Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228385956

Therenaissanceofinner-cityrailstationareas:akeyelementincontemporaryurbanrestructuringdynamics

Article·January2009

CITATIONS

24

READS

284

1author:

DeikePeters

SokaUniversityOfAmerica

36PUBLICATIONS174CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyDeikePeterson19August2015.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.

Final Draft, June 2009

Paper for Critical Planning’s 2009 Special Issue on Urban Restructuring

The Renaissance of Inner-City Rail Station Areas as a Key Element in

the Contemporary Dynamics of Urban Restructuring

Deike Peters, Ph.D. Center for Metropolitan Studies

Technical University Berlin, Germany

deike.peters@tu-berlin.de

Berlin new Hauptbahnhof – “The largest & most modern central crossing station in Europe” © Wolfgang Staudt [see Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgangstaudt/2812991484/sizes/l/]

Abstract 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 post-industrial restructur-ing 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 costs and benefits are unevenly distributed. The article presents comparative insights gained from three current high-profile cases in Berlin (Central Station), Lon-don (King’s Cross) and New York (Penn/Moynihan Station).

2

1 Contextualizing Rail Station Area Redevelopments as Crucial "Urban Renaissance" Mega-

Projects in Times of Postfordist, Postindustrial Urban Restructuring

A primary aim of urban scholarship is a more sophisticated understanding of the complex dy-namics of urbanization under present conditions of a globalized capitalism and the emergence of a “Network Society” (Castells 1996), variously referred to as postindustrial, postmodern, post-Fordist, or neoliberal urban restructuring (Keil 1998, Scott & Soja 1996, Smith 2002, Brenner & 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 redevel-opment efforts represent an under-studied 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 enjoy for entertainment and recreation by revitalizing a centrally-located, transit-accessible urban location. A more specific, stronger definition would also take into account improved urban design quality, mixed land uses, as well as “a greater environmental sensitivity and commitment to urbanity” in the planning and im-plementation of these “new mega-projects” (Diaz Orueta and Fainstein 2008:759). This article pre-sents three high-profile rail mega-projects from Berlin, London and New York, highlighting their common traits and key contextual differences.1 The ongoing re-making of urban cores through urban redevelopment mega-projects is part and parcel of the “urbanization of neo-liberalism” (Brenner and Theodore 2002) and postfordist restruc-turing. Large-scale manufacturing employment and production has given way to an urban economy dominated by service-, knowledge- and consumption-based industries (Harvey 1989). The height-ened competition for investments forces cities’ governing elites to search pro-actively for new op-portunities of economic growth, leading to processes of disembedding (Castells 1996), the emer-gence of new “geographies of centrality” (Sassen 1991), and a shift from a “managerial” to an “en-trepreneurial” governance approach (Harvey 1989, Dangschat 1992). Meanwhile, new logistics and distribution gateways and terminals are emerging at the edges of large metro areas (Hesse 2008). Central cities are gaining ground as key locales for (capitalist) consumption and culture. Urban cores are (re-)gentrified as attractive tourist spaces (Judd and Fainstein 1999, Hoffman et al. 2003, Hannigan 1999) and as prime living and working spaces for the “creative class” (Florida 2002). An updated version of urban “growth machine politics” emerges (Molotch 1976, Logan and Molotch 1987, Savitch and Kantor 2002) - which in Europe is strongly related to the EU Lisbon Agenda and corresponding national politics. The specifics of these processes need to be understood through solid meso- and micro-level analyses, featuring in-depth comparative case studies of particular places and actors within particu-lar cities. There is not one single dominant theory on contemporary urban restructuring, of course. Rather, there are several strands of literature vying for prominence, each contributing certain key insights to the complex subject matter, sometimes presenting conflicting views on the same cities.2

1 Please note that both the projects (or at least major components thereof) and the related research are still in progress, and that this short paper merely attempts to summarize early insights from what will be a multi-year research endeavor. 2 Note that only a minor portion of all this literature is comparative in nature, and if so mostly includes two or at most

3

Nevertheless, there is wide agreement among urban scholars that postindustrial, post-Fordist, neo-liberal restructuring represents a double edged sword for cities. High-speed communication and transportation infrastructures enable corporations to avoid high land costs and negative agglomera-tion externalities associated with high-profile, central city locations, and to re-locate elsewhere. However, for many key, high profile economic activities, the exact opposite is true. "Place still mat-ters" (Dreier, Mollenkopf and Swanstrom 2004). Sassen (1991) first showed how advanced pro-ducer and financial services remain clustered in urban cores, and how certain centralizing tendencies in fact intensify in "global cities" representing the most strategic command and control centers of the global economy.3

Currently, there are two distinct literatures on (urban) mega-projects. On one hand, there is a recent literature on infrastructure mega-projects, delivering profound critiques regarding irresponsi-ble and inefficient public investment strategies and policies, particularly in the transportation sector (Altshuler and Luberoff 2003, Flyvbjerg et al 2003, and Flyvbjerg et al 2008). Unfortunately, these contributions mostly focus on highways, tunnels, or rail lines and have little to say about rail sta-tions and their related urban redevelopment impacts.

On the other hand, there is an extensive urban redevelopment literature, often focusing on projects such as large shopping malls, stadiums, urban entertainment centers, or other high-profile “starchitecture” flagship projects as typical urban interventions in globalized, post-industrial times of international locational competition. And such flagship projects often form part of comprehensive mixed-use mega-projects situated in central urban waterfront or other grey- and brownfield loca-tions, which can include either abandoned or active railyards. Recent scholarly contributions by Moulaert, Rodriguez and Swyngedouw (2005) and Salet and Gualini (2007) explicitly acknowledge the strategic dimensions of urban redevelopment mega-projects in Europe, and the key role of the public sector.4 Postfordist restructuring leads to complex new spatial hierarchies within metropolitan areas where locations in the very center of the city often experience a boost at the expense of other, more secondary locations within the densified urban core. Hence the general need to develop a more sophisticated typology of strategic urban redevelopment mega-projects with rail station projects as an important sub-set.

Meanwhile, complex processes of spatial and socio-economic restructuring are further com-plicated by a wide-ranging re-scaling of urban governance and statehood (see esp. Brenner 2004 and Jessop 2002, Pierre 1999). This includes an increased recognition and integration of private actors and interests in decision-making processes, and an increased institutionalization of different forms of cooperation between government, businesses and other non-governmental agencies, superseding Fordist relationships of mutuality between cities and national accumulation regimes (e.g. Heinelt and Mayer 1992, Mayer 1994). New high-profile rail station area developments such as the Euralille TGV interchange in Lille or the Ørestad land grid near Copenhagen have been identified as key ex-amples of “premium (or secessionist) network spaces”5 (Graham and Marvin 2001) and as “pre-

three cases (most prominently Saskia Sassen's authoritative Global City-treatise on New York, London and Tokyo, as well as Janet Abu-Lughod's study of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles as "America's Global Cities"). 3 In fact, simultaneous processes of dispersal and re-centralization affect all "globalizing" cities with significant ties to the global economy, not just those at the very top of the global urban hierarchy (e.g. Keil 1993, Brenner and Keil 2006). The more encompassing term "globalizing" coined by Marcuse and van Kempen similarly reinforces the notion that "globalization is a process, not a state" (Marcuse and van Kempen 2000:xvii). 4 Yet their insights are limited to a (Western) European perspective and mostly focused on second or third rate metropo-

lises (e.g. Lisbon, Naples, Copenhagen). Moreover, many of their case studies dealt with urban sub-centers rather than the inner city (e.g. the Amsterdam Zuidas station as opposed to the Central Station). 5 Defined as "a combination of urban and networked spaces that are configures precisely to the needs of socioeconomi-cally wealthy groups and so at the same time are increasingly withdrawn from the wider citizenry and cityscape. See Graham and Marvin 2001:427 (glossary).

