Rob Krueger

Grappling with Smart City Politics in an Era of Market Triumphalism

New ‘sustainable’ urban imaginaries are increasingly taking root in cities and regions around the world. Some notable representative examples of these include: new urbanism (Calthorpe, 1993), compact urban development (Urban Task Force, 2005) and smart growth (Flint, 2006). Proponents of these approaches argue that they are ostensibly built around a new consensus between the planning organisations at various scales, private developers, environmentalists and other relevant non-governmental interests, such as affordable housing advocates. In some sense, then, it might plausibly be argued that these new urban imaginaries transcend the parochial interests that ordinarily punctuate traditional urban and regional politics. Why might this be the case? Proponents of these imaginaries would contend that it is partly due to the fact that smart growth and new urbanist developments are designed to incorporate the tripartite vision of urban sustainability—economic prosperity, ecological integrity and social equity. Moreover, these approaches not only rely on grand visions of future urban utopias; they also incorporate the rhetoric of ‘practical’ visions and plain ‘common sense’ language, in the process broadening their appeal to contemporary policy agendas across the global landscape. And yet at the same time as governments, planners, environmentalists and private interests are actively calling for these new urban development imaginaries— which can be viewed to encourage a revitalised role for more comprehensive and ‘collaborative’ planning—a discourse of market triumphalism has been continuing to sweep its way through different spatial scales of government. States—local, regional and national—seem to be rolling back their own authority and rolling out market-based approaches to urban development—what (Peck, 2004) has referred to as ‘stateauthored market fundamentalism’. Some of the most notable impacts of this neoliberal

Competitive Global City Regions and ‘Sustainable Development’: An Interpretive Institutionalist Account in the South East of England

This paper presents an argument and empirical case study to draw out additional nuance in the social construction of institutions. Adapting the conceptual work of political scientists Mark Bevir and Roderick Rhodes to recent accounts in economic geography of institutional change we present an ‘interpretative analysis’ of recent policy changes in the regulation of land use in competitive global regions in London and the South East, UK. The paper examines the appeal to tradition, the construction of policy dilemmas, and the affect these have on what we think of as neoliberal policy reform.

Relocating regulation in Montana's gold mining industry

In this paper I seek to make a preliminary link between the discursive representation of the ‘environment’ and the regulation of economic activity. The contemporary Montana gold mining industry belies accounts that economic regulation can be situated purely in concepts of structures and institutions. In the 1990s, the Montana gold mining industry was fundamentally transformed in the absence of concomitant changes in the economic structure of the industry or in the institutions of regulation. Indeed, the changes in the efficacy of the Montana gold mining economy can only be explicated by adding a discursive account of regulation. In particular, I link a regulationist account of reregulation with the post-structural sensibilities found in cultural economic geography. This analysis, which focuses on how nature is represented in the mine-permitting process, illustrates that how we perceive ‘environment’ in particular places and times can influence access to resources and their subsequent physical transformation.

Modernising sustainable development? Standardisation, evidence and experts in local indicators

Taking inspiration from the forthcoming Rio+20 Conference in Brazil, this paper reflects upon the roles of power and knowledge in developing indicators for sustainable local development. Are indicators, the evidence they privilege, and the policies that follow from them consistent with the stated goals of sustainable development? Are they merely bureaucratic tick-boxes that enable the measurement of “progress”? Or, similarly, do they represent “knowledge modernization” whereby sustainable development can be measured objectively, like GDP? We will examine three points relating to these questions: (1) the increasing standardisation and mobility of sustainable development indicators; (2) the increasing prominence and types of “evidence” that inform sustainable development policy, and (3) the role of experts in determining the parameters of sustainable development. We argue that the development and use of indicators have become a technocratic practice that serves as a buffer between the “political” and the “rational” and thus de-politicises and restricts local sustainable development agendas, despite the inherently political nature of environmental problems and values.

Organic regeneration and sustainability or can the credit crunch save our cities

The recent credit crunch has effectively halted speculator-led regeneration. Declining confidence in housing markets and worsening economic fundamentals have paralysed the supply of new projects and sent demand for housing and offices into rapid reversal. Tales emanating from the construction sector about demolishing half-built houses have started doing the rounds. The model that has driven urban renewal over the last 20 years is dead, but what are the implications for sustainability? The real political import of crisis is that it brings things which once seemed unquestionable into question. The credit crunch suddenly makes it possible to challenge dominant political narratives of market-led regeneration, which have privileged the generation of wealth for developers and investors. Far from being an abstract failure, the current financial crisis is rooted in urban materiality – the woes of sub-prime mortgages have issued forth from a (literally) bankrupt conception of cities and what they are for. While the negative effects of the credit crunch (most notably repossessions) are hitting the poorest urban inhabitants hardest, it is in cities that new ideas and visions of the future can emerge. The current crisis for capitalism opens up an opportunity to shape the future of our cities along alternative – perhaps more sustainable – lines. The following paper considers some of the contours of this challenge, outlining what we call “organic regeneration” – an alternative practice of development that has the potential to produce more sustainable places. Before beginning, it is worth situating the paper in relation to this special issue, and, indeed, the unprecedented global events that have formed the backdrop against which it was written. As discussants for the conference session from which these papers are drawn, the authors were originally invited to contribute a discussion piece around the issue of sustainable regeneration and building. Of course, this was before the “credit crunch” had become a household term, and the world has in many ways become a different place in the last 12 months. The task of putting pen to paper during such turbulent times seemed to us to demand an exploration of the wider implications, both negative and positive, for sustainability and regeneration. With this in mind, the paper has embraced the

