162 Critical Planning Summer 2006 Critical Planning Summer 2009

162 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 The Renaissance of Inner-City Rail Station Areas: A Key Element in Contemporary Urban Restructuring Dynamics Deike Peters

Rail station area redevelopment mega-projects are key instances of planned, large-scale, strategic interventions into the contemporary urban fabric aimed at better connecting and revitalizing key inner-city locales. They represent a crucially under-studied element in the postindustrial restructuring of urban cores. In theory, mixed-used developments around centrally located rail stations offer a perfect answer to the challenges of a future-oriented, post-peak oil, sustainable development agenda focused on transit-accessible urban cores. In practice, however, the implementation of such mega-projects is highly complex, and the costs and benefits are unevenly distributed. This article presents comparative insights gained from three current high-profile cases in Berlin (Central Station [Hauptbahnhof]), London (King’s Cross), and New York (Penn/Moynihan Station).

Contextualizing Rail Station Area Redevelopments as Crucial “Urban Renaissance” Mega- Projects in Times of Post-Fordist, Postindustrial Urban Restructuring

A primary aim of urban scholarship is a more sophisticated understanding of the complex dynamics of urbanization under the present conditions of a globalized capitalism and the emergence of a “network society” (Castells 1996). These dynamics are variously referred to as postindustrial, postmodern, post- Fordist, or neoliberal urban restructuring (Keil 1998; Scott and Soja 1996; Smith 2002; Brenner and Theodore 2002). In the face of a complex interplay of simultaneous processes of de- and re-territorialization decisively altering cities’ spatial configurations, roles, functions, and regulatory environments (Amin 1994; Sassen 1991), new normative visions and discourses on “good” or “sustainable” urban forms are emerging.

The focus of this paper is on transit-related nodal spaces, specifically inner-city rail stations, which are highly symbolic spaces for urban restructuring. The dynamics of rail station area redevelopment efforts represent an understudied phenomenon in critical urban studies today. Comparative case studies of rail station redevelopment mega-projects can help us better understand the specifics of contemporary urban restructuring processes and related “urban renaissance” planning agendas. The term “urban renaissance” is often indiscriminately used to encompass any redevelopment effort aimed at making inner cities more attractive places to work, live, study, or engage in entertainment and recreation by revitalizing a centrally located, transit-accessible urban

Critical Planning Summer 2009 163 location. A more specific, stronger definition would The specifics of these processes need to be understood also take into account improved urban design quality through solid macro- and micro-level analyses that and mixed land uses, as well as a “greater environmen- feature in-depth comparative case studies of particular tal sensitivity and commitment to urbanity” in the places and actors within particular cities. There is not planning and implementation of these “new mega- one single dominant theory on contemporary urban projects” (Diaz Orueta and Fainstein 2008, 759). This restructuring, of course. Rather, there are several article presents three high-profile rail mega-projects strands of literature vying for prominence, each con- from Berlin, London, and New York, highlighting tributing certain key insights to the complex subject their common traits and key contextual differences.1 matter and presenting sometimes-conflicting views on the same cities.2 Nevertheless, there is wide agreement The ongoing remaking of urban cores through urban among urban scholars that postindustrial, post-Ford- redevelopment mega-projects is part and parcel of ist, neoliberal restructuring represents a double-edged the “urbanization of neoliberalism” (Brenner and sword for cities. High-speed communication and Theodore 2002) and post-Fordist restructuring. transportation infrastructures enable corporations to Large-scale manufacturing employment and produc- avoid the high land costs and negative agglomeration tion have given way to an urban economy dominated externalities associated with high-profile central city by service-, knowledge-, and consumption-based locations and relocate elsewhere. However, for many industries (Harvey 1989). The heightened competi- key, high-profile economic activities, “place still mat- tion for investments forces cities’ governing elites to ters” (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2004). search proactively for new opportunities of economic Sassen (1991) first showed how advanced producer growth, leading to processes of disembedding (Castells and financial services remain clustered in urban cores, 1996), the emergence of new “geographies of central- and how certain centralizing tendencies in fact inten- ity” (Sassen 1991), and a shift from a “managerial” sify in “global cities” that represent the most strategic to an “entrepreneurial” governance approach (Harvey command and control centers of the global economy.3 1989; Dangschat 1992). Meanwhile, new logistics and distribution gateways and terminals are emerging Currently, there are two distinct literatures on at the edges of large metropolitan areas (Hesse 2008). urban mega-projects. On one hand, there is a Central cities are gaining ground as key locales for recent literature on infrastructure mega-projects capitalist consumption and culture. Urban cores are that delivers profound critiques of irresponsible (re-)gentrified as attractive tourist spaces (Judd and and inefficient public investment strategies and Fainstein 1999; Hoffman et al. 2003; Hannigan policies, particularly in the transportation sector 1999) and as prime living and working spaces for the (Altshuler and Luberoff 2003; Flyvbjerg et al. “creative class” (Florida 2002). An updated version of 2003; Flyvbjerg et al. 2008). Unfortunately, these urban “growth machine politics” emerges (Molotch contributions mostly focus on highways, tunnels, 1976; Logan and Molotch 1987; Savitch and Kantor or rail lines and have little to say about rail stations 2002) which, in Europe, is strongly related to the EU and their related urban redevelopment impacts. Lisbon Agenda and corresponding national politics.

164 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 On the other hand, there is an extensive urban redevel- the Euralille TGV interchange in Lille or the Ørestad opment literature, often focusing on projects such as land grid near Copenhagen have been identified as large shopping malls, stadiums, urban entertainment key examples of “premium (or secessionist) network centers, or other high-profile “starchitecture” flagship spaces”5 (Graham and Marvin 2001) and as “pre- projects as typical urban interventions in globalized, mium infrastructural configurations” (Brenner 2004, postindustrial times of international locational com- 248–50) which were created as a result of targeted, petition. And such flagship projects often form part “re-scaled,” customized, special-purpose, and place- of comprehensive, mixed-use mega-projects situated specific regulatory interventions. Rail station redevel- in central urban waterfront or other grey- and brown- opment projects are prime illustrations of the complex field locations, which can include either abandoned new “interscalar” governance arrangements that have or active railyards. Recent scholarly contributions by emerged in post-Keynesian, postindustrial urban Moulaert, Rodriguez, and Swyngedouw (2005) and regions. Meanwhile, public sector interventions for Salet and Gualini (2007) explicitly acknowledge the these rail nodes will always be dependent on private strategic dimensions of urban redevelopment mega- developers and rail companies as key strategic partners projects in Europe and the key role of the public sec- and drivers behind the development of these sites. tor.4 Post-Fordist restructuring leads to complex new spatial hierarchies within metropolitan areas where Overall, the period since the early 1980s is typically locations in the very center of the city often experi- characterized as an era of incrementalism and frag- ence a boost at the expense of other, more secondary mentation during which urban planners, in the new locations within the densified urban core. Hence the context of a “co-operative state” (e.g., Benz 1997), have general need to develop a more sophisticated typol- become largely dependent on achieving their limited ogy of strategic urban redevelopment mega-projects planning goals through a focus on individual flagship with rail station projects as an important subset. mega-projects and big events (“festivalization”) (e.g., Carrière and Demazière 2002; Häußermann and Meanwhile, complex processes of spatial and socio- Siebel 1993). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, a economic restructuring are further complicated by majority of urban leaders and decision-makers favored a wide-ranging re-scaling of urban governance and a politics of piecemeal, opportunistic, flexible, entre- statehood (see esp. Brenner 2004 and Jessop 2002; preneurial, and project-oriented urban management Pierre 1999). This includes an increased recognition that typically lent big corporations and developers and integration of private actors and interests in deci- broad control over central urban locations. In many sion-making processes, and an increased institution- cases, influential semi-public or privatized develop- alization of different forms of cooperation between ment agencies were forged out of former state-owned government, businesses, and other non-governmental authorities such as railway companies or port authori- agencies, superseding Fordist relationships of mutual- ties. Extensive planning efforts and public subsidies ity between cities and national accumulation regimes were targeted towards the renewal, expansion, and (e.g., Heinelt and Mayer 1992; Mayer 1994). New upgrading of high-quality public transportation, tele- high-profile rail station area developments such as communications, and utility infrastructures in select