4

mium infrastructural configurations” (Brenner 2004:248-50) which have been created as a result of targeted, “rescaled” customized, special-purpose, place-specific regulatory interventions. Rail sta-tion redevelopment projects are prime illustrations of the complex new “interscalar” governance arrangements that have emerged in post-Keynesian, post-industrial urban regions. Meanwhile, pub-lic sector interventions for these rail nodes will always be dependent on private developers and rail companies as key strategic partners and drivers behind the development of these sites.

Overall, the period since the early 1980s is typically characterized as an era of incremental-ism and fragmentation during which urban planners, in the new context of a “co-operative state” (e.g. Benz 1997), have become largely dependent on achieving their limited planning goals through a focus on individual (flagship) mega-projects and/or big events (“festivalization”) (e.g. Carrière and Demazière 2002, Häußermann and Siebel 1993). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, a majority of urban leaders and decision-makers favored a politics of piecemeal, opportunistic, flexible, entre-preneurial and project-oriented urban management that typically lent big corporations and develop-ers broad control over central urban locations. In many cases, influential semi-public or privatized development agencies were forged out of former state-owned authorities such as railway companies or port authorities. Extensive planning efforts and public subsidies were targeted towards the re-newal, expansion and upgrading of high-quality public transportation, telecommunications and util-ity infrastructures in select urban areas (see esp. Brenner 2004:243-253, Graham and Marvin 2001, Häußermann and Simons 2000), but these supposedly remained “poorly integrated into the wider urban process and planning system” (Swyngedouw, Moulaert and Rodriguez’ (2002: 542).

Over the past decade or so, the pendulum seems to have swung back in favor of strategic planning approaches (Albrechts, Healey and Kunzmann 2003; Healy et al 1997; Hamedinger et al 2008, Wiechmann 2008), aiming at more ambitious, more comprehensive and more integrated ef-forts to successfully re-make city-regions, and most prominently their core areas, for the demands of a 21st century economy and society. This has not, mind you, meant an abandonment of the mega-projects approach, but just that individual, single purpose flagship projects are now often more care-fully and more ambitiously contextualized within larger strategic master plans for high-profile, bil-lion-dollar, multi-purpose, mixed-use mega-project complexes (Bianchini et al. 1992, Carrière et al 2002, Demazière et al. 1998). In this context, rail station area redevelopment projects have to be contextualized against alternative redevelopment mega-projects. Unlike most de-industrializing habors, waterfronts and other centrally-located brownfield sites, rail stations still have a continuing function and use attached to them. More importantly, rail mega-projects are both major real estate projects and public infrastructure projects at the same time, with a potential to significantly affect and restructure mobility patterns in the wider metro area (and beyond). This fact has been underap-preciated in the literature.

So in theory, mixed-used developments around centrally located rail stations offer a perfect answer to many of the challenges of a future-oriented “urban renaissance” agenda. In practice, how-ever, there are many difficulties with this idealistic vision. For one, there is no unified set of “urban renaissance” goals or unified discourse among the relevant actors. Public officials might emphasize public interest goals such as livable, affordable housing units while transport experts might care most about issues of effective and sustainable urban mobility and connectivity. Historic preserva-tionists might emphasize specific urban design aspects, and object to removing old structures on the site. Environmentalists are usually skeptical about any mega-structures and would prefer low-impact solutions instead. Meanwhile, railway companies and real estate developers might simply be inter-ested in the most profitable, commercially viable solution, and thus not subscribe to any (strong ver-sion of an) “urban renaissance” agenda at all.

Due to these divergent interests of the involved actors, the practical implementation of these

5

mega-project developments is always highly complex and typically fraught with myriad difficulties. Meanwhile, no comprehensive international study on the challenges, potentials, successes and fail-ures of rail station redevelopment mega-projects currently exists. The most important initial work on the subject by Luca Bertolini (Bertolini 1996, Bertolini 1998, Bertolini and Spit 1998) is now more than ten-years old. More importantly, this work was limited to comparing a handful of rail station area redevelopment schemes across Europe. By far the best recent treatment of the subject is an ed-ited volume published by Bruinsma et al. (2008), but the empirical outlook is almost exclusively based on recent policies and developments in the Netherlands, with some additional Western Euro-pean examples. The normative, urban design-focused concept of a “Renaissance of Rail Stations” in Western Europe, specifically Germany, was promoted in the 1997 volume “Renaissance der Bahnhöfe” which was published as a compendium to the German biennial building exhibition with the same name, but none of the contributions in that volume were based upon original empirical research. Bartkowiak (2004) looked at a handful of different rail station area redevelopment projects in Germany, but the related case studies were brief, overly descriptive, and also covered projects that have since been abandoned.6 Meanwhile, Wucherpfennig (2005) used a discourse-analytical, “new cultural geography” perspective to critique the rail station restructuring concepts promoted by Deutsche Bahn since the 1990s. There are also some selected case studies of rail station areas as part of larger studies on redevelopment mega-projects (e.g. in Simons 2003, Fainstein 2001). Other sin-gular case studies are limited to certain specific aspects of the rail station redevelopment.7 This con-trasts with a much larger literature on waterfront and harbor redevelopment, however, where cover-age through both in-depth individual case studies and internationally comparative research is much more prominent (for a good overview see Schubert 2002, for other recent German contributions also see Schubert and Polinna 2007, Pütz and Rehner 2007 and the case studies in Dziomba 2008). Har-borfront redevelopments have received more attention from urban theory scholars because they have been more prominently redeveloped as prime tourist and creative spaces including residential uses.

2 Rail Station Redevelopment Mega-Projects in Berlin, London & New York City 2.1 Three comparable cases in three very different cities

Qualitative, case-oriented approaches produce findings arrived from real-world settings where the “phenomenon of interest unfolds naturally” (Patton 2001: 39, also see Ragin 1987). Researchers have to navigate a delicate balance between the need for a consistent research design and the need to remain sensitive to the particularities of each case. Issues of convergence and divergence, and lo-cally and nationally divergent paths must be expected and explicitly acknowledged (Flyvbjerg 2006, Pierre 2005; John 2005; Denters and Mossberger 2006, Kantor and Savitch 2005). The three cases below represent one specific type of rail station area redevelopment, namely high-profile comprehensive mega-projects around major inner-city rail stations in major metropo-lises in the Western world. All three cases are really multi-part mega-projects consisting of a trans-port infrastructure component and one or more urban redevelopment components. The related plan-ning processes are naturally extremely complex, involving many public, public-private and civil society actors with both converging and diverging interests. Specifically, all three cases exhibit the following common characteristics: - The stations are located in major, leading European and North American urban regions

("world/globalizing cities") with a multi-nodal, polycentric structure

6 The case studies only covered pages 275 to 336 of the study and included descriptions of the following five projects: Bremen Promotion Park, Essen Passarea, Frankfurt 21, Munich 21 and Stuttgart 21. 7 Two examples are Holgerson's (2007) master thesis on King's Cross focusing on class conflict and Thammaruangsri's (2003) Ph.D. thesis in architecture, a space syntax analysis of the rail stations in central London.

