"新常态"下城市更新治理模式比较与转型路径

城市更新是将来城市建设和发展的重要模式,新常态的到来,使我国的经济从飞速发展变成稳中求进,这就导致现在的城市更新治理模式已经无法满足城市发展的需要.本篇文章分析了新常态下城市更新治理模式比较及出席的问题,并提出了相关的转型路径,希望能够使城市在新常态背景下得到更好的发展.     

城市更新,探索城市未来发展新契机

正随着城市更新大规模、规范化铺开,城市更新已成为一种新常态。政府如何规划及推进持续增长的运营思路,地产开发企业、投融资机构、商业运营、规划设计等机构如何从存量开发中获得新的增长点或高附加值的投资回报,对于其中多方的参与主体,城市更新这个课题仍需不断探索。     

积极探索城市更新与基层治理新路径

重庆市政府工作报告提出,要实施城市更新行动.中央有部署、市委有安排、两江有行动.两江新区完整、准确、全面贯彻新发展理念,探寻城市治理与城市更新可持续发展的规律,坚持把人民群众宜居安居放在首位,积极探索城市更新与基层治理新路径,真正实现城市高质量发展,服务好全市城市发展大局,努力成为重庆彰显山水之城、美丽之地的示范窗口.     

烟台：打造城市更新的“新样板”

<正>党的二十大提出，实施城市更新行动，加强城市基础设施建设，打造宜居、韧性、智慧城市。近年来，山东省烟台市抢抓全国城市更新试点机遇，因地制宜探索城市更新体制机制、实施模式、支持政策，统筹实施民生福祉改善、产业优化升级、文化保护利用、城市功能提升、生态绿色发展、低碳智慧赋能“六项行动”，各项工作取得明显成效。     

新马克思主义视角下我国治理型城市更新模式——空间利益主体角色及合作伙伴关系重构

新常态背景下城市发展模式已由增量拓展向存量提升转变。注重于内涵提升的城市更新实践将成为我国未来一段时期内城市空间提质增效的"新常态"。当前,城市更新过程中不同空间利益主体间的矛盾已成为突出问题。文章借助于新马克思主义理论,解析了空间利益主体参与城市更新过程的逻辑本质与诉求,提出以空间利益主体角色及合作伙伴关系重构为特征的治理型城市更新模式,强调在达成政府、资本、社区城市更新社会共识的框架内,通过有效的制度路径协调各方空间利益与权利,以实现均享城市更新空间增值收益的目标。     

人本规划视角下城市更新制度设计的解析及优化

在新常态下,城市更新日益成为我国城市发展的重要内容,而制度设计是保障更新可持续发展的关键。目前,人本理念在城市更新制度设计层面的体现还较弱,难以满足建设和谐社会的需求。鉴于此,文章以更新实践走在全国前列的深圳为例,在解读人本规划内涵的基础上,通过回顾和梳理,总结了当前深圳城市更新制度设计中存在的不足,并从政府角色、公众参与和调控手段三个方面对现行城市更新制度设计提出优化建议,希望能为深圳更新制度的完善和国内其他城市更新制度的制定提供一种更加人性化的思路。     

城市更新市场化的突破与局限——基于交易成本的视角

存量土地优化利用是"新常态"语境下城乡规划变革的重要路径。部分先行地区通过制度创新,建立了"积极不干预,充分市场化"的城市更新制度以及相应的利益分配机制。但由于城市更新的产权交易具有纵向"双边垄断"及横向"碎化产权"特点,交易成本过高导致"市场失灵"。单一向度的"社区统治"未能协调冲突,政府缺位下依赖市场难以应对城市更新困局。城市更新应在起步阶段完善制度供给、采取多元化政府干预手段,并逐步培育社区参与意识、创新社区治理模式,实现社会福利的最大化与公平分享。     

落实新发展理念,高质量推进城市更新

城市更新是新时代城市工作贯彻新发展理念、转变发展方式、构建高质量城市发展新格局的必然抓手."十四五"时期经济社会发展要以"高质量发展"为主题.通过阐述新时代实施城市更新的重大意义及存在的问题,指出我国城市更新应统筹规划、建设、管理三大环节,提高城市工作的系统性;统筹改革、科技、文化三大动力,提高城市发展的持续性;统筹生...     