Making ‘Smart’ Use of a Sewer in Worcester, Massachusetts: A Cautionary Note on Smart Growth as an Economic Development Policy

Abstract This paper provides a conceptual critique of ‘smart growth’, an increasingly popular urban redevelopment strategy, as an economic development policy. It seeks to do this in two ways. First, an argument is made for how the smart growth movement is linked to more broad discourses of economic development. Second, through an urban political ecology analysis, it is suggested that smart growth, through the lens of the environment, reveals an uneven distribution of benefits among people affected by smart growth developments. This is because smart growth itself is embedded in a particular historical construction of environment. To explore these issues the author focuses on the Blackstone River and Canal, the site of a new smart growth development, in New Englands third largest city of Worcester, Massachusetts. The Blackstone case presented here is exemplary in that it so clearly reflects the evolution of regional capitalist development, including the current one. Moreover, these periods, once past, are not relegated to the dustbins of history; rather they inform the next round of development. The case study below will thus reveal how these histories have, circuitously, played a role in the rationalization for the redevelopment of the canal as a smart growth project as well as elucidate the implications for the winners and losers of smart growth. The paper concludes with some thoughts on how we might, in practical terms, unlock the progressive potential of this development paradigm.

“Just” ecopreneurs: re-conceptualising green transitions and entrepreneurship

ABSTRACT Economic, environmental, and social limits of the current capitalist mode of production have led to a rethinking and reconceptualisation of economic processes and models including the role of businesses in sustainable development. While green economies and more specifically green entrepreneurs have been identified as agents of change that can challenge the mainstream and seek to induce environmental, social, and ethical transformation of society, much research has stayed within existing models of thinking predominantly rooted in technocratic approaches (e.g. ecological modernisation and more recently transition studies). This paper seeks to offer an alternative understanding of green entrepreneurship that breaks open these discussions using an environmental justice frame that focuses on the role of extra-economic discourses in shaping the social relations of economic systems. By drawing on an exemplary case study of “just” entrepreneurship from Boston, Massachusetts, USA, the paper seeks to start a conversation around the ideas of green entrepreneurship and environmental justice as vehicles to deliver potentially broader system changes and explores both conceptual and practical aspects of green development. As such, it offers (1) evidence of a just green economy that can be realised within existing capitalist structures as well as (2) a different conceptual entry point to understanding green entrepreneurship.

Sustainability Transitions and the Problem of Governance

There remain only a few contrarians to the notion that the human-environment relationship requires signifi cant changes, that we require some sort of ‘transition’. The transition to a ‘green economy’, ‘clean tech’, ‘green urbanism’ and sustainable development represent a few of these proposals. We can readily observe transitions toward the fi rst three concepts. Many countries have promoted greening their economies through direct government investment and incentives for fi rms to adopt energy saving measures or green their supply chains. Similarly, ‘clean tech’ clusters have been promoted to imagine and develop a new generation of environmentally friendly technology. Finally, cities are following suit, or leading in some ways, greening campaigns (e.g. Beatley, 2000). Congestion charges, cleaner running publ ic t ranspor t, bicycle lanes, and green space are key areas of interest for urban planners and developers alike. The ‘green’ transition is a needed step forward, to be sure. However, it also represents some of the easiest of wins because the ‘market’ can now ‘recognize’ the value of these interventions. Sustainabil ity transitions, true sustainability transitions, are in a different category altogether. This Regional Survey examines the tension between green and sustainable in the context of governance. For many, ‘sustainability’ and ‘green’ have become synonymous. We see it differently. As we alluded to above, greening represents one form of transforming the human-environment relationship. It’s about using less electricity, which has a direct impact on a fi rm’s bottom line, or a consumer’s purse. It’s about substitution of materials, from using less toxic materials in the supply chain (sometimes) to using ‘ubiquitous’ bamboo for fl ooring rather than oak or cherry, for example. Finally, it’s about urban regeneration through green retrofi ts, densifi cation, and building more bike paths and creating green spaces. Greening is a line of products from an LED light above your oven to a 75m2 uber designed, energy effi cient fl at in the transition neighbourhood of Zurich West. While these are ‘green’ they are not sustainable in the Brundtland sense. Brundtland, and the policy processes and proscriptions that followed in its name, require that we consider a tripartite set of concerns: economic prosperity, ecological integrity, and social equity. Green might capture two of the three. It almost certainly leaves out the social equity piece. Governance is a process where various stakeholders come together to accomplish a goal. However, governance is also about power, and who has it. It determines who qualifi es as a stakeholder and how they can represent themselves. Governance defi nes who makes the fi nal decision. It also determines the offi cial account of the issue it was trying to resolve. With these factors in mind, one can imagine how the social equity piece might get left out of the concept of ‘greening’. Yet, how do greening and sustainability become synonymous? One way is through governance. Greening is good for an economic activity, but sometimes, especial ly in the case of local and regional development, sustainability is better. As many people have pointed out: who can be against sustainability? Governance is the complex and power-laden process through which these issues are adjudicated. Governance can make what is ‘green’ appear ‘sustainable’. Explicit sustainability transitions research, as van den Bergh and Bruinsma state, “shifts the attention from a vague end goal to stimulating transition processes as a more concrete step” (2008). The main idea in this sense is “that a system-wide approach is needed, which takes into account sector interactions as well as the complex relations between the technologies, inst itut ions and behaviour of fi rms and consumers” (van den Bergh and Bruinsma, 2008). In this vein, for example, Truffer and Coenen (2012) examine the regional dimension of the sustainability transitions mapping out the contours of a geography of transitions.