6

- The rail stations are central terminals located in central urban locations in or immediately adjacent to the inner city/downtown area.

- The actual stations were/are to be completely or substantially rebuilt and the rebuilding/restoration/redevelopment of the active station can be considered a “flagship” element of the entire rail station area redevelopment process.

- The integration and connectivity of local, regional and national/international travel was/is a major impetus for the redevelopment

- The rail stations are already operational as high-speed rail hubs for inter-regional travel - The area around the station is a major, high-profile mixed-use redevelopment site for which

official planning documents and a master plan exist and for which a limited number of large real estate companies, together with public and semi-public and/or non-profit actors are currently seeking a wide-ranging redevelopment of the area. But also note that the rail station redevelopment areas are not the only - and not even necessarily the biggest - redevelopment projects in the urban region (differentiating them from Euralille or Stuttgart 21),

- The project timelines of the projects are roughly similar in that crucial proposals for the urban redevelopment of the sites were presented in the early 1990s, then hit various setbacks and got back on track towards realization in the 2000s. There is thus a relatively high degree of comparability between the cases. The cases provide in-

sights into the particular challenges and difficulties in successfully creating attractive high-quality mixed used sites at major rail stations in a complex urban situation where several alternative large-scale urban redevelopment projects are simultaneously vying for (or already have gained) promi-nence at other central inner city locations. Significant differences between the cases and their local and national context of course remain. Germany and Britain are both countries with extensive intra- and inter-urban passenger rail systems whereas the US is not, so that New York's large and dense regional passenger rail network is exceptional within its own national system, and the Acela high-speed rail service between Boston, New York and Washington is in fact the only one of its kind in the nation. There are of course also country- and state-specific contexts to the overall politics of urban redevelopment. Berlin's urban economy is significantly smaller and less dynamic than in the other two cities. However, due to the fall of the wall and German reunification, the dynamism in the overall restructuring of the urban landscape in Berlin has been closer to that of the other cities than the size of its local economy would suggest, and the construction of the new Berlin Central Station and the related underground infrastructures is one of the most important and most spectacular recent cases of rail station area-based redevelopment. The table below summarizes information on the three case study cities and the projects. Additional details on the transport infrastructure and urban redevelopment components of the three projects is presented below.

7

The Three Cases Compared

Table A. The Three Cities Berlin

London New York City

Population (City)13

3.4 million 7.5 million 8 million

Population (Region13)

6 million 12-19 million 18-20 million

Urban Area in km213

891 km2 1600 km2 830 km2

Urban Density8

3800 pop/km2 4800 pop/km2 9600 pop/km2

Urban-regional Structure13

Strong, multi-nodal ur-ban core, steep density

gradient

Strong, multi-nodal urban core, modestly steep den-

sity gradient

Strong, multi-nodal urban core, very steep density

gradient

Gross City Product13

US$ 33,170 per capita US$ 49,000 per capita US$ 56,106 per capita

Urban Economy Size & Rank9

US$ 75 billion, 69th

US$ 452 billion, 6th

US$ 1133 billion 2nd (after Tokyo)

Economy (Trend) Was slowly growing again before int’l crisis

Growing, if not as dy-namically as before

Growing, but int’l reces-sion affects prospects

World City Status10 Gamma-level Cultural World City

Alpha-level Full Service World City

Alpha-level Full Service World City

Status in National Urban System

National Capital, largest city in Germany

National Capital, largest city in UK

Leading East Coast City, largest city in US

Urban Politics: Mayor's approach & party affiliation

Fairly Progressive, Social Democrat

Independent/Labour until recently, now conserva-

tive

Entrepreneurial, Independent/Republ.

8 All data and figures assembled from the Urban Age documentation website put together by urban researchers at the London School of Economics, see www.urban-age.net, accessed March 7, 2008. 9 All figures taken from http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html, accessed January 4, 2008. GDP figures include cities and their surrounding urban areas in 2005 and were based on PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates as well as UN urban agglomeration definitions and population estimates. 10 This categorization is taken from the frequently quoted 1999 GaWC Inventory of World Cities according to which London and New York, along with Paris and Tokyo, are the leading Alpha-level global cities in the world, with L.A. and five other cities completing the Alpha-group of "full service world cities". This is followed by a group of ten Beta-level "major world cities" (e.g. San Francisco & Mexico City). The list is then completed by a group of about thirty-five Gamma-level "minor" world cities, which includes Berlin.

8

Table B. The Three Railway Station Sites Berlin

Hauptbahnhof

London

King's Cross/

St. Pancras

New York City

Penn/Moynihan

Station

The Rail Station as a "Space of Flow" Nodal functions? - Inter-city: ICE, i.e.

(inter-)national hi-speed - Regional Rail - Local (S-Bahn, Bus)

- Inter-city: Eurostar, international hi-speed - Regional Rail - Local (Tube, Bus)

- Inter-city: Acela, i.e. inter-regional hi-speed - Regional Rail - Local (Metro, Bus)

New rail infrastruc-tures part of rebuild-ing plans?

Yes: multi-billion $ tun-nel connection (opened May 2006). Still missing: North-south S-Bahn 21, U-Bahn 5/55, tram con-nections

Yes: Eurostar high-speed rail link (opened Novem-ber 2007)

Yes: 7th Ave subway extension (planned, but not approved yet)

Rebuilding of train station building(s)?

Yes, entire station was newly constructed for more than 1,2 billion EUR (opened May 2006)

Yes, ₤800 mio restoration including a new Eurostar Terminal at St. Pancras (opened Nov. 2007) & a new ₤400 mio Western Concourse at King's Cross (until 2012)

Yes, the multi-billion dollar plans involve mov-ing (parts) of the station one block west and erect-ing a new building at the current site.

Passenger volumes ~300,000 pass/day n.a. (combined annual ticket sales for regional rail: ~25 mio pass/year, excluding tube volumes)

~550,000 pass/day

The Rail Station Area as a "Space of Place" Location Inner-city, adjacent to

new Fed. gov't quarter (across the Spree river)

Inner-city, in densely built-up neighborhoods (Camden & Islington)

Inner-city, in Midtown Manhattan

Site characteristics Station area sites are largely undeveloped / not built-up with significant structures

Station area site contains buildings for (light) in-dustrial use, a nature park & undeveloped parts

Station area site is built-up, redevelopment in-volves tear-down and/or re-use of other large buildings

Redevelopment history of the site

Redevelopment interest started after fall of wall in 1989, several plans & proposals since

Several incarnations of redevelopment initiatives since the 1980s & 1990s.

Initial proposal by Sena-tor Moynihan in 1993, several different versions since.