Critical Planning Summer 2009 165 urban areas (see esp. Brenner 2004, 243–253; Graham to many of the challenges of a future-oriented “urban and Marvin 2001; Häußermann and Simons 2000), renaissance” agenda. In practice, however, there are but they supposedly remained “poorly integrated many difficulties with this idealistic vision. For one, into the wider urban process and planning system” there is no unified set of “urban renaissance” goals or (Swyngedouw, Moulaert, and Rodriguez 2002, 542). a unified discourse among the relevant actors. Public officials might emphasize public interest goals such Over the past decade or so, the pendulum seems as livable, affordable housing units while transport to have swung back in favor of strategic planning experts might care most about issues of effective approaches (Albrechts, Healey, and Kunzmann and sustainable urban mobility and connectivity. 2003; Healey et al. 1997; Hamedinger et al. 2008; Historic preservationists might emphasize specific Wiechmann 2008). These approaches aim at more urban design aspects and object to removing old ambitious, more comprehensive, and more integrated structures on the site. Environmentalists are usually efforts to successfully remake city-regions (and most skeptical about any mega-structures and would prefer prominently their core areas) for the demands of a low-impact solutions instead. Meanwhile, railway 21st-century economy and society. This has not, mind companies and real estate developers might simply you, meant an abandonment of the mega-projects be interested in the most profitable commercially approach, but just that individual, single-purpose viable solution, and thus not subscribe to any strong flagship projects are now often more carefully and version of an “urban renaissance” agenda at all. more ambitiously contextualized within larger strategic master plans for high-profile, billion-dollar, Due to these divergent interests among the involved multi-purpose, mixed-use mega-project complexes actors, the practical implementation of these mega- (Bianchini et al. 1992; Carrière and Demazière 2002; project developments is always highly complex and Demazière et al. 1998). In this context, rail station typically fraught with myriad difficulties. Meanwhile, area redevelopment projects have to be contextualized no comprehensive international study of the chal- against alternative redevelopment mega-projects. lenges, potentials, successes, and failures of rail sta- Unlike most de-industrializing harbors, waterfronts, tion redevelopment mega-projects currently exists. and other central brownfield sites, rail stations still The most important initial work on the subject by have a continuing function and use attached to Luca Bertolini (Bertolini 1996, 1998; Bertolini and them. More importantly, rail mega-projects are both Spit 1998) is now more than ten years old. More major real estate projects and public infrastructure importantly, this work was limited to comparing projects at the same time, with a potential to sig- a handful of rail station area redevelopment plans nificantly affect and restructure mobility patterns across Europe. By far the best recent treatment of the in the wider metropolitan area and beyond. This subject is an edited volume published by Bruinsma et fact has been underappreciated in the literature. al. (2008), but the empirical outlook is based almost exclusively on recent policies and developments in the So in theory, mixed-used developments around Netherlands, with some additional western European centrally located rail stations offer a perfect answer examples. The normative, urban design-focused

166 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 Rail Station Redevelopment Mega-Projects in concept of a “renaissance of rail stations” in western Berlin, London, and New York Europe (specifically Germany) was promoted in the 1997 volume Renaissance der Bahnhöfe. This volume was published as a companion to the German bien- Qualitative, case-oriented approaches produce find- nial building exhibition with the same name, but ings derived from real-world settings where the “phe- none of the contributions were based upon original nomenon of interest unfolds naturally” (Patton 2001, empirical research. Bartkowiak (2004) looked at a 39; see also Ragin 1987). Researchers have to navigate handful of different rail station area redevelopment a delicate balance between the need for a consistent projects in Germany, but the related case studies research design and the need to remain sensitive to were brief, overly descriptive, and covered projects the particularities of each case. Issues of convergence that have since been abandoned.6 Meanwhile, and divergence, and locally and nationally divergent Wucherpfennig (2005) used a discourse-analytical paths must be expected and explicitly acknowledged “new cultural geography” perspective to critique (Flyvbjerg 2006; Pierre 2005; John 2005; Denters the rail station restructuring concepts promoted and Mossberger 2006; Kantor and Savitch 2005). by Deutsche Bahn (German Rail) since the 1990s. There are also some selected case studies of rail sta- The three cases below represent one specific type tion areas as part of larger studies of redevelopment of rail station area redevelopment, namely high- mega-projects (e.g., Simons 2003; Fainstein 2001). profile comprehensive mega-projects involving Other singular case studies are limited to certain major inner-city rail stations in major metropolises. specific aspects of the rail station redevelopment.7 All three cases are really multi-part mega-projects consisting of a transport infrastructure component All of this contrasts with a much larger literature and one or more urban redevelopment compo- on waterfront and harbor redevelopment, however, nents. The related planning processes are naturally where coverage through both in-depth individual extremely complex, involving many public, public- case studies and internationally comparative research private, and civil society actors with both converg- is much more prominent. (For a good overview see ing and diverging interests. Specifically, all three Schubert 2002; for other recent German contribu- cases exhibit the following common characteristics: tions also see Schubert and Polinna 2007; Pütz and • The stations are located in major, lead- Rehner 2007; and the case studies in Dziomba 2008). ing European and North American ur- Harborfront redevelopments have received more at- ban regions (“world/globalizing cities”) tention from urban theory scholars because they have with a multi-nodal, polycentric structure. been more prominently redeveloped as prime tourist and creative spaces that include residential uses. • The rail stations are central terminals located in central urban locations in or immediately adjacent to the inner city or downtown area. • The actual stations were/are to be completely or substantially rebuilt and the

Critical Planning Summer 2009 167 rebuilding, restoration, or redevelop- are simultaneously vying for (or already have gained) ment of the active station can be con- prominence at other central inner-city locations. sidered a “flagship” element of the entire rail station area redevelopment process. Significant differences between the cases and their local • The integration and connectivity of local, re- and national context remain, of course. Germany and gional, national, and international travel was/ Britain are both countries with extensive intra- and is a major impetus for the redevelopment. inter-urban passenger rail systems, whereas the United States is not. New York’s large and dense regional • The rail stations are already operational as passenger rail network is thus exceptional within its hubs for high-speed inter-regional travel. own national system, and the Acela high-speed rail • The area around the station is a major, service between Boston, New York, and Washington high-profile, mixed-use redevelopment is in fact the only one of its kind in the nation. There site for which official planning documents are also country- and state-specific contexts to the and a master plan exist and for which a overall politics of urban redevelopment. Berlin’s urban limited number of large real estate com- economy is significantly smaller and less dynamic panies, together with public, semi-public, than that of the other two cities. However, due to the and non-profit actors, are currently seeking fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification, the a wide-ranging redevelopment of the area. dynamism in the overall restructuring of the urban But note that the rail station redevelop- landscape in Berlin has been closer to that of the other ment areas are not the only—and not cities than the size of its local economy would sug- necessarily even the biggest—redevelopment gest, and the construction of the new Berlin Central projects in the urban region (differentiat- Station and the related underground infrastructures ing them from Euralille or Stuttgart 21). is one of the most important and spectacular recent cases of rail station area-based redevelopment. • The project timelines of the projects are roughly similar in that crucial propos- The tables on the next two pages summarize als for the urban redevelopment of the information on the three case study cities and sites were presented in the early 1990s, the projects. Additional details on the transport hit various setbacks, and got back on infrastructure and urban redevelopment compo- track towards realization in the 2000s. nents of the three projects are presented below.