关于完善上海城市更新立法体系的思考

上海城市更新政策实施多年来,对推动上海城市更新起到了很大的作用,但也出现了城市更新主客体不清晰、核心利益协调需要进一步聚焦和突破、技术规范难以平衡等问题,应尽快制定《上海城市更新条例》,提高立法层级,从细化量化城市更新主体和对象、聚焦公益重新设计城市更新核心利益机制、城市更新技术标准柔性实施等方面进一步规范城市更新的行...     

望京新一城如何变身环球创意广场?

城市更新是一种将城市中已经不适应现代化城市社会生活的地区作必要的改建活动.如何让更新后的商业空间产生城市的创造力?本文介绍了原望京新一城项目经过城市更新、大资管投融管退过程,更新改造成为环球创意广场,开启未来商办综合体的新篇章.     

绿色城市更新:新时代城市发展的重要方向

城市更新是一个永恒的议题,并在国家发展阶段有其特定的历史任务。在新时代生态文明建设的背景下,绿色城市更新必将成为城市发展的重要方向。本文通过发现绿色城市更新的时代价值,分析我国绿色城市更新在"点"、"线"、"面"上的既往探索及现实挑战,结合绿色城市更新的国际动向,提出"十四五"时期有关绿色城市更新的若干建议。包括:(1)绿色城市更新规划先行;(2)建设绿色基础设施网络;(3)探索绿色零碳社区更新;(4)创新绿色城市更新机制,探索增存挂钩"绿色折抵"、绿色全生命周期管理等新路径。     

中国城市更新的现况、特征及趋向

城市更新是世纪之交中国城市发展的研究主题之一。伴随中国进入工业化进程开始加速、经济结构发生明显变化、社会进行全方位深刻变革的关键时期 ,城市更新作为城市发展的调节机制亦正以空前的规模和速度在全国各地展开 ,进入了一个新的历史阶段。如何把握其主要矛盾、基本特征和发民趋势 ,制定适宜的城市更新政策 ,成为当前中国城市建设和发展的重要研究课题。本文围绕这些问题展开了分析和思考 ,并提出了一些建设性意见。     

关于上海新一轮旧区改造的思考

对上海自 1990年以来的前一轮旧区改造的特点和教训作了简要回顾和总结 ,并就新一轮旧区改造规划理念、发展和保护、公平与效益、可持续发展等若干问题进行思考。     

“转乘中心”与法国城市复兴的新举措

“转乘中心”的出现对于形成增长极和促进城市复兴具有积极意义，本文阐述了“转乘中心”在法国产生的原因和条件，对它的设计理念和技术政策进行了总结和概括，并进一步分析了其在当今区域与城市发展方面的作用。     

欧美城市再生理论与实践的演变及启示

通过对欧美国家内城复兴政策的动因、演变历程及其主要经验教训的梳理,揭示出城市再生与城市更新相互之间的演变关系;从比较的视角．探讨了城市再生和传统城市更新在理论基础、方法。内容等方面的区别．试图为新形势下中国的城市更新研究和城市政策提供理论参考。     

Renewing urban renewal in France,the UK and the Netherlands: Introduction

Three central questions are addressed in this ‘policy and practice’ special issue of the Journal of Housing and the Built Environment; the extent and the nature of changing approaches to urban renewal in France, the UK and the Netherlands; the effects this has on the articulation between public, private and civil actors; and the capacity of different actors to deal with their new roles and positions. This introduction compares the contributions to the special issue. A framework for this comparison is developed and then applied to the three countries under scrutiny. It appears that the objectives of urban renewal have not fundamentally changed. However, a common tendency towards greater involvement of local actors leads to more network-oriented types of co-ordination and thus influences the roles of both public and private actors. Notwithstanding this evolution, the central and crucial role of public actors in urban renewal persists.     

