MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2000986736 · doi:10.3828/tpr.77.3.5

Commentary: <i>Insights into planning in three East-Asian cities</i>

2006· article· en· W2000986736 sur OpenAlexaff
John Friedmann

Notice bibliographique

RevueTown Planning Review · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueUrban Planning and Governance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChinaBeijingLand reclamationMainland ChinaPoliticsHarbourMainlandLegislatureGeographyLegislative assemblyUrban planningPolitical sciencePublic administrationArchaeologyCivil engineeringLawEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The three essays under review provide interesting insights into planning praetiees in three East-Asian cities, two of which are capital cities (Beijing, Taipei) and one of which, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), is China's window to the world. In this brief commentary, I will focus on each city in turn, before concluding with an overall assessment of the state of planning in one of the most rapidly changing regions in Asia. Mee Kam Ng's case study is of the politics of waterfront planning in the SAR. The issue at hand is land reclamation along Hong Kong Island's northern edge facing Kowloon. Those who have visited there will remember it as a fascinating, densely built-up area, a district of spectacular architecture and great vibrancy. As a result of encroaching land uses on artificially reclaimed land, Victoria Harbour has shrunk by 60 per cent some say to the scale of a river - as this quasi city-state assumes its new role as the major financial and service centre in the South China region. Hong Kong's administrative status has allowed a more open, democratic society to evolve than is found on China's mainland. In 1995, two years before reunification, a non-governmental organization, the Society for the Protection of the Harbour Ltd, was formed to oppose further reclamation in the harbour area, and a Private Bill was introduced and passed in the Legislative Council (LegCo), further amended in 1999, that declared Victoria Harbour 'a special public asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people', concluding that, for this reason, 'there shall be a presumption against reclamation in the harbour'. When the planning bureaucracy nevertheless proceeded with plans for further landfills in the Central and VVanchai foreshore of Hong Kong Island, a law suit was brought that resulted in a clear judgment against the government, to the effect 'that reclamation cannot be justified unless it serves an overriding public need that is both compelling and present and cannot be accommodated by a reasonable alternative'. As a result, the plans for Wan Chai and other areas were sent back to the drawing board. Ng's essay relates the multi-stakeholder process that ensued, involving the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee (HEC). What would normally have been simply an engineering review of reclamation plans, looking for feasible alternatives that might require less encroachment upon the harbour while still accommodating bureaucratie priorities, turned into a drawn-out visioning process that included other 'imaginaries', with special attention to their impacts on local neighbourhoods. Alas, the HEC's powers, being only advisory, its recommendations were not mandatory upon the government. Ng concludes her study with thoughts on what she calls Hong Kong's two ruling rationalities the bureaucratic rationality of the Executive-led government and a formative rationality that 'comes from emerging political communities'. These two rationalities lead to very different visions of world-city formation. The first single mindedly pursues the goal of efficient economic growth, while the second seeks to promote livability and ecological sustainability as constraints on economic growth. Originating within civil society, the latter vision encompasses a greater variety of values than the first. Even so, the bureaucratic-corporate nexus remains dominant in Hong Kong and has so far failed to take the second rationality on board. Ng concludes her paper with the sage observation that the HEC experiment is a valuable one but still invites questions about the legitimacy and representativeness of the process and exposes the limits of communicative planning in a mode of governance with skewed power relationships. The story, of course, continues and, as stories are prone to do, may hold surprising twists and turns in the future. Chia-Huang Wang's paper presents us with a model for the study of world-city formation, using Taipci as its focus. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,052
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,104

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,041
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,010
Communication savante0,0090,006
Science ouverte0,0060,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0280,027
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,296
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTown Planning ReviewMême sujetUrban Planning and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207