Author:
Røe Per Gunnar,Kjærås Kristin Edith Abrahamsen,Haarstad Håvard
Abstract
AbstractThe compact city has become the preferred and mainstream model for urban, peri-urban and sometimes even rural planning in the Nordic context. However, the compact city is increasingly contested as a model for sustainability and may be criticized for a functionalistic perspective on social practices and transitions. Besides, the compact city model is part of increasing transnational or global urban policy mobilities including generic models and strategies, and it may be argued that this contributes to the de-contextualisation of urban planning and development. In this chapter we scrutinize the spatialities of the compact city model and examine how the compact city model has played out in the Nordic context – focusing in particular on Oslo. We ask: how is the compact city developed and promoted as a spatial model? We argue that although the compact city has to some extent been promoted in influential policy circles as a universal model, the compact city in Oslo has some distinct features shaped by the Nordic context. In particular, these features can be attributed to welfare state governance centred on the public sector, yet it is also here we find some of the most significant differences between the Nordic countries. In closing, we discuss whether there is such a thing as a Nordic compact city model, and point to some of its political, social and cultural implications. Is there a pathway for a re-contextualized, relational and grounded compact city model?
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference84 articles.
1. Andersen, B., & Røe, P. G. (2017). The social context and politics of large scale urban architecture: Investigating the design of Barcode. Oslo. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3), 304–317.
2. Anguelovski, I., Irazábal-Zurita, C., & Connolly, J. J. T. (2018). Grabbed urban landscapes: Socio-spatial tension in green infrastructure planning in Medellín. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43(1), 133–156.
3. Arcadis. (2018). Sustainable City index. https://www.arcadis.com/en/news/global/2018/10/european-and-asian-cities-lead-in-arcadis-sustainable-cities-index
4. Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport: City transport in the new century. Routledge.
5. Bergh, A., & Bjørnskov, C. (2011). Historical Trust Levels Predict the Current Size of the Welfare State. Kyklos, 64(1), 1–19.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献