城市更新的制度安排与政策反思——以深圳为例

城市更新是盘活存量用地的重要手段。本文以深圳市为例,通过与政府主导旧城改造的政策比较,分析深圳城市更新政策的制度优势。同时,剖析了城市更新政策的制度短板,包括对法定图则空间资源配置的影响、对规划管理带来的挑战、以及对局部地区城市基础设施的压力。最后,从加强城市更新规划评估、健全城市更新容积率管理、改进城市更新地价规则等方面提出完善城市更新制度的政策建议。     

Integrated urban renewal in The Netherlands: a critical appraisal

Urban renewal policies in The Netherlands already have a long history, which is characterised by varying attention for either smaller-scale (neighbourhood) or larger-scale (city) issues, and for either physical, social or economic questions. These variations run parallel with more general discourses on urban dynamics and perceptions of processes in (urban) society at large. In this paper the recent history of urban renewal policies will be briefly sketched, including their main orientations. Recent Big Citie Policies, currently in the third generation, will receive special attention and the actual policy discourse will be critically evaluated and confronted with some essential empirical findings. In this process, the Dutch policy on integrated urban renewal shows clear parallels with the experience in other Western European countries, demonstrating that a Western European paradigm of urban policies is in the making: integrated, area-based, with involvement of both public and market partners and residents. Nevertheless, the Dutch case is more outspoken than the approaches in other Western European countries, by paying more attention to the issue of social cohesion or integration and to the promotion of social mix as a solution for a lack of social cohesion in neighbourhoods. At the same time it is clear that this new paradigm of urban policies shows the characteristics of a discourse that is not based on research and on empirical facts, but that develops its own momentum from shared beliefs regarding the nature of urban problems and the appropriate policy responses. This new paradigm needs reconsideration.     

Path-dependency in public–private partnership in French urban renewal

Public–private partnership in urban renewal in France concerns mainly housing, transport infrastructure and large public facilities. The distinction between public, private and civil actors does not concern social and economic development. This situation tends to limit the integration of different issues and approaches in renewal projects. Also, French urban renewal projects do not produce a new type of partnership between public and private actors and the regulatory framework. These projects remain publicly dominated policy-making procedures because of the uneven distribution of resources and assets and despite a policy discourse emphasising the need for a new division of work between state, market and civil society. The current French situation cannot be understood without bearing in mind the history of urban planning policies in France. Using a historical analysis and the path-dependence approach, we highlight the resilience of inherited structures of interaction between public and private actors.     

Integrated urban renewal in The Netherlands: a critical appraisal

Urban renewal policies in The Netherlands already have a long history, which is characterised by varying attention for either smaller-scale (neighbourhood) or larger-scale (city) issues, and for either physical, social or economic questions. These variations run parallel with more general discourses on urban dynamics and perceptions of processes in (urban) society at large. In this paper the recent history of urban renewal policies will be briefly sketched, including their main orientations. Recent Big Citie Policies, currently in the third generation, will receive special attention and the actual policy discourse will be critically evaluated and confronted with some essential empirical findings. In this process, the Dutch policy on integrated urban renewal shows clear parallels with the experience in other Western European countries, demonstrating that a Western European paradigm of urban policies is in the making: integrated, area-based, with involvement of both public and market partners and residents. Nevertheless, the Dutch case is more outspoken than the approaches in other Western European countries, by paying more attention to the issue of social cohesion or integration and to the promotion of social mix as a solution for a lack of social cohesion in neighbourhoods. At the same time it is clear that this new paradigm of urban policies shows the characteristics of a discourse that is not based on research and on empirical facts, but that develops its own momentum from shared beliefs regarding the nature of urban problems and the appropriate policy responses. This new paradigm needs reconsideration.