There is thus a relatively high degree of comparability among the cases. The cases provide insights into the 1. The new Berlin Central Station (Hauptbahnhof), particular challenges and difficulties in successfully cre- and the Redevelopment of the Lehrter Stadtquartier/ ating attractive, high-quality, mixed-use sites at major Heidestrasse and the Humboldthafen rail stations in a complex urban situation where several alternative, large-scale urban redevelopment projects After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the

168 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 The Three Cities Compared

Berlin London New York City Population13 3.4 million 7.5 million 8 million Region Population13 6 million 12–19 million 18–20 million Urban Area13 891 km2 1600 km2 830 km2 Urban Density8 3,800 pop/km2 4,800 pop/km2 9,600 pop/km2 Urban-regional Structure13 Strong, multi-nodal Strong, multi-nodal Strong, multi-nodal urban core with a steep urban core with a urban core with a very density gradient modestly steep density steep density gradient gradient Gross City Product13 US$33,170 per capita US$49,000 per capita US$56,106 per capita Urban Economy Size and US$75 billion, 69th US$452 billion, 6th US$1.133 trillion, 2nd Rank9 (after Tokyo) Economy (Trend) Was slowly growing Growing, if not as Growing, but again before the dynamically as before international recession international crisis affects prospects World City Status10 Gamma-level Alpha-level Full Alpha-level Full Cultural World City Service World City Service World City Status in National Urban National capital, National capital, National capital, System largest city in Germany largest city in UK largest city in US Urban Politics: Mayor’s Fairly progressive, Independent/Labour Entrepreneurial, Approach and Party Affiliation Social Democrat until recently, now Independent/ conservative Republican

Critical Planning Summer 2009 169 The Three Railway Station Sites Berlin London New York City Hauptbahnhof King’s Cross/St. Pancras Penn/Moynihan Station The Rail Station as a “Space of Flow” Nodal Functions? - Inter-city: ICE, i.e., - Inter-city: Eurostar, - Inter-city: Acela, i.e., (inter-)national hi-speed international hi-speed inter-regional hi-speed - Regional Rail - Regional Rail - Regional Rail - Local (S-Bahn, Bus) - Local (Tube, Bus) - Local (Metro, Bus) New Rail Yes: multi-billion $ tunnel Yes: Eurostar high- Yes: 7th Avenue subway Infrastructures Part connection (opened May speed rail link (opened extension (planned, but 2006). Still missing: November 2007) not approved yet) of Rebuilding Plans? North-south S-Bahn 21, U-Bahn 5/55, tram connections

170 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 The Three Railway Station Sites Berlin London New York City Hauptbahnhof King’s Cross/St. Pancras Penn/Moynihan Station The Rail Station as a “Space of Flow” Nodal Functions? - Inter-city: ICE, i.e., - Inter-city: Eurostar, - Inter-city: Acela, i.e., (inter-)national hi-speed international hi-speed inter-regional hi-speed - Regional Rail - Regional Rail - Regional Rail - Local (S-Bahn, Bus) - Local (Tube, Bus) - Local (Metro, Bus) New Rail Yes: multi-billion $ tunnel Yes: Eurostar high- Yes: 7th Avenue subway Infrastructures Part connection (opened May speed rail link (opened extension (planned, but 2006). Still missing: November 2007) not approved yet) of Rebuilding Plans? North-south S-Bahn 21, U-Bahn 5/55, tram connections

Rebuilding of Train Yes, entire station was Yes, ₤800-million Yes, the multi-billion dollar Station Building(s)? newly constructed for restoration including a plans involve moving more than €1.2 billion new Eurostar Terminal (parts) of the station one (opened May 2006) at St. Pancras (opened block west and erecting November 2007) and the a new building at the Figure 1: Interior view of Berlin’s new Central Station (Haupt- Figure 2: Aerial view of the redevelopment areas around new ₤400-million Western current site bahnhof). Source: © Deutsche Bahn. Berlin Central Station and the Humboldt Harbor basin (This Concourse at King’s Cross (until 2012) rendering does not show the vast Heidestrasse site north of the station, but it illustrates the area’s close proximity to the Passenger Volumes 300,000 passengers/day N/A (combined 550,000 passengers/day Chancellery, Reichstag, and Brandenburg Gate on the other annual ticket sales for regional rail: 25 million side of the Spree River.). Source: © Berlin Partner GmbH. passengers/year, 11 excluding tube volumes) reunification of Germany in 1990, Berlin became Läpple 2006). The local government places strong subject to massive processes of urban restructuring. emphasis on integrating private actors and interests in The Rail Station Area as a “Space of Place” Multiple master plan and urban design competitions the realization of ambitious development plans, and a Location Inner-city, adjacent to Inner-city, in densely Inner-city, in midtown new federal government built-up neighborhoods Manhattan were held for the high-profile “starchitecture”-oriented series of strategic plans exemplify the city’s unbowed quarter (across the Spree (Camden and Islington) mega-project redevelopment of Potsdamer Platz led reliance on visionary and comprehensive plan making. River) by Sony and Daimler (Lehrer 2002; Roost 2008), as Site Characteristics Station area sites are Station area site contains Station area site is well as for the new government quarter around the largely undeveloped/not buildings for (light) built-up, redevelopment built-up with significant industrial use, a nature involves tear-down and/ Reichstag Building and the Brandenburg Gate. But 1.1 Berlin Central Station (Hauptbahnhof): The structures park, and undeveloped or re-use of other large Berlin suffered from severe economic decline and Transport Infrastructure Mega-Project parts buildings high unemployment, coupled with maladministration Redevelopment Redevelopment interest Several incarnations of Initial proposal by Senator and decreased federal subsidies, leaving the city-state The decision to build the new Hauptbahnhof as a new History of the Site started after fall of the redevelopment initiatives Moynihan in 1993, Wall in 1989, several since the 1980s and several different versions effectively bankrupt in the late 1990s (Krätke 2004; central crossing station at the approximate location of plans and proposals since 1990s since Mayer 2002). All attempts to position Berlin as a the former Lehrter Urban Rail Station was the realiza- Current “Lehrter Stadtquartier” “King’s Cross Central” by “Moynihan Station West/ leading “global city” and internationally renowned tion of a long-time dream of Berlin transport plan- Redevelopment and “Heidestrasse” by Argents St George MSG” (at Farley) and Vivico, “Humboldthafen” “Moynihan Station East” service metropolis remained unfulfilled, even before ners and engineers. A key decision was made in the by Liegenschaftsfonds (at Penn) by Vornado and the global financial crisis (Cochrane and Jones 1999; early 1990s to construct a new billion-dollar tunnel Berlin Related Co.