Current redevelop-ment Scheme(s)

'Lehrter Stadtquartier' & 'Heidestrasse' by Vivico, 'Humboldthafen' by Liegenschaftsfonds Berlin

'King's Cross Central' by Argents St George

'Moynihan Station West/ MSG' (at Farley) & Moynihan Station East (at Penn) by Vornado and Related Co.

9

2.2 The new Berlin Central Station, and the Redevelopment of the Lehrter Stadtquar-

tier/Heidestrasse and the Humboldthafen

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 1 - Inside view of the new Central Station © Deutsche Bahn Figure 2 - Aerial View of the urban redevelopment areas around the Central Station and the Humboldt harbor basin. This digital rendering does not show the vast Heidestrasse site north of the station, but it illustrates the station area’s close proximity to the Chancellery, the Reichstag (Federal parliament building), and the Brandenburg Gate on the other side of the Spree river. © Berlin Partner GmbH

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the re-unification of Germany in 1990, Berlin

became subject to massive processes of urban restructuring. Multiple master plan and urban design competitions were held for the high-profile “starchitecture”-oriented mega-project redevelopment of the Potsdamer Platz led by Sony and Daimler (Lehrer 2002, Roost 2008) and for the new govern-ment quarter around the Reichstag Building and the Brandenburg Gate. But Berlin suffered from severe economic decline and high unemployment, coupled with maladministration and decreased federal subsidies, leaving the city-state effectively bankrupt in the late 1990s (Krätke 2004; Mayer 2002). All attempts to position Berlin as a leading “global city” and internationally renowned ser-vice metropolis remained unfulfilled even prior to the global financial crisis (Cochrane and Jones 1999; Läpple 2006).11 The local government places strong emphasis on the integration of private actors and interests in the realization of ambitious development schemes, and a series of strategic plans exemplify the city’s unbowed reliance on visionary, comprehensive plan-making.

Berlin Central Station (‘Hauptbahnhof’): The Transport Infrastructure Mega-Project The decision to build the new Hauptbahnhof as a new central crossing station at the (ap-

proximate) location of the former Lehrter Urban Rail Station was the realization of a long-time dream of Berlin transport planners and engineers. A key decision was made in the early 1990s to construct a new, billion dollar tunnel underneath the Spree River and the Tiergarten park as the cen-terpiece of a comprehensive restructuring of the metropolitan rail transport infrastructure system (also see Peters 2008). Berlin's rail infrastructure had been divided and neglected after the second World War, and no central crossing station existed for regional and supra-regional travel. The Berlin

11 With a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$74 Billion in 2002, Berlin still managed a place in the middle top-10 rankings of European cities. This is a far cry, however, from the world cities of London and Paris, whose GDPs were US$236 and US$132 billion, respectively.

10

Hauptbahnhof was built for 1,2 billion Euros as a new flagship rail station designed to impress both as a piece of architecture and engineering. Advertised by German Railways as “the largest and most modern crossing station in Europe”, it was officially opened after years of delays in May 2006 to coincide with the Soccer World Cup. The new station is supposedly frequented by 300,000 passen-gers per day and by 1,100 long-distance and regional trains on fourteen platforms at two different levels. (These figures include local surface rail S-Bahn traffic, however.) It is also home to 15,000 square meters of retail space on three levels with extended shopping hours. But three years after its opening, the station still remains to be connected to the local underground and light-rail systems.

Berlin Central Station Area: The Urban Redevelopment Mega-Project(s) Given its proximity to the former Berlin Wall, the area around the new station, located

across the river from the new Federal government quarter, largely consists of inner-urban greyfields. While the area south of the river now features the Chancellery, the Norman Foster-upgraded Reich-stag Parliament Building and the refurbished Brandenburg Gate, the greyfields adjacent to the new Central Station are still awaiting redevelopment. The areas south and north of the station are con-trolled by the Vivico Real Estate Company. Vivico was founded by the German federal government in 2001 to market former railway properties. The fully privatized company, which has a total prop-erty portfolio of about 6.9 million square meters, was bought by the Austrian property company CA Immo in early December 2007. Vivivo plans to develop the Lehrter Stadtquartier according to a master plan by the German architect Ungers which consists of a grouping of seven separate build-ings, including one tall office building, allowing for a total of 144,000 sqm (or 1,550,000 sqf) of office space. A professional masterplan competition for the northern Heidestrasse area is currently in progress, guidelines supposedly foresee an overall development potential of up to 610,000 sqm for mixed uses. In 2007, the Heidestrasse site was also the subject of the annual Schinkel competi-tion for young architects, resulting in substantial attention and press coverage. The hub function of the train station is a central factor in Vivico's marketing strategy.12 The Humboldthafen to the east of the station is being developed by the Liegenschaftsfonds Berlin, a real estate holding company owned by the State of Berlin. The Liegenschaftsfonds has developed a detailed masterplan with spe-cific planning restrictions for the three hectare site and divided it into individual building lots which are to be sold off in phases. The total building volume is 118,050 sqm, of which 30% is supposed to be housing. The sale and marketing of the high-profile lots is currently ongoing, with continued lo-cal press coverage.

12 To directly quote from the Vivico project brochure on the Lehrter Stadtquartier (p.7), the site is: "... the unique loca-tion in the heart of the city - the hub of major traffic routes. Here local and long distance trains converge, there are fast connections to the motorways and airports, and the new Tiergarten tunnel makes it easier to travel in by car. Even the river Spree features the perfect mode of transportation with its own special watertaxis. The Lehrter Stadtquartier is the capital's central hub which is guaranteed to fulfill all mobility requirements."

11

2.3 The Redevelopment of the King's Cross & St. Pancras Station Area in London

[Note to editors: Go to http://www.kingscrosscentral.com/gallery for an extensive picture gallery for King’s Cross Cen-tral, several of which are available in high resolution downloads, with a built-in copyright accept button. My two favor-ites are is the ones listed with captions below, see http://www.kingscrosscentral.com/im.php?id=102&name=King%27s%20Cross%20Central%20illustrative%20build-out and http://www.kingscrosscentral.com/image.php?id=131&name=Granary%20Square, but there are others, in case these ones do not turn out well in black and white. Note that the renderings are by different authors, so you have to look up each individual name for the copyright, in addition to King‘s Cross Limited Partnership (which I would in-clude, since they are the ones who put them up.]

Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 3 – King’s Cross Central Mixed-Use Development Illustrative Build-out © Miller Hare/ King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership Figure 4 - Project promoter’s digital rendering of Granary Square in the center of the King’s Cross Central Redevelopment Site - © GMJ/King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership

A city a top the global urban hierarchy of late capitalism, London has been in a perpetual

state of spatial urban restructuring for decades. Much of it was accomplished via the execution of ambitious, high-profile mega-projects, such as the redevelopment of the Docklands in the 1980s, the re-design of Paternoster Square around St. Paul's Cathedral as well as other central squares (e.g. Leicester, Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar), the expansion of the center around Liverpool Street Station (Broadgate, Spitalfields Market and Bishopsgate), the construction of the Millenium Bridge and Dome and the opening of the Tate Modern Gallery, to name but a few recent ones (Bodenschatz 2005). Urban planning approaches have recently evolved from a deregulated approach in the Thatcher era to an increasingly urban design-conscious approach in the late 1980s, to a first upswing in public sector led-initiatives before the millennium and eventually to an increasing emphasis on urban re-centralization and a return to strategic planning during the Blair era. This also involved the creation of the Greater London Authority and the election of Ken Livingston as Mayor of London in 2000, as well as the publication of the London Plan in 2004. Moreover, the national UK New La-bour government began propagating a national “Urban Renaissance” agenda in the late 1990s (Bodenschatz 2006, Colomb 2007).

