides more materials for reflecting upon the approach of seeing urban design as both a product and a process and showing how these two seemingly separate notions inform each other.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
DESIGNING URBAN MEGA PROJECTS.pdf
accessibile in internet solo dagli utenti autorizzati
Descrizione: Thesis full text
Dimensione
48.93 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
48.93 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/126444