Critical Planning Summer 2009 171 underneath the Spree River and the Tiergarten Park federal government in 2001 to market former railway as the centerpiece of a comprehensive restructuring of properties. The fully privatized company, which has the metropolitan rail transport infrastructure system a total property portfolio of about 74 million square (see also Peters 2008). Berlin’s rail infrastructure had feet, was bought by the Austrian property company, been divided and neglected after World War II, and no CA Immo, in early December 2007. Vivico plans central crossing station existed for regional and intra- to develop the Lehrter Stadtquartier according to a regional travel. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof was built master plan by the German architect Oswald Matthias for €1.2 billion as a new flagship rail station designed Ungers. This plan consists of a grouping of seven to impress as a piece of both architecture and engineer- separate buildings, including one tall office building, ing. Advertised by the German Rail as “the largest allowing for a total of 1,550,000 square feet of office and most modern crossing station in Europe,” it was space. A professional master plan competition for the officially opened after years of delays in May 2006 to northern Heidestrasse area is currently in progress; the coincide with the World Cup. The new station, with competition guidelines supposedly foresee an overall fourteen platforms at two different levels, is suppos- development potential of up to 6,566,040 square feet edly frequented by 300,000 passengers and by 1,100 for mixed uses. In 2007, the Heidestrasse site was also long-distance and regional trains per day. (These fig- the subject of the annual Schinkel Competition for ures include local surface rail S-Bahn traffic, however.) young architects, resulting in substantial attention and It is also home to 161,000 square feet of retail space press coverage. The hub function of the train station on three levels with extended shopping hours. But is a central factor in Vivico’s marketing strategy.12 The three years after opening, the station remains uncon- Humboldthafen (Humboldt Harbor) to the east of the nected to the local underground and light-rail systems. station is being developed by the Liegenschaftsfonds Berlin, a real estate holding company owned by the state of Berlin. The Liegenschaftsfonds has devel- 1.2 Berlin Central Station Area: The Urban oped a detailed master plan with specific planning Redevelopment Mega-Project(s) restrictions for the three-hectare site and divided it into individual building lots that are to be sold off Given its proximity to the former Berlin Wall, the in phases. The total building volume is 1,270,690 area around the new station, located across the square feet, of which 30% is supposed to be housing. river from the new federal government quarter, The sale and marketing of the high-profile lots is cur- largely consists of inner-city greyfields. While the rently ongoing, with continued local press coverage. area south of the river now features the Chancellery, the Norman Foster-upgraded Reichstag Parliament Building, and the refurbished Brandenburg Gate, 2. The Redevelopment of the King’s Cross and St. Pancras the greyfields adjacent to the new Central Station Station Area in London are still awaiting redevelopment. The areas north and south of the station are controlled by the Vivico Real A city atop the global urban hierarchy of late capital- Estate Company. Vivico was founded by the German ism, London has been in a perpetual state of spatial

172 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 Figure 3: King’s Cross Central mixed-use development illus- Figure 4: Rendering of Granary Square, at the center of the trative build-out. Source: © Miller Hare/King’s Cross Central King’s Cross Central redevelopment site. Source: © GMJ/ Limited Partnership. King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership. urban restructuring for decades. Much of this was of the Greater London Authority and the election accomplished via the execution of ambitious high- of Ken Livingston as mayor of London in 2000, as profile mega-projects. Recent examples include the well as the publication of the London Plan in 2004. redevelopment of the Docklands in the 1980s, the Moreover, the national New Labour government redesign of Paternoster Square around St. Paul’s began propagating an “urban renaissance” agenda in Cathedral as well as other central squares (e.g., the late 1990s (Bodenschatz 2006; Colomb 2007). Leicester, Piccadilly Circus, and Trafalgar), the expansion of the center around Liverpool Street Station (Broadgate, Spitalfields Market, and Bishopsgate), 2.1 King’s Cross and St. Pancras: The Transport the construction of the Millennium Bridge and Infrastructure Mega-Project Dome, and the opening of the Tate Modern Gallery (Bodenschatz 2005). Urban planning approaches have In 1996, after many years of controversy and un- recently evolved from a deregulated approach in the certainty, the government made the crucial decision Thatcher era, to an increasingly urban design-con- to change the Eurostar high-speed rail terminus scious approach in the late 1980s, to a first upswing from Waterloo Station to St. Pancras and bring the in public sector-led initiatives before the millennium, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) into the station and eventually to an increasing emphasis on urban at high grade. The CTRL was always explicitly ex- re-centralization and a return to strategic planning pected to generate significant regeneration benefits during the Blair era. This also involved the creation in the area around the stations, most notably around

Critical Planning Summer 2009 173 St. Pancras/King’s Cross in inner-city London, works taking place on the site. But, anticipating the but also along the so-called Thames Gateway at timely completion of the CTRL link into St. Pancras Stratford (the site for the 2012 London Olympics) by late 2007, the local boroughs of Camden and and Ebbsfleet. The Eurostar’s arrival at St. Pancras Islington issued a comprehensive ninety-five-page brought about a multi-million dollar refurbishment planning and development brief for the King’s Cross of the station. Meanwhile, London Underground Opportunity Area, detailing their mixed-use, “urban is undertaking a major upgrading of its tube links renaissance”-oriented development preferences for at King’s Cross/St. Pancras, the busiest link in the the site in 2004. Already in 2000, the development London tube network, while the Department of team, Argent St George had been selected as the Transport, together with Network Rail, agreed to preferred developer for the central portion of the carry out major improvements to King’s Cross Station, site. In 2004, Argent St George, together with the including: the addition of a new platform, the con- site’s new owners (London Continental Railroad struction of a completely new Western Concourse and the logistics firm, Excel), presented a detailed three times the current size, and the replacement regeneration plan for a sixty-seven-acre redevelop- of the old Southern Concourse with a piazza area. ment. This redevelopment featured 8 million square feet of mixed uses, including 5 million square feet of office space, 495,000 square feet of retail, up to 2.2 King’s Cross Central: The (Main) Urban 2,000 new homes, twenty new streets, and multiple Redevelopment Mega-Project public spaces. The plans are awaiting implementation, now that the new Eurostar link is fully operational The local authority of Camden has wanted to and the site is finally available for redevelopment. stimulate economic activity on the 134-acre site since the 1970s. It finally produced a strategy document calling for a comprehensive approach to the whole 3. The Redevelopment of Penn/Moynihan Station in site in the mid 1980s that ambitiously limited office Midtown Manhattan development in favor of relatively low-density mixed development (Fainstein 2001, 119). But the land was Like London, New York is a first-rate global city then controlled by the still publicly-owned British Rail (Sassen 1991; Fainstein 2001). The common critical and the privatized National Freight Consortium, and urbanist narrative is that New York exemplifies local British Rail instead championed a proposal favoring planning and governance’s function as a facilitator of over 6 million square feet of office space. A local neoliberal globalization by subsidizing business, dis- community group opposing the plans, the King’s placing the urban poor, dismantling the local welfare Cross Railway Lands Group, was established around state, and replacing long-term planning aimed at the that time, and remains active today. The proposal public good for the benefit of short-term economic fell apart in the early 1990s, and the redevelopment benefits for the city’s business elites (e.g., Sites 2003; of the site was later made impossible for many years Hackworth 2007). However, under the current ad- because of the Channel link-related infrastructure ministration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the city