12

King's Cross and St. Pancras: The Transport Infrastructure Mega-Project In 1996, after many years of controversy and uncertainty, the government made the crucial

decision to change the Eurostar high-speed rail terminus from Waterloo Station to St. Pancras and bring the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) into the station at high grade. The CTRL was always explicitly expected to generate significant regenerations benefits in the area around the stations, most notably around St. Pancras/King’s Cross in inner-city London, but also along the so-called Thames Gateway at Stratford (the site for the 2012 London Olympics) and Ebbsfleet. The Eurostar’s arrival at St. Pancras brought about a multi-million dollar refurbishment of the station. Meanwhile, London Underground is undertaking a major upgrading of its tube links at King's Cross/St Pancras, the busiest link in the London tube network, while the Department of Transport, together with Net-work Rail, agreed to carry out major improvements to King's Cross Station, including the addition of a new platform, the construction of a completely new Western concourse three times the current size, replacement of the old Southern concourse with a piazza area.

King's Cross Central: The (Main) Urban Redevelopment Mega-Project The local authority of Camden has wanted to 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 site in the mid-1980s which ambitiously limited office development in favor of a relatively low-density mixed development (Fainstein 2001:119). But the land was then controlled by the still publicly-owned British Rail and the privatized National Freight Consortium, and BR instead cham-pioned a proposal favoring over 6 million sqf of office space. A local community group opposing the plans, the (King's Cross) Railway Lands Group, was initiated around that time which remains active until today. The proposal fell apart in the early 1990s, and the redevelopment of the site was later made impossible for many years because of the Channel link-related infrastructure works tak-ing place on the site. But anticipating the timely completion of the CTRL link into St. Pancras by late 2007, the local boroughs of Camden and Islington issued a comprehensive, 95-page planning and development brief for the King's Cross Opportunity Area, detailing their mixed-use, “urban ren-aissance”-oriented development preferences for the site in 2004. Already in 2000, the development team Argent St. George had been selected as the preferred developer for the central portion of the site. Together with the site's new owners, London Continental Railroad and the logistics firm Excel, Argent St George presented a detailed regeneration plan for a 67 acre redevelopment scheme in 2004 which included 8 million of mixed-uses including 5 million sqf office space, 495,000 sqf re-tail, up to 2000 new homes, 20 new streets and multiple public spaces. The plans are awaiting im-plementation now that the new Eurostar link is fully operational and the site finally available for redevelopment.

13

2.4 The Redevelopment of Penn/Moynihan Station in Midtown Manhattan

Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 5 - The Farley Post Office Building – the future Moynihan Station © Annie Nyborg http://www.flickr.com/photos/masnyc/345539757/sizes/l/ Figure 6 - At one point, the complex multi-billion dollar urban redevelopment scheme even included plans for a reloca-tion of Madison Square Garden © The New York Times

Like London, New York is a first-rate global city (Sassen 1991; Fainstein 2001). The common,

critical urbanist narrative is that New York exemplifies local planning and governance’s function as a facilitator of neoliberal globalization by subsidizing business, displacing the urban poor, disman-tling the local welfare state, and replacing long-term planning aimed at the public good for the bene-fit of short-term economic benefits for the city’s business elites (e.g. Sites 2003; Hackworth 2007). However, under the current administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg the city is witnessing a return of comprehensive planning involving a heightened attention to strategic, long-term visions that explicitly address public interest goals. There is a recent proliferation of mega-projects of al-most unprecedented scale and ambition. Commonly carried out in the name of economic progress, these projects include office, commercial, and housing developments but also involve efforts to im-prove the city’s transport infrastructure, expand or enhance public space, or contribute in other ways to the city’s attractiveness as a place to visit, live or work. Apart from Penn/Moynihan Station, sev-eral additional rail sites play a prominent role in the city's recent renewal and restructuring efforts, particularly the Hudson Yards in Manhattan, the Atlantic Yards Terminal in central Brooklyn and of course the rail hub at Ground Zero. These redevelopment projects exemplify New York’s shifting development patterns and practices towards “big, long-term visions” (former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, quoted in Fainstein 2005: 1). All projects have also attracted considerable opposition, however, and are criticized for replicating many of the qualities that turned people against urban renewal in the 1960s and 1970s (Fainstein 2005:2).

14

Penn/Moynihan Station: The Transport Infrastructure Mega-Project The transport infrastructure and urban redevelopment elements were tightly interwoven in this

case, and unlike in the Berlin and London cases, the station building has not been (re-)constructed yet. The original, 1911 Pennsylvania Station was demolished in 1964 to make room for Madison Square Garden which still sits above the tracks. Despite million dollar renovations carried out in the 1990s, Penn Station remains a badly lit, low-ceilinged underground maze of tunnels and corridors, sharply contrasting with the adjacent Farley Post Office, whose historic facade is reminiscent of the old Penn Station. Meanwhile, Penn Station serves up to 550,000 passengers a day (compared to 140,000 at Grand Central Station), making it by far the busiest train station in all of North Amer-ica.13 The station is home to intercity rail services operated by Amtrak along the busy Northeast Corridor, to commuter rail services operated by New Jersey Transit and Long Island Rail Road as well as six different subway lines. Current plans to expand capacity as well as improve the effi-ciency and aesthetic of Penn Station include the following elements (also see RPA 2008): - Moynihan West: relocation of Amtrak services to the eastern end of the Farley Post Office - Moynihan East: a billion-dollar rehabilitation of the station under MSQ, including grand new

entrances - Moynihan North: new multi-billion dollar construction of a new NJ Transit terminus for the new

Hudson river tunnel (ARC) arriving at 34th street. This tunnel mega-project would double the number of trains coming into midtown from the West. The terminus is to have an underground pedestrian connection to Moynihan East.

- Moynihan South: a multi-billion dollar construction of three new platforms and five new tracks under the block south of Penn Station (Block 780).

- Relocation of 100,000 sqf of railroad backhouse operations off-site to increase circulation space

Penn/Moynihan Station: The Urban Redevelopment Mega-Project Penn Station is located in the heart of bustling, densely built-up Midtown Manhattan, between

7th and 8th Avenue and 31st to 33rd Street. Redevelopment plans received a first major impetus in 1993 when long-time NY State Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced a concept to build a new Penn Station inside the structure of the historic Farley Post Office building one block west. Initial plans failed, but in 2005 the Hudson Yards rezoning was passed, creating a transit improve-ment bonus of up to 2.4 million sqf in addition to already existing air rights, designed to further in-centivize development. That same year, the state selected Vornado Realty Trust and Related Com-panies to develop a new Moynihan Station at Farley. The details of the plans underwent several changes since, once topping a total cost of 3.2 billion dollars. In 2007, the Empire State Develop-ment Corporation purchased the Farley building for 230 million USD from the US Postal Service and released a scoping document to initiate public review of an expanded project calling for a com-plex scheme involving two new station buildings. The entire re-zoning and redevelopment scheme allowed for more than 5 million sqf of additional space, primarily for retail.14 Due to a financial shortfall of more than 1 billion dollars, no agreement could be reached on the most ambitious ver-sion of the redevelopment, which would have included a relocation of Madison Square Garden to the West. These plans have since been toppled, and MSQ will be refurbished rather than relocated.

