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, stra- tegic interventions into the contemporary urban fabric aimed at better connecting and revital- izing 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 imple- mentation of such mega-projects is highly complex, and the costs and benefits are unevenly dis- tributed. 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 redevelop- ment 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-