174 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 Figure 5: The Farley Post Office, the proposed future site of Figure 6: At one point, the complex, multi-billion-dollar urban Moynihan Station. Source: © Annie Nyborg, redevelopment scheme even included plans for a relocation http://www.flickr.com/photos/masnyc/345539757/ of Madison Square Garden. Source: © The New York Times. sizes/l/. has witnessed a return of comprehensive planning in- opposition, however, and are criticized for replicating volving a heightened attention to strategic, long-term many of the qualities that turned people against urban visions that explicitly address public interest goals. renewal in the 1960s and 1970s (Fainstein 2005, 2). There is a recent proliferation of mega-projects of almost unprecedented scale and ambition. Commonly carried out in the name of economic progress, these 3.1 Penn/Moynihan Station: The Transport Infrastructure projects include office, commercial, and housing Mega-Project developments. They also involve efforts to improve the city’s transport infrastructure, expand or enhance The transport infrastructure and urban redevelopment public space, or contribute in other ways to the city’s elements are tightly interwoven in this case, and unlike attractiveness as a place to visit, live, or work. Apart in the Berlin and London cases, the station building from Penn/Moynihan Station, several additional rail has not been (re-)constructed yet. The original 1911 sites play a prominent role in the city’s recent renewal Pennsylvania Station was demolished in 1964 to make and restructuring efforts, particularly the Hudson room for Madison Square Garden, which still sits Yards in Manhattan, the Atlantic Yards Terminal above the tracks. Despite million-dollar renovations in central Brooklyn, and of course the rail hub at carried out in the 1990s, Penn Station remains a badly Ground Zero. These redevelopment projects exem- lit, low-ceilinged, underground maze of tunnels and plify the shift in New York’s development patterns corridors, sharply contrasting with the adjacent Farley and practices towards “big, long-term visions” (former Post Office, the historic façade of which is reminiscent Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, quoted in Fainstein of the old Penn Station. Meanwhile, Penn Station 2005, 1). The projects have also attracted considerable serves up to 550,000 passengers a day (compared to

Critical Planning Summer 2009 175 140,000 at Grand Central Station), making it by far 3.2 Penn/Moynihan Station: The Urban Redevelopment the busiest train station in all of North America.13 Mega-Project The station is home to intercity rail services operated by Amtrak along the busy Northeast Corridor, com- Penn Station is located in the heart of bustling and muter rail services operated by New Jersey Transit and densely built-up midtown Manhattan, between the Long Island Rail Road, and six different subway 7th and 8th Avenues and 31st and 33rd Streets. lines. Current plans to expand capacity as well as Redevelopment plans received a first major impetus improve the efficiency and aesthetics of Penn Station in 1993 when long-time New York state senator, include the following elements (see also RPA 2008): Daniel Patrick Moynihan, announced a concept to build a new Penn Station inside the structure of the • Moynihan West: relocation of Amtrak servic- historic Farley Post Office building one block west. es to the eastern end of the Farley Post Office; Initial plans failed, but in 2005, the Hudson Yards • Moynihan East: billion-dollar rehabilita- rezoning was passed, creating a transit improvement tion of the station under Madison Square bonus of up to 2.4 million square feet in addition Garden, including grand new entrances; to already existing air rights, designed to further incentivize development. That same year, the state • Moynihan North: multi-billion-dollar selected Vornado Realty Trust and Related Companies construction of a new NJ Transit terminus to develop a new Moynihan Station at Farley. The for the new Hudson River tunnel (ARC) details of the plans have undergone several changes arriving at 34th street (This tunnel mega- since, with total costs once topping $3.2 billion. In project would double the number of trains 2007, the Empire State Development Corporation coming into midtown from the west. (ESDC) purchased the Farley building for $230 The terminus is to have an underground million from the US Postal Service and released a pedestrian connection to Moynihan East.); scoping document to initiate public review of an • Moynihan South: multi-billion dol- expanded project calling for a complex plan involving lar construction of three new platforms two new station buildings. The entire rezoning and and five new tracks under the block redevelopment plan allowed for more than 5 million south of Penn Station (Block 780); square feet of additional space, primarily for retail.14 Due to a financial shortfall of more than $1 billion, • Relocation of 100,000 square feet of no agreement could be reached on the most ambitious railroad backhouse operations off- version of the redevelopment plan, which would have site to increase circulation space. included a relocation of Madison Square Garden to the west. These plans have since been toppled, and the Garden will be refurbished rather than relocated.

176 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 So What Kinds of “Urban Renaissances” connectivity in Europe. Thanks to the $8 billion Are We Talking About? in high-speed rail funding inserted into the federal stimulus package in February 2009, this policy also The brief descriptions of the three case studies above received an enormous boost in the United States. obviously do not do justice to the complexities Meanwhile, the rise of a transit-oriented “New of the individual cases. They are merely designed Urbanism” agenda in North America (Calthorpe and to underscore the magnitude of the projects, the Fulton 2001; Cervero 2004; Dittmar and Ohland high stakes involved, and the great interest these 2003; Dunphy et al. 2005; Dutton 2000) and the locales have generated among leading politicians, corresponding “urban renaissance” discourse in planners, developers, and other stakeholders. Europe, especially in Great Britain (Bodenschatz This concluding section discusses the cases from 2005; Bodenschatz 2006; Colomb 2007), provides a comparative perspective, highlighting some decision-makers with strong, additional, normative of the common threads and key differences. policy momentum in favor of integrated, rail-based transport and land-use development, and hence also a First off, the high-profile redevelopment of central rail strong impetus for rail station area redevelopment. In stations and their surrounding areas in major cities on Britain, the 1999 Urban Task Force Report, “Towards both sides of the Atlantic underlines the reinvigorated an Urban Renaissance,” triggered an extensive debate significance of rail-based infrastructures in the post- over government-sponsored urban regeneration and modern, postindustrial, post-Fordist urban regional over the unequally distributed benefits and social fabric. Whereas modernist urbanism was strongly tied consequences of gentrification (Imrie and Raco to a vision of a functionally segregated, car-oriented 2003). Many recent international case studies con- city, the emerging postmodern urbanism of the 21st firm that urban renaissance initiatives often exclude century is strongly linked to a vision of multi-nodal, or displace vulnerable residents (Porter and Shaw polycentric urban regions featuring vibrant, attrac- 2008; Punter 2009). Edwards (2009, 23) makes tive, walkable cores where commercial, residential, this point with specific reference to King’s Cross: and leisure uses are not separated but mixed. The composition of the [King’s Cross Central redevelopment] scheme, particularly its lim- The three projects also exemplify the new consensus ited provision of affordable social housing to which is emerging among transport experts, urban rent and its strong provision of corporate office planners, and many political decision-makers: that space, has been the main source of conflict. . . . Regeneration is not seen as primarily a process in order to be sustainable, efficient, and successful in serving the low- and middle-income people in the future, cities and their surrounding regions need whose name regeneration policy was developed: to be structured around high-capacity public transit rather it is seen . . . as essentially a business ac- networks, and that transport and land-use planning tivity aimed at growth and competitiveness (Ed- must be better integrated. Several decades of large- wards 2009, 23). scale investments in high-speed rail networks have already begun to alter both inter- and intra-urban This certainly also rings true in New York and Berlin.