13 Data in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Station_(New_York_City), accessed 3 March 2008. 14 Key data was taken from the ESDC fact sheet. The sheet and the detailed Draft Scope of Work for the scheme are both available at http://www.empire.state.ny.us/moynihanstation/default.asp.

15

3 So what kinds of ‘Urban Renaissances’ are we talking about?

The brief descriptions of the three case studies above obviously did not do justice to the

complexities of the individual cases. They were merely designed to underscore the magnitude of the projects, the high stakes involved, and the great interest these locales have generated among leading politicians, planners, developers, and other stakeholders. This concluding section discusses the cases in comparative perspective, highlighting some of the common threads and key differences.

First off, the high-profile redevelopment of central rail stations and their surrounding areas in major cities on both sides of the Atlantic underlines the reinvigorated significance of rail-based in-frastructures in the postmodern, postindustrial, postfordist urban-regional fabric. Whereas modernist urbanism was strongly tied to a vision of a functionally segregated, car-oriented city, the emerging postmodern urbanism of the 21st century is strongly linked to a vision of multi-nodal, polycentric urban regions featuring vibrant, attractive, walkable cores where commercial, residential and leisure uses are not separated but mixed. The three projects all exemplify the new consensus which is emerging among transport experts, urban planners, and many political decision-makers that in order to be sustainable, efficient and successful in the future, cities and their surrounding regions need to be structured around high-capacity public transit networks, and that transport and land-use planning must be better integrated. Several decades of large-scale investments into high-speed rail networks have already begun to alter both inter- and intra-urban connectivity in Europe. Thanks to the 8 bil-lion dollars in high-speed rail funding inserted into the Federal stimulus package in February 2009, this policy debate now also received an enormous boost in the US. Meanwhile, the rise of a transit-oriented “New Urbanism” agenda in North America (Calthorpe and Fulton 2001, Cervero 2004, Dittmar and Ohland 2003, Dunphy et al 2005, Dutton 2000) and the corresponding “Urban Renais-sance” discourse in Europe, and especially in Great Britain (Bodenschatz 2005, Bodenschatz 2006, Colomb 2007) provides decision-makers with a strong additional normative policy momentum in favor of integrated, rail-based transport and land use development, and hence also a strong impetus for rail station area redevelopment. In Britain, the 1999 Urban Task Force Report ‘Towards an Ur-ban Renaissance’ triggered an extensive debate over government-sponsored urban regeneration, but also over unequally distributed benefits and social consequences of gentrification (Imrie and Raco 2003). Many recent international case studies confirm that urban renaissance initiatives often ex-clude or displace vulnerable residents (Porter and Shaw 2008, Punter 2009). Edwards (2009:23) makes this point with specific reference to King’s Cross:

The composition of the [King’s Cross Central redevelopment] scheme, particularly its limited provision of affordable social housing to rent and its strong provision of corporate office space, has been the main source of conflict. … Regeneration is not seen as primarily a process serving the low- and middle-income people in whose name regeneration policy was developed: rather it is seen … as essentially a business activity aimed

at growth and competitiveness.

This certainly also rings true in New York and Berlin, although inner-city housing has re-

mained comparatively affordable in Berlin, so there is less public outrage over the prospect that moderately priced, subsidized housing might play a relatively minor role in the redevelopment schemes at the prime locations near the station.

Meanwhile, the physical renaissance of grandiose railway buildings unquestionably carries strong symbolic meaning. The 20th century automobile age is over. Today, ‘Peak Oil’ threatens to affect future air and car travel. In this context, inner-city railway stations shed their grimy image and re-make themselves into glitzy high-speed travel hubs. They once again become a preferred locus for representative ‘public’ architecture, be it via the extensive remodeling of existing architectural

16

gems (St. Pancras), the new construction of expensive glass palaces (Berlin Hauptbahnhof), or com-plex re-building efforts (Moynihan Station). In all cases, however, critics complain about the overly sanitized and highly commercialized atmosphere in the new stations. Upon entering Berlin Haupt-bahnhof, for example, visitors are essentially forced into a multi-story mall whose internal layout optimizes pedestrian throughput past shops.

Interestingly, with a few exceptions (Euralille probably being the most important one), rail station sites’ attractiveness as new locations for businesses, leisure/entertainment and/or residential uses is still much more dependent on their local and regional connectivity than on long-distance connections. For example, Penn Station’s attractiveness as a redevelopment site has comparatively little to do with Amtrak’s long-distance Acela service, but everything with its function as the most important transit hub in the entire metro region. Conversely, the fact that the Berlin Hauptbahnhof is still relatively disconnected from the rest of the city and its dense local transit system partially ex-plains why the redevelopment of the area is still lagging. By the late 1990s, it became increasingly clear that the city was not growing as originally predicted. The office and retail market was becom-ing overbuilt, demand was limited, so planners and politicians gave priority to other large-scale re-development initiatives, especially around the Alexanderplatz transit hub and along the Spree water-front in the East. In New York, efforts to redevelop Penn Station are currently competing with the gigantic Hudson Yards redevelopment giga-project immediately to the West, the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, and the rebuilding of Ground Zero. And the experience of King’s Cross in London in the early 1990s, when the first major redevelopment scheme fell apart, further under-scores the volatility of these mega-projects to the whims of globally-connected local economies and real estate markets.

Railway mega-projects have doubtlessly emerged as crucial loci for trans-scalar urban-regional policy making. An important aspect for future comparative study is different actors’ ability to shape/impact the overall project set-up and outcomes. Apart from planners and politicians, this particularly concerns the roles of transportation agencies/authorities, privatized railway companies, and private developers. On the surface, the presented cases seem indicative of a ‘roll-out neoliberal-ism’ (Peck and Tickell 2002) in which the pursuit of various public interest goals (such as the provi-sion of a safe and efficient transportation system or the creation of representative public spaces in the urban core) is handed over to private/privatized, profit-seeking actors. But it is also crucial to reiterate the simple fact that railway stations and their pertaining infrastructures are gigantic public works projects dependent on hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in support from federal and state governments (including so-called budget neutral expenses such as precious air develop-ment rights). There is thus an inherent obligation on the part of public officials and public servants to maximize the tangible public benefits of these projects. The trickiness is that these benefits are both hard to quantify in numbers as well as unevenly distributed across space and time. How does one quantify the symbolic value of a ‘reborn’ or newly built railway station full of architectural splendor? These new-old ‘cathedrals of mobility’ certainly inspire civic pride and quickly become sites of interest visitors and locals alike. But admiration and awe alone hardly trigger persistent changes in people’s mobility patterns, so unless these redevelopment efforts are coupled with indi-vidually 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 of ‘starchitecture’. And in densely populated, widely transit-accessible city-regions such as New York, London or Berlin, there are definite oppor-tunity costs to concentrating billions of dollars worth of both public and private funds at such select privileged nodes. Sustainable transport activists therefore typically argue that the ‘renaissance’ and livability of the city as a whole would receive a bigger boost if funds were instead applied towards improving local bus, tram, bicycle or pedestrian infrastructures as well as regional rail services. The

17

case of Berlin also dramatically illustrates that unless the rail station itself is properly intermodally integrated with the rest of the transit system, ‘rail station proximity’ does not necessarily equal ‘good (local) accessibility’. Both in Berlin and London, due to the sites’ vast expanses and complex terrains, the stations themselves are not necessarily in convenient walking distance to all sections of the redevelopment areas. So in the end, inner-city railway station area redevelopment initiatives evoke ambivalent reactions among critical urbanists. They do indeed harbor much potential to serve as new flagship developments for a new visionary future, but as always, the devil lies in the details. To date, much of their positive potential remains contested or unrealized.

