Suchergebnisse

The redefinition of the single-family house, the urban landscape, and the American Dream. Sitting squarely at the center of the American Dream, the detached single-family home has long been the basic building block of most US cities. In Remaking the American Dream, Vinit Mukhija considers how this is changing, in both the American psyche and the urban landscape. In defiance of long-held norms and standards, single-family housing is slowly but significantly transforming through incremental additions of second and third units. Drawing on empirical evidence of informal and formal changes, Remaking the American Dream documents homeowners' quiet unpermitted modifications, conversions, and workarounds, as well as gradual institutional alterations to once-rigid local land-use regulations. Mukhija's primary case study is Los Angeles and the role played by the State of California—findings he contrasts with the experience of other cities including Santa Cruz, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and Vancouver. In each instance, he shows how, and asks why, homeowners are adapting their homes and governments are changing the rules that regulate single-family housing to allow for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or second units. Key to Mukhija's research is the question of why the idea of single-family living is changing and what this means for the future of US cities. The answer, this book suggests, heralds nothing less than a redefinition of American urbanism—and the American Dream.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Preface -- List of Abbreviations -- Currency Exchange Rates -- Dedication -- 1 Introduction: A New Strategy in Mumbai -- The Puzzles of Slum Redevelopment -- Placing the Research in the Context of the Literature -- Self-help and Enabling the Communities -- Slum Upgrading Programs -- Enabling the Markets -- A Preview of the Arguments -- The Logic of Redevelopment -- Property Rights, Property Values and Property Attributes -- The Paradox of Enabling -- Study Methodology -- The Dense Data Case Study Approach -- A Single Case, Informed by Other Cases -- Data Sources -- Fieldwork -- Limitations of the Study -- The Structure of the Book -- 2 The Evolution of the Slum Redevelopment Strategy -- Introduction -- The Mumbai Context -- The Evolution of Mumbai' s Redevelopment Strategy -- Urban Politics -- Property Values and Land Differentials -- Regulating the Development Potential of Land 3 -- The Need for Regulation -- 3 Decentralized Conflict -- Introduction -- Literature Review -- Dharavi Redevelopment Plan: Contested Intentions -- Prime Minister's Grant Project (PMGP) -- Redevelopment Plan for Dharavi -- SPARC's Census and Alternative Proposal -- PMGP and SPARC: The Battle over Markandeya -- Government's Response to SP ARC's Plan -- Compromise but Further Conflict -- Conflicts over Project Finance -- Local NGO, Global Connections -- Conflicts between SPARC and the Private Contractor -- The Informal Cross-subsidy Scheme -- Reluctance to Mortgage Land -- Irregularities in the Sale of Extra Units -- Taking Advantage of the Development Potential of Land -- More Policy Changes, More Profit -- Uncivil Society: Distrust between SPARC and the Community -- Suspicion of the Managing Committee -- Ten Years for New Houses.

The focus of this essay is success in collective action. It is based on a critical review and synthesis of the literature on collective action and property rights. I make three key arguments in the essay. First, contrary to the narrow conventional wisdom, self‐interested behavior can lead to successful collective action in both commonly managed resources and open‐access situations. The literature documents and explains a number of examples of success. Second, and nonetheless, collective action can be problematic and may require institutional responses, but privatization is not a panacea. Paradoxically, privatism can be a key source of the problems in collective action. And third, since the conventionally postulated, simple one‐to‐one relationship between a private property rights regime and an efficient outcome is not true, and given planners' institutional interests, they should take a leading role in publicly advocating the potential viability of common property and collective action. Another important   objective   of   the   essay   is   to   introduce   to   the   readers   a   vast   body   of   non‐traditional   literature   that   has   relevance   for   urban   studies   and   planning   practice. I include the literature on private property rights, 'the tragedy of the commons', 'the inverse commons', 'the comedy of the commons', and 'the tragedy of the anticommons'.Cet essai s'intéresse au succès de l'action collective. Il s'appuie sur une critique et une synthèse des références sur l'action collective et les droits de propriété. Trois arguments sont exposés. D'abord, a contrario d'un avis étroit et conventionnel, l'intérêt personnel peut conduire à une action collective réussie tant pour des ressources gérées en commun que pour des situations en accès libre; des documents retracent et expliquent bon nombre de cas de succès. Ensuite, et néanmoins, une action collective peut poser problème et exiger des réponses institutionnelles, quoique la privatisation ne soit pas la panacée; paradoxalement, le 'privatisme' peut se révéler une source essentielle de difficultés en cas d'action collective. Enfin, comme le principe classique de relation simple, un pour un, entre un régime de droits de propriété privée et un résultat efficace n'est pas vérifié, et compte tenu des intérêts institutionnels des urbanistes, ceux‐ci devraient prendre un rôle moteur en défendant publiquement la viabilité de la propriété commune et de l'action collective. L'essai a comme autre objectif important de présenter aux lecteurs un vaste corpus de textes non traditionnels pertinent pour les études urbaines et la pratique de l'urbanisme. La conclusion inclut des références sur les droits de la propriété privée, 'la tragédie des biens communs', 'les communs inversés', 'la comédie des communs' et 'la tragédie des anti‐communs'.

Abstract'Colonias' in the United States are a relatively recent phenomenon for planning practitioners and scholars. Most of the focus of policy and literature has been on the unregulated, substandard settlements in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Past studies of colonias in the three states have criticized policy efficacy and questioned whether colonias are appropriately or adequately defined. Our objective in this essay is complementary. We draw from the literature, and our research in California, to explain and share our concerns with the policy practice of naming settlements with poor infrastructure and living conditions as colonias, a Spanish‐language name. We argue that the name can be misleading, prejudiced and risks being detrimental. We discuss our misgivings about federal public policy using a non‐English title for labeling substandard settlements, and suggest that scholars and policymakers need to revisit the terminology.RésuméLes colonias constituent un phénomène relativement récent aux Etats‐Unis pour les acteurs et chercheurs en aménagement. La plupart des politiques et publications se sont intéressées aux implantations sauvages de qualité déplorable apparues au Texas, au Nouveau Mexique et en Arizona. Les études existantes sur les colonias de ces trois Etats ont remis en cause l'efficacité de la politique publique et la pertinence de la définition donnée au terme colonias. Cet essai vise à les compléter. A partir des publications et de nos recherches en Californie, il explique et expose notre inquiétude de voir la pratique politique désigner par colonias, un nom espagnol, des implantations aux infrastructures et conditions de vie médiocres. A notre avis, cette appellation peut être trompeuse, porteuse de préjugés et potentiellement néfaste. L'article soumet nos interrogations vis‐à‐vis d'une politique publique fédérale qui emploie une désignation en langue étrangère pour cataloguer des implantations d'habitats de qualité inférieure, et invite chercheurs et décideurs politiques à revisiter cette terminologie.

Most local governments' off-street parking requirements promote quantity over quality, focusing on ensuring an ample supply of parking. This has undesirable consequences for the built environment. Parking lots and parking structures routinely overwhelm the architecture and urban design of even the best buildings and neighborhoods. We argue that planners should worry less about the quantity of parking, and pay more attention to its quality. Through examples of zoning reforms adopted by some cities, we show how regulating the quality of parking has the potential to improve urban design.