Critical Planning Summer 2009 177 However, inner-city housing has remained compara- from the rest of the city and its dense local transit tively affordable in Berlin, so there is less public outrage system partially explains why the redevelopment of over the prospect that moderately-priced subsidized the area is still lagging. By the late 1990s, it became housing might play a relatively minor role in rede- increasingly clear that the city was not growing as velopment plans at prime locations near the station. originally predicted. The office and retail markets were becoming overbuilt, and demand was limited, so Meanwhile, the physical renaissance of grandiose rail- planners and politicians gave priority to other large- way buildings unquestionably carries strong symbolic scale redevelopment initiatives, especially around meaning. The 20th-century automobile age is over. the Alexanderplatz transit hub and along the Spree Today, “peak oil” threatens to affect future air and car waterfront in the east. In New York, efforts to rede- travel. In this context, inner-city railway stations shed velop Penn Station are currently competing with the their grimy image and remake themselves into glitzy, gigantic Hudson Yards redevelopment “giga-project” high-speed travel hubs. They once again become a immediately to the west, the Atlantic Yards project preferred locus for representative “public” architec- in Brooklyn, and the rebuilding of Ground Zero. ture, be it via the extensive remodeling of existing And the experience of King’s Cross in London in architectural gems (St. Pancras), the new construction the early 1990s, when the first major redevelopment of expensive glass palaces (Berlin Hauptbahnhof), plan fell apart, further underscores the volatility of or complex rebuilding efforts (Moynihan Station). these mega-projects to the whims of globally con- In all cases, however, critics complain about the nected local economies and real estate markets. overly sanitized and highly commercialized atmo- sphere in the new stations. Upon entering the Berlin Railway mega-projects have doubtlessly emerged as Hauptbahnhof, for example, visitors are essentially crucial loci for trans-scalar urban-regional policy- forced into a multi-story mall, the internal layout of making. An important aspect for future comparative which optimizes pedestrian throughput past shops. study is the ability of different actors to shape or affect the overall project setup and outcomes. Aside Interestingly, with a few exceptions (Euralille prob- from planners and politicians, this particularly ably being the most important one), rail station sites’ concerns the roles of transportation agencies and attractiveness as new locations for businesses, leisure authorities, privatized railway companies, and private and entertainment, or residential uses still depends developers. On the surface, the presented cases seem much more on their local and regional connectivity indicative of a “roll-out neoliberalism” (Peck and than on their long-distance connections. For example, Tickell 2002) in which the pursuit of various public Penn Station’s attractiveness as a redevelopment site interest goals, such as providing a safe and efficient has comparatively little to do with Amtrak’s long- transportation system, or creating representative distance Acela service, but everything to do with its public spaces in the urban core, is handed over to function as the most important transit hub in the private or privatized profit-seeking actors. But it entire metro region. Conversely, the fact that the is also crucial to reiterate that railway stations and Berlin Hauptbahnhof is still relatively disconnected their pertaining infrastructures are gigantic public

178 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 works projects dependent on hundreds of millions themselves are not necessarily in convenient walking or even billions of dollars in support from federal distance to all sections of the redevelopment areas. and state governments (including so-called “budget neutral” expenses such as precious air development So, in the end, inner-city railway station area re- rights). There is thus an inherent obligation on the development initiatives evoke ambivalent reactions part of public officials and public servants to maxi- among critical urbanists. The initiatives harbor mize the tangible public benefits of these projects. much potential to serve as flagship developments for a new visionary future, but as always, the The trickiness is that these benefits are both hard to devil lies in the details. To date, much of their quantify and unevenly distributed across space and positive potential remains contested or unrealized. time. How does one quantify the symbolic value of a “reborn” or newly built railway station full of architectural splendor? These new-yet-old “cathe- drals of mobility” certainly inspire civic pride and Deike Peters is director of the DFG Research Group, quickly become sites of interest to visitors and locals “Megaprojects,” at Berlin University of Technology’s alike. But admiration and awe alone hardly trigger Center for Metropolitan Studies (www.megaprojects. persistent changes in people’s mobility patterns, so metropolitanstudies.de). unless these redevelopment efforts are coupled with individually tangible benefits to the way people move about (or dwell) in the city, it becomes difficult to justify the often staggering cost of these new pieces Lead Photograph of “starchitecture.” And in densely populated, widely transit-accessible city-regions such as New York, Berlin’s new Central Station (Hauptbahnhof), “The London, or Berlin, there are definite opportunity costs largest and most modern central crossing station in to concentrating billions of dollars of both public and Europe.” Source: © Wolfgang Staudt, http://www. private funds at select privileged nodes. Sustainable flickr.com/photos/wolfgangstaudt/2812991484/ transport activists therefore typically argue that the sizes/l/. “renaissance” and livability of the city as a whole would receive a bigger boost if funds were instead ap- plied towards improving local bus, rail, bicycle, or pe- Notes destrian infrastructures as well as regional rail services.

The case of Berlin also dramatically illustrates that 1 unless the rail station itself is properly intermodally Please note that both projects (or at least major compo- nents thereof) and the related research are still in progress, integrated with the rest of the transit system, rail sta- and that this paper merely attempts to summarize early tion proximity does not necessarily equal good (local) insights from what will be a multi-year research endeavor. accessibility. Both in Berlin and London, due to the 2 sites’ vast expanses and complex terrains, the stations Note that only a minor portion of all this literature is com-

Critical Planning Summer 2009 179 parative in nature. If it is, it generally includes two or at most statistics/richest-cities-2005.html (accessed January 4, three cases (most prominently Saskia Sassen’s authoritative 2008). GDP figures include cities and their surrounding “Global City” treatise on New York, London, and Tokyo, urban areas in 2005 and were based on PricewaterhouseC- as well as Janet Abu-Lughod’s study of New York, Chicago, oopers estimates as well as UN urban agglomeration defini- and Los Angeles as “America’s Global Cities”). tions and population estimates. 3 In fact, simultaneous processes of dispersal and re-cen- 10 This categorization is taken from the frequently quoted tralization affect all “globalizing” cities with significant ties 1999 GaWC Inventory of World Cities, according to which to the global economy, not just those at the very top of the London and New York, along with Paris and Tokyo, are global urban hierarchy (e.g., Keil 1993; Brenner and Keil the leading Alpha-level global cities in the world, with Los 2006). The more encompassing term, “globalizing,” coined Angeles and five other cities completing the Alpha-group by Marcuse and van Kempen similarly reinforces the notion of “full service world cities.” This group is followed by ten that “globalization is a process, not a state” (Marcuse and Beta-level “major world cities” (e.g., San Francisco and van Kempen 2000, xvii). Mexico City). The list is then completed by a group of 4 Yet their insights are limited to a western European about thirty-five Gamma-level “minor” world cities, which perspective and mostly focused on second- or third-tier includes Berlin. metropolises (e.g., Lisbon, Naples, Copenhagen). Moreover, 11 With a gross domestic product (GDP) of US$74 billion many of their case studies deal with urban subcenters rather in 2002, Berlin still managed a place amidst the top ten than the inner city (e.g., the Amsterdam Zuidas Station as rankings of European cities. This is a far cry, however, from opposed to Central Station). the world cities of London and Paris, the GDPs of which 5 “Premium (or secessionist) network spaces” are defined were US$236 billion and US$132 billion, respectively. as “a combination of urban and networked spaces that are 12 To quote from the Vivico project brochure on the Leh- configured precisely to the needs of socioeconomically rter Stadtquartier (p.7), the site is “the unique location wealthy groups and so at the same time are increasingly in the heart of the city—the hub of major traffic routes. withdrawn from the wider citizenry and cityscape” (See Here local and long distance trains converge, there are fast Graham and Marvin 2001, 427). connections to the motorways and airports, and the new 6 The case studies only covered pages 275–336 of the study Tiergarten tunnel makes it easier to travel in by car. Even and included descriptions of the following five projects: the river Spree features the perfect mode of transportation Bremen Promotion Park, Essen Passarea, Frankfurt 21, with its own special watertaxis. The Lehrter Stadtquartier Munich 21, and Stuttgart 21. is the capital’s central hub which is guaranteed to fulfill all mobility requirements.” 7 Two examples are Holgerson’s (2007) master’s thesis on 13 King’s Cross, which focuses on class conflict, and Thamma- Data in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Sta- ruangsri’s (2003) Ph.D. dissertation in architecture, which tion_(New_York_City) (accessed March 3, 2008). uses space syntax to analyze rail stations in central London. 14 Key data were taken from the ESDC fact sheet. The 8 All data and figures were assembled from the Urban Age fact sheet and the detailed Draft Scope of Work for the documentation website put together by urban researchers plan are both available at http://www.empire.state.ny.us/ at the London School of Economics, see www.urban-age. moynihanstation/default.asp. net (accessed March 7, 2008). 9 All figures were taken from http://www.citymayors.com/