References

Albrechts, Louis, Patsy Healey, and Klaus Kunzmann. 2003. “Strategic Spatial Planning and Re-gional Governance in Europe.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69(2): 113-129.

Altshuler, Alan and David Luberoff. 2003. Mega-projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Brookings Institution Press: Washington D.C.

Amin, Ash, ed. 1994. Post-Fordism. London: Blackwell Publishers. Atkinson, Rowland. 2003. “Domestication by Cappuccino or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control

and Empowerment in the Management of Public Spaces.” Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 9: 1829-1843.

Banister, David, John Pucher, and Martin Lee-Gosselin. 2007. "Making Sustainable Transport Po-litically and Publicly Acceptable: Lessons from the EU, USA and Canada." In Institutions and Sustainable Transport: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Economies, ed. Rietveld, P. and R. Stough, 17-50. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bartkowiak, Jost 2004. Stadtzentren im Umbruch. Zur Revitalisierung von Großstadtzentren, deren Bedeutung für Stadtökonomie, Städtebau und Stadtgesellschaft. Am Beispiel zentralstädtischer Bahnhofsareale. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Batten, David 1995. "Network Cities: Creative Agglomerations for the 21st Century." 32: 313-327. Benz, Arthur. 1997. "Kooperativer Staat? Gesellschaftliche Gesellschaftliche Einflußnahme auf

staatliche Steuerung." In Politische Beteiligung und Bürgerengagement in Deutschland, ed. Ansgar Klein and Rainer Schmalz-Bruns, 88-113. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Bertolini, Luca. 1996. "Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Redevelopment." Euro-pean Planning Studies 4: 331-345.

Bertolini, Luca. 1998. "Station area redevelopment in five European countries. An international per-spective on a complex planning challenge." International Planning Studies 3(2): 163-184.

Bertolini, Luca. 2008. "Station Areas as nodes and places in urban networks: An analytical tool and alternative development strategies." In Railway Development: Impacts on Urban Dynamics, ed. Frank Bruinsma, Eric Pels, Hugo Priemus, Piet Rietveld and Bert van Wee, 35-57. Hei-delberg, Physica Verlag.

Bertolini, Luca and Tejo Spit. 1996. Cities on Rails: The Redevelopment of Railway Station Areas. London/New York, Spon Press.

Bianchini, Franco et al. 1992. "Flagship Projects in Urban Regeneration." In Rebuilding the city – property-led urban regeneration, ed. Patsy Healy et al, 245-255. London.

Bodenschatz, Harald. 2000. "New Urbanism. Die Neuerfindung der amerikanischen Stadt." StadtBauwelt 145:22-31.

18

Bodenschatz, Harald., ed. 2005. Renaissance der Mitte. Zentrumsumbau in London und Berlin. Berlin: Verlagshaus Braun.

Bodenschatz, Harald. 2006. "Vorbild England: Urban Renaissance. Zentrumsumbau in Manchester." Die alte Stadt 1/2006.

Brenner, Neil. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.

Brenner, Neil and Nik Theodore. 2002. "Preface: From the "New Localism" to the Spaces of Neo-liberalism." Antipode 34(3): 341-347.

Brenner, Neil and Nik Theodore. 2002. Spaces of neoliberalism : urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Malden, Mass.: Oxford, Blackwell.

Bruinsma, Frank, Eric Pels, Hugo Priemus, Piet Rietveld and Bert van Wee, eds. 2008. Railway Development: Impacts on Urban Dynamics. Heidelberg, Physica Verlag.

Calthorpe, Peter and William Fulton. 2001. The Regional City. Planning for the End of Sprawl. New York, Island Press.

Carrière, Jean-Paul and Christophe Demazière. 2002. "Urban Planning and Flagship Development Projects: Lessons from EXPO 98, Lisbon." Planning Practice and Research, 17:1, 69–79.

Castells, Manuel 1996. The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Oxford, Blackwell Pub-lishers.

Cervero, Robert, ed. 2004. Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Chal-lenges, Prospects. Washington DC: TCRP Report 102.

Cochrane, Allan and Andrew Jonas. 1999. "Re-imagining Berlin. World City, National Capital or Ordinary Place?" In: European Urban and Regional Studies 6 (2): 145–64.

Colomb, Claire. 2007. "Unpacking New Labour’s Urban Renaissance Agenda. Towards a socially sustainable re-urbanisation of British cities?" Planning Practice & Research 22:1, 1-24

Dangschat, Jens. 1992. "Konzeption, Realität und Funktion ‚neuer Standortpolitik’ - am Beispiel des ‚Unternehmens Hamburg’." In Politik in europäischen Städten, ed. Hubert Heinelt and Margit Mayer, 29-48. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.

Demazière, Christophe et al. 1998. "Le grand projet emblématique, réponse des métropoles à la globalisation. Le cas de Bilbao." Espace et Societés, 95:147-160.

Denters, Bas and Karen Mossberger. 2006. "Building Blocks for a Methodology for Comparative Urban Political Research." Urban Affairs Review 41(4): 550-571.

Dittmar, Hank and Gloria Ohland, eds. 2003. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Chicago, Island Press.

Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom. 2004. Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century. Lawrence, University Press of Kansas.

Dunphy, Robert, Robert Cervero, Fred Dock, Maureen McAvey, and Douglas Porter. 2005. Devel-opment Around Transit. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Dutton, John. 2000. New American urbanism: re-forming the suburban metropolis. New York, Abbeville Publications Group.

Dziomba, Maike. 2008 Städtebauliche Projekte der Urbanen Renaissance: Die Phase der Grund-stücksverkäufe und ihr Einfluß auf den Projekterfolg. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tech-nical University Hamburg-Harburg (renamed HafenCity University), Department of Town Planning.

Edwards, Michael. 2009 forthcoming. "King’s Cross: renaissance for whom?" In Urban Design, Urban Renaissance and British Cities, ed. John Punter. London: Routledge.

Fainstein, Susan. 2000. "The changing world economy and urban restructuring." In Readings in Ur-ban theory, Fainstein, Susan and Scott Campbell, 170-186. Malden: Blackwell.

19

Fainstein, Susan. 2001. The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London 1980-2000. Lawrence: Kansas University Press.

Fainstein, Susan. 2005. "The Return of Urban Renewal. " Harvard Design Magazine. Spring /Summer 2005: 9-14.

Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Perseus Books. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. "Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research." Qualitative

Inquiry, 12:2, 219-245.

