Acceso usuarios
Susan Fainstein
Recently we have witnessed the mounting of very large development projects (mega-projects) in European and American cities. There is a striking physical similarity among the schemes and also a convergence embodied in private-sector involvement and market orientation. They differ, however, as to whether they provide affordable units and tie together physical and social goals. This article investigates new mega-projects in New York, London, and Amsterdam. The dissimilarities among them indicate the extent of variability in contemporary property capitalism. The comparison shows that public-private partnerships can provide public benefits, but also shows that these large projects are risky for both public and private participants, must primarily be oriented toward profitability, and produce a landscape that does not encourage urbanity. Whether the gains from increased competitiveness are spread throughout the society depends on the size of the direct governmental commitment to public benefits. This is greatest in the Netherlands, where the welfare state, albeit shrunken, lives on; it is least in the United States, where the small size of national expenditures on housing and social welfare means that low-income people must depend almost wholly on trickle-down effects to gain from new development.