180 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 References Railway Station Redevelopment. European Planning Studies 4: 331-345. Albrechts, Louis, Patsy Healey, and Klaus Kunzmann. 2003. Bertolini, Luca. 1998. Station area redevelopment in five Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in European countries. An international perspective on Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association a complex planning challenge. International Planning 69(2): 113-129. Studies 3(2): 163-184. Altshuler, Alan and David Luberoff. 2003. Mega-projects: Bertolini, Luca. 2008. Station areas as nodes and places The changing politics of urban public investment.Brook - in urban networks: An analytical tool and alternative ings Institution Press: Washington DC. development strategies. In Railway development: Im- pacts on urban dynamics, edited by Frank Bruinsma, Amin, Ash, ed. 1994. Post-Fordism. London: Blackwell Eric Pels, Hugo Priemus, Piet Rietveld, and Bert van Publishers. Wee, 35-57. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Atkinson, Rowland. 2003. Domestication by Cappuccino Bertolini, Luca and Tejo Spit. 1996. Cities on rails: The or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control and Empow- redevelopment of railway station areas. London and erment in the Management of Public Spaces. Urban New York: E. and FN Spon. Studies 40(9): 1829-1843. Bianchini, Franco et al. 1992. Flagship Projects in Urban Banister, David, John Pucher, and Martin Lee-Gosselin. Regeneration. In Rebuilding the city: Property-led urban 2007. Making Sustainable Transport Politically and regeneration, edited by Patsy Healey et al., 245-255. Publicly Acceptable: Lessons from the EU, USA, London: E. and FN Spon. and Canada. In Institutions and sustainable transport: Regulatory reform in advanced economies, edited by Piet Bodenschatz, Harald. 2000. New Urbanism. Die Neuer- Rietveld and Roger Stough, 17-50. Cheltenham, UK: findung der amerikanischen Stadt.StadtBauwelt 145: Edward Elgar. 22-31. Bartkowiak, Jost 2004. Stadtzentren im Umbruch. Zur Bodenschatz, Harald, ed. 2005. Renaissance der Mitte. Revitalisierung von Großstadtzentren, deren Bedeutung Zentrumsumbau in London und Berlin. Berlin: Ver- für Stadtökonomie, Städtebau und Stadtgesellschaft. Am lagshaus Braun. Beispiel zentralstädtischer Bahnhofsareale. Frankfurt: Bodenschatz, Harald. 2006. Vorbild England: Urban Re- Peter Lang. naissance. Zentrumsumbau in Manchester. Die alte Batten, David 1995. Network Cities: Creative Agglom- Stadt 1/2006. erations for the Twenty-First Century. Urban Studies Brenner, Neil. 2004. New state spaces: Urban governance 32(2): 313-327. and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford and New York: Benz, Arthur. 1997. Kooperativer Staat? Gesellschaftliche Oxford University Press. Gesellschaftliche Einflußnahme auf staatliche Steuer- Brenner, Neil and Nik Theodore. 2002. Preface: From ung. In Politische Beteiligung und Bürgerengagement the ‘New Localism’ to the Spaces of Neoliberalism. in Deutschland, edited by Ansgar Klein and Rainer Antipode 34(3): 341-347. Schmalz-Bruns, 88-113. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Brenner, Neil and Nik Theodore. 2002.Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and western Bertolini, Luca. 1996. Nodes and Places: Complexities of Europe. Malden, MA: Oxford, Blackwell.

Critical Planning Summer 2009 181 Bruinsma, Frank, Eric Pels, Hugo Priemus, Piet Rietveld, Regional Research 32(4): 759-767. and Bert van Wee, eds. 2008. Railway development: Dittmar, Hank and Gloria Ohland, eds. 2003. The new Impacts on urban dynamics. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented develop- Calthorpe, Peter and William Fulton. 2001. The regional ment. Chicago: Island Press. city. Planning for the end of sprawl. New York: Island Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom. Press. 2004. Place matters: Metropolitics for the twenty-first Carrière, Jean-Paul and Christophe Demazière. 2002. century. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Urban Planning and Flagship Development Projects: Dunphy, Robert, Robert Cervero, Fred Dock, Maureen Lessons from EXPO 98, Lisbon. Planning Practice and McAvey, and Douglas Porter. 2005. Development Research, 17(1): 69–79. around transit. Washington, DC: Urban Land In- Castells, Manuel 1996. The rise of the network society.Mal - stitute. den, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Dutton, John. 2000. New American urbanism: Re-forming Cervero, Robert, ed. 2004. Transit-oriented development the suburban metropolis. New York: Abbeville Publica- in the United States: Experiences, challenges, prospects. tions Group. Washington DC: TCRP Report 102. Dziomba, Maike. 2008 Städtebauliche Projekte der Cochrane, Allan and Andrew Jonas. 1999. Re-imagining Urbanen Renaissance: Die Phase der Grundstücks- Berlin. World City, National Capital or Ordinary verkäufe und ihr Einfluß auf den Projekterfolg. Place? European Urban and Regional Studies 6(2): Ph.D. diss., Department of Town Planning, Technical 145–64. University Hamburg-Harburg (renamed HafenCity Colomb, Claire. 2007. Unpacking New Labour’s Urban University). Renaissance Agenda. Towards a socially sustainable Edwards, Michael. Forthcoming 2009. King’s Cross: Re- re-urbanisation of British cities? Planning Practice & naissance for whom? In Urban design, urban renaissance Research 22(1): 1-24. and British cities, edited by John Punter. London: Dangschat, Jens. 1992. Konzeption, Realität und Funktion Routledge. ‚neuer Standortpolitik’ - am Beispiel des ‚Unterneh- Fainstein, Susan. 2000. The changing world economy and mens Hamburg’. In Politik in europäischen Städten, urban restructuring. In Readings in urban theory, edited edited by Hubert Heinelt and Margit Mayer, 29-48. by Susan Fainstein and Scott Campbell, 170-186. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Demazière, Christophe et al. 1998. Le grand projet emblé- Fainstein, Susan. 2001. The city builders: Property develop- matique, réponse des métropoles à la globalisation. Le ment in New York and London 1980-2000. Lawrence: cas de Bilbao. Espace et Societés 95: 147-160. University Press of Kansas. Denters, Bas and Karen Mossberger. 2006. Building Blocks Fainstein, Susan. 2005. The Return of Urban Renewal.Har - for a Methodology for Comparative Urban Political vard Design Magazine. Spring /Summer 2005: 9-14. Research. Urban Affairs Review 41(4): 550-571. Florida, Richard. 2002. The rise of the creative class. New Diaz Orueta, Fernando and Susan S. Fainstein. 2008. York: Perseus Books. “SYMPOSIUM: The New Mega-Projects: Genesis Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case- and Impacts”. International Journal of Urban and Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245.