Flyvbjerg, Bent, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. 2003. Mega-projects and Risk: An Anat-omy of Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flyvbjerg, Bent, Hugo Priemus, and Bert van Wee. 2008. Decision-Making On Mega-projects: Cost-benefit Analysis, Planning, and Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Fulton, William. 1996. The new urbanism: hope or hype for American communities? Cambridge, MA, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Graham, Stephen and Simon Marvin. 2001. Splintering Urbanism: networked infrastructures, tech-nological mobilities and the urban condition. London, Routledge.

Hackworth, Jason. 2007. The Neoliberal City: governance, ideology and development in American urbanism. Cornell University Press: Ithaca and London.

Hamedinger, Alexander, Oliver Frey, Jens Dangschat, and Andrea Breitfuss, eds. 2007. Strategieorientierte Planung im kooperativen Staat. Berlin: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Hannigan, John. 1999. Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis. London/New York: Routledge.

Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

Häußermann, Hartmut and Katja Simons. 2000. "Die Politik der großen Projekte – am Beispiel des Stadtentwicklungsgebietes Adlershof." Archiv für Kommunalwissenschaften, 1. Halbjahresband, Jg. 39.

Häußermann, Hartmut and Katja Simons. 2005. "Facing Fiscal Crisis: Urban Flagship Projects in Berlin." In: Moulaert, Frank, Arantxa Rodriguez, and Erik Swyngedouw, eds. 2005. The Globalized City. Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. New York: Oxford University Press. 107-124.

Häußermann, Hartmut and Walter Siebel, eds. 1993. Festivalisierung der Stadtpolitik. Stadtentwicklung durch große Projekte. Leviathan. Special issue 13/1993. Opladen: West-deutscher Verlag.

Healey, Patsy, Abdul Khakee, Alain Motte, and Barry Needham, eds. 1997. Making strategic spatial plans: innovation in Europe. London, UCL Press.

Heinelt, Hubert and Margit Mayer. 2001. "Lokale Politikforschung in Deutschland – Entwicklungen und Besonderheiten im internationalen Vergleich. " InEmpirische Policy- und Verwaltungsforschung: Lokale, Nationale und Internationale Perspektiven, ed. Eckhard Schröter, 63-76. Opladen: Leske+ Budrich.

Hesse, Markus. 2008. The City as a Terminal. Logistics and Freight Distribution in an Urban Con-text. Aldershot/UK: Ashgate (Habilitationsschrift).

Hoffman, Lily, Susan Fainstein, and Dennis Judd, eds. 2003. Cities and Visitors: Regulating Peo-ple, Markets, and City Space. Oxford, UK, and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Holgersen, Stale. 2007. Class conflict and planning. A case study of contemporary development at King’s Cross London. Department of Geography. Bergen, University of Bergen, Norway. (Published in 2008 under the same title with VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken)

20

Imrie, Rob and Mike Raco, eds. 2003. Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Jenks, Mike, Elizabeth Burton and Katie Williams, eds. 1996. The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? London: E & FN Spon.

Jessop, Bob. 2002. The Future of the Capitalist State. London: Polity. Jonnes, Jill. 2007. Conquering Gotham: a Gilded Age Epic – The Construction of Penn Station and

Its Tunnels. New York, Viking Press. Judd, Dennis and Susan Fainstein, eds. 1999. The Tourist City. New Haven and London: Yale Uni-

versity Press. Kantor, Paul and H.V. Savitch. 2005. "How to Study Comparative Urban Development Politics. A

Research Note" International Journal of Urban Regional Research, 29(1):135-151. Keil, Roger. 1998. Los Angeles: Globalization, Urbanization, and Social Struggles. Chichester,

U.K., John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Krätke, Stefan. 2004. " City of Talents? Berlin’s Regional Economy, Socio-spatial Fabric and

‘Worst Practice’ Urban Governance." International Journal of Urban and Regional Re-search 28 (3):511–29.

Läpple, Dieter. 2006. "Germany: A Global Cities System? In: German Cities - Success beyond Growth?" Newspaper of the Urban Age German Symposium, May 2006.

Lehrer, Ute. 2002. Image production and globalization: city-building processes at Potsdamer Platz, Berlin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Urban Planning, University of California Los An-geles.

Logan, John and Harvey Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Mayer, Margit. 1994. "Postfordist City Politics." In Post-Fordism, ed. Ash Amin, 316-337. Oxford: Blackwell.

Mayer, Margit. 2002. New Lines of Division in the New Berlin. Internet source: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~jfkpolhk/ mm/Publications/Texts/Mayer.BerlinDivisions.pdf

Molotch, Harvey 1976. "The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place." American Journal of Sociology 82: 309-332.

Moulaert, Frank, Arantxa Rodriguez, and Erik Swyngedouw, eds. 2005. The Globalized City. Eco-nomic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Paksukcharern Thammaruangsri, Khaisri. 2003. Node and Space. A study of the spatial process of railway terminus area redevelopment in central London. Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London. Ph.D. in architecture.

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. London: Sage. Peck, Jamie and Adam Tickell. 2002. “Neoliberalizing space.” Antipode 34(3): 380-404. Peters, Deike. 2009. "Digging Through the Heart of Reunified Berlin: Tracing the Story of the Tier-

garten-Tunnel Mega-project. " European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (Forthcoming special issue on large infrastructure projects).

Pierre, Jon. 1999. "Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics." Urban Affairs Review 34(3): 372-396.

Pierre, Jon. 2005. "Comparative Urban Governance: Uncovering Complex Causalities." Urban

Affairs Review. 40: 446-462. Pogrebin, Robin. 2006. "Los Angeles with a Downtown? Gehry’s Vision." The New York Times,

April 25, 2006.

21

Porter, Libby and Kate Shaw, eds. 2008. Whose Urban Renaissance? An International Comparison of Urban Regeneration Strategies. London: Routledge.

Punter, John. 2009. Urban Design, Urban Renaissance and British Cities. London: Routledge. Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method. Berkeley: University of California Press. Regional Plan Association (RPA). 2008. “A new vision for Moynihan Station.” Unpublished

briefing paper, July 2008. Roost, Frank. 2008. Branding Center - Über den Einfluss globaler Markenkonzerne auf die

Innenstädte. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Salet, Willem and Enrico Gualini, eds. 2007. Framing Strategic Urban Projects. Learning from

current experiences in European urban regions. New York: Routledge. Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The Global City. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Savitch, H. V. and Paul Kantor. 2002. Cities in the International Marketplace: The Political Econ-

omy of Urban Development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Schubert, Dirk. 2002. Hafen- und Uferzonen im Wandel. Analysen und Planungen zur Revitalisierung der Waterfront in Hafenstädten. Berlin: Leue Verlag.

Scott, Allen J. and Edward W. Soja. 1996. The City: Los Angeles 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. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

Smith, Neil 2002. "New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy." An-tipode 34(3):434-457.

Swyngedouw, Erik, Frank Moulaert, and Arantxa Rodriguez. 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)gesellschaftlicher Mikrokosmos im Wandel. Eine

"neue kulturgeographische" Analyse. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl-von-Ossietzky-Univ. (Wahrnehmungsgeographische Studien; 22), Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main) Universität: Dissertation.

View publication statsView publication stats