The future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarking
What this paper is trying to highlight is how City-Regions are being actively constructed (Harrison, 2012), where they are being mobilised in support of, or in opposition to, particular territorial development models and strategies. Hence, this paper contributes to debates about the meaning and the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Conference item |
| Published: |
2013
|
| _version_ | 1797084282663993344 |
|---|---|
| author | Calzada, I |
| author_facet | Calzada, I |
| author_sort | Calzada, I |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | What this paper is trying to highlight is how City-Regions are being actively constructed (Harrison, 2012), where they are being mobilised in support of, or in opposition to, particular territorial development models and strategies. Hence, this paper contributes to debates about the meaning and the understanding of the dynamics of actively constructed term of the “City-Region”, by proposing an Analytical Systemic Framework after reviewing the literature of the main key authors. The Analytical Systemic Framework called “The Future of the City-Regions” (FCR) consists of 5-Systems: URBS (Urban System), CYBER (Relational System), CIVITAS (Socio-Cultural System), POLIS (Socio-Political System) and DEMOS (Democratic System). It discusses: What does the term “City-Region” mean? Does it ”capture some of the most distinctive aspects of contemporary global urbanisation, and certainly some of the most pressing challenges and contradictions of urban life in the twenty-first century” (Robinson, 2013)? How can City-Region’s past experiences be evaluated? Is City-Region a relevant term in order to locate it in the comparative urban political economy’s challenges? How can urban regional evidence be identified in an Analytical 5-System Framework (hereinafter FCR is used as an abbreviation of Future of City-Regions)? Can we talk about just one model of City-Region? How can we develop a robust theoretical diagnosis Framework (FCR)? And as a consequence, can we look into comparative facts and evidence about particular territorial development strategies (hereinafter CTB is used as an abbreviation of Comparative Territorial Benchmarking) within the results of the work-inprogress empirical fieldwork in the chosen case-studies, such as Basque, Dublin, Portland, Iceland, Oresund and Liverpool/Manchester? To sum up, among the cases (CTB), the paper will show some empirical evidence for such diverse territorial development models and strategies that can be analysed through the lenses of the 5-System Analytical Framework (FCR). This is a methodological attemp to organize in each case study, issues such as: new forms and expressions of territorial cooperation and conflict around questions to do with economic restructuring, new economic developments, infrastructure, the collective provision of services, governmentalised remapping’s of state space, immigration and social entrepreurship, in a whole territorial, spatial and regional entity that we can call, “City-Region”. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T01:53:17Z |
| format | Conference item |
| id | oxford-uuid:9adcc9c0-a209-4d3e-b05d-c810308d1f51 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T01:53:17Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:9adcc9c0-a209-4d3e-b05d-c810308d1f512022-03-27T00:24:20ZThe future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarkingConference itemhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794uuid:9adcc9c0-a209-4d3e-b05d-c810308d1f51Symplectic Elements at Oxford2013Calzada, IWhat this paper is trying to highlight is how City-Regions are being actively constructed (Harrison, 2012), where they are being mobilised in support of, or in opposition to, particular territorial development models and strategies. Hence, this paper contributes to debates about the meaning and the understanding of the dynamics of actively constructed term of the “City-Region”, by proposing an Analytical Systemic Framework after reviewing the literature of the main key authors. The Analytical Systemic Framework called “The Future of the City-Regions” (FCR) consists of 5-Systems: URBS (Urban System), CYBER (Relational System), CIVITAS (Socio-Cultural System), POLIS (Socio-Political System) and DEMOS (Democratic System). It discusses: What does the term “City-Region” mean? Does it ”capture some of the most distinctive aspects of contemporary global urbanisation, and certainly some of the most pressing challenges and contradictions of urban life in the twenty-first century” (Robinson, 2013)? How can City-Region’s past experiences be evaluated? Is City-Region a relevant term in order to locate it in the comparative urban political economy’s challenges? How can urban regional evidence be identified in an Analytical 5-System Framework (hereinafter FCR is used as an abbreviation of Future of City-Regions)? Can we talk about just one model of City-Region? How can we develop a robust theoretical diagnosis Framework (FCR)? And as a consequence, can we look into comparative facts and evidence about particular territorial development strategies (hereinafter CTB is used as an abbreviation of Comparative Territorial Benchmarking) within the results of the work-inprogress empirical fieldwork in the chosen case-studies, such as Basque, Dublin, Portland, Iceland, Oresund and Liverpool/Manchester? To sum up, among the cases (CTB), the paper will show some empirical evidence for such diverse territorial development models and strategies that can be analysed through the lenses of the 5-System Analytical Framework (FCR). This is a methodological attemp to organize in each case study, issues such as: new forms and expressions of territorial cooperation and conflict around questions to do with economic restructuring, new economic developments, infrastructure, the collective provision of services, governmentalised remapping’s of state space, immigration and social entrepreurship, in a whole territorial, spatial and regional entity that we can call, “City-Region”. |
| spellingShingle | Calzada, I The future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarking |
| title | The future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarking |
| title_full | The future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarking |
| title_fullStr | The future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarking |
| title_full_unstemmed | The future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarking |
| title_short | The future of city-regions: Comparative territorial benchmarking |
| title_sort | future of city regions comparative territorial benchmarking |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT calzadai thefutureofcityregionscomparativeterritorialbenchmarking AT calzadai futureofcityregionscomparativeterritorialbenchmarking |