182 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 Flyvbjerg, Bent, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. Festivalisierung der Stadtpolitik. Stadtentwicklung 2003. Mega-projects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. durch große Projekte. Leviathan Special issue 13/1993. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Flyvbjerg, Bent, Hugo Priemus, and Bert van Wee. 2008. Healey, Patsy, Abdul Khakee, Alain Motte, and Barry Decision-making on mega-projects: Cost-benefit analysis, Needham, eds. 1997. Making strategic spatial plans: planning, and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Innovation in Europe. London: UCL Press. Elgar. Heinelt, Hubert and Margit Mayer. 2001. Lokale Poli- Fulton, William. 1996. The new urbanism: Hope or hype tikforschung in Deutschland – Entwicklungen und for American communities? Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Besonderheiten im internationalen Vergleich. In Institute of Land Policy. Empirische Policy- und Verwaltungsforschung: Lokale, Graham, Stephen and Simon Marvin. 2001. Splintering Nationale und Internationale Perspektiven, edited by urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological Eckhard Schröter, 63-76. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge. Hesse, Markus. 2008. The city as a terminal. Logistics and Hackworth, Jason. 2007. The neoliberal city: Governance, freight distribution in an urban context. Aldershot, UK: ideology and development in American urbanism. Ithaca Ashgate (Habilitationsschrift). and London: Cornell University Press. Hoffman, Lily, Susan Fainstein, and Dennis Judd, eds. Hamedinger, Alexander, Oliver Frey, Jens Dangschat, 2003. Cities and visitors: Regulating people, markets, and Andrea Breitfuss, eds. 2007. Strategieorientierte and city space. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Planung im kooperativen Staat. Berlin: VS Verlag für Blackwell. Sozialwissenschaften. Holgersen, Stale. 2007. Class conflict and planning. A Hannigan, John. 1999. Fantasy city: Pleasure and profit in case study of contemporary development at King’s the postmodern metropolis. London and New York: Cross London. Department of Geography. Bergen: Routledge. University of Bergen, Norway. (Published in 2008 under the same title with VDM Verlag: Saarbrücken) Harvey, David. 1989. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Imrie, Rob and Mike Raco, eds. 2003. Urban renaissance? Blackwell. New Labour, community and urban policy. Bristol: The Policy Press. Häußermann, Hartmut and Katja Simons. 2000. Die Politik der großen Projekte – am Beispiel des Stadtent- Jenks, Mike, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie Williams, eds. wicklungsgebietes Adlershof. Archiv für Kommunalwis- 1996. The compact city: A sustainable urban form? senschaften 1. Halbjahresband, Jg. 39. London: E. & FN Spon. Häußermann, Hartmut and Katja Simons. 2005. Facing Jessop, Bob. 2002. The future of the capitalist state. London: Fiscal Crisis: Urban Flagship Projects in Berlin. In The Polity. globalized city. Economic restructuring and social polar- Jonnes, Jill. 2007. Conquering Gotham: A gilded age epic – ization in European cities, edited by Frank Moulaert, the construction of Penn Station and its tunnels. New Arantxa Rodriguez, and Erik Swyngedouw, 107-124. York: Viking Press. New York: Oxford University Press. Judd, Dennis and Susan Fainstein, eds. 1999. The tourist Häußermann, Hartmut and Walter Siebel, eds. 1993. city. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Critical Planning Summer 2009 183 Kantor, Paul and H.V. Savitch. 2005. How to Study Com- diss., Architecture, Bartlett School of Graduate Stud- parative Urban Development Politics. A Research ies, University College London. Note. International Journal of Urban Regional Research Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research 29(1): 135-151. Methods, 2nd ed. London: Sage. Keil, Roger. 1998. Los Angeles: Globalization, urbanization, Peck, Jamie and Adam Tickell. 2002. Neoliberalizing space. and social struggles. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Antipode 34(3): 380-404. Sons Ltd. Peters, Deike. Forthcoming 2009. Digging Through the Krätke, Stefan. 2004. City of Talents? Berlin’s Regional Heart of Reunified Berlin: Tracing the Story of the Economy, Socio-spatial Fabric and ‘Worst Practice’ Tiergarten-Tunnel Mega-project. European Journal of Urban Governance. International Journal of Urban Transport and Infrastructure Research (special issue on and Regional Research 28 (3): 511–29. large infrastructure projects). Läpple, Dieter. 2006. Germany: A Global Cities System? In: Pierre, Jon. 1999. Models of Urban Governance: The Insti- German Cities - Success beyond Growth? Newspaper tutional Dimension of Urban Politics. Urban Affairs of the Urban Age German Symposium, May 2006. Review 34(3): 372-396. Lehrer, Ute. 2002. Image production and globalization: Pierre, Jon. 2005. Comparative Urban Governance: Un- City-building processes at Potsdamer Platz, Berlin. covering Complex Causalities. Urban Affairs Review Ph.D. diss., Department of Urban Planning, Univer- 40: 446-462. sity of California, Los Angeles. Pogrebin, Robin. 2006. Los Angeles with a Downtown? Logan, John and Harvey Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: Gehry’s Vision. The New York Times, April 25, 2006. The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press. Porter, Libby and Kate Shaw, eds. 2008. Whose urban renaissance? An international comparison of urban regeneration Mayer, Margit. 1994. Postfordist City Politics. In Post-Ford- strategies. London: Routledge. ism, edited by Ash Amin, 316-337. Oxford: Blackwell. Punter, John. 2009. Urban design, urban renaissance and Mayer, Margit. 2002. New Lines of Division in the New British cities. London: Routledge. Berlin. Internet source: http://userpage.fu-berlin. de/~jfkpolhk/ mm/Publications/Texts/Mayer.Ber- Ragin, Charles. 1987. The comparative method. Berkeley: linDivisions.pdf. University of California Press. Molotch, Harvey 1976. The City as a Growth Machine: Regional Plan Association (RPA). 2008. A new vision for Toward a Political Economy of Place. American Journal Moynihan Station. Unpublished briefing paper, July. of Sociology 82: 309-332. Roost, Frank. 2008. Branding Center – Über den Einfluss Moulaert, Frank, Arantxa Rodriguez, and Erik Swynge- globaler Markenkonzerne auf die Innenstädte. Wies- douw, eds. 2005. The globalized city. Economic restruc- baden: VS Verlag. turing and social polarization in European cities. New Salet, Willem and Enrico Gualini, eds. 2007. Framing York: Oxford University Press. strategic urban projects. Learning from current experi- Paksukcharern Thammaruangsri, Khaisri. 2003. Node ences in European urban regions. New York: Routledge. and Space. A study of the spatial process of railway Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The global city. Princeton, NJ: Princ- terminus area redevelopment in central London. Ph.D. eton University Press.

184 Critical Planning Summer 20092006 Savitch, H. V. and Paul Kantor. 2002. Cities in the international marketplace: The political economy of urban development in North America and western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schubert, Dirk. 2002. Hafen- und Uferzonen im Wandel. Analysen und Planungen zur Revitalisierung der Water- front in Hafenstädten. Berlin: Leue Verlag. Scott, Allen J. and Edward W. Soja. 1996. The city: Los An- geles and urban restructuring at the end of the twentieth century. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Simons, Katja. 2003. Politische Steuerung großer Projekte. Berlin Adlershof, Neue Mitte Oberhausen und Euralille im Vergleich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Sites, William. 2003. Remaking New York: Primitive globalization and the politics of urban community. Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Smith, Neil 2002. New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gen- trification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode 34(3): 434-457. Swyngedouw, Erik, Frank Moulaert, and Arantxa Ro- driguez. 2002. Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy. Antipode 34(3): 542-577. Wiechmann, Thorsten. 2008. Planung und Adaption. Dortmund: Verlag Dorothea Rohn. Wucherpfennig, Claudia. 2006. Bahnhof: (stadt)gesell- schaftlicher Mikrokosmos im Wandel. Eine “neue kulturgeographische” Analyse. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl-von-Ossietzky-Univ. (Wahrnehmungs- geographische Studien; 22), Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main) Universität: Dissertation.

Critical Planning Summer 2009 185