Governing the Future City: A comparative analysis of governance innovations in large scale urban developments in Shanghai, London, Johannesburg

Lead Research Organisation: University College London
Department Name: Geography

Abstract

We will adopt a comparative approach to investigate social innovations in the context of large-scale urban developments. A large proportion of urban development in different regions of the world is taking place in mega-urban projects, such as new cities, satellite cities, or large new suburbs within existing cities. These developments are building the future city. They are important sites of experimentation in new ways of developing and governing the city as they often stretch across multiple jurisdictions and can take decades to bring to fruition. We specifically explore innovations in: how governments are seeking to manage the tensions between social inclusion and achieving development at scale under resource constraints; how communities are coming together across different neighbourhoods to support one another in the face of the huge changes these developments bring to their environs, including pressures for their displacement; and how developers are playing a growing role in governance. In addition, transnational connections are prolific in large scale urban developments where investors, developers, governments and communities are closely linked in to ideas, policies and practices from other contexts. We will consider how social innovations in all of our case studies are shaped by these wider, often shared, processes.
Our core research question addresses concerns over whether this trend towards at-scale urban transformation emphasizes efficient delivery and market-driven financing of infrastructure over public participation in shaping city futures; or whether such large scale controversial developments might in fact be opening up a political space for new forms of governance. Based on in-depth case studies of three large scale developments in different contexts - the Mayoral Development Corporation in Old Oak Park Royal in London; a new suburb, Lingang, in Shanghai; and the ambitious Mayoral project to stitch together segregated Johannesburg through the "Corridors of Freedom" - we compare ways in which the governance of cities is changing.
The three projects we have selected to study share similar challenges in terms of financing developments through enhancing land values, designing liveable and sustainable new urban areas, and fostering spatial planning models which integrate the new developments into the wider metropolitan region. In addition, the developments are linked in to shared international policy and development networks. Thus we feel it is productive to compare the range of different kinds of governance outcomes generated by large scale developments across these different planning and development contexts. Our cases consider different models of urban development: state-led new town construction in China, property-led planning-gain development in the UK, and the developmental models balancing service delivery with economic growth agendas in South Africa. This gives the research a very innovative academic component, as it is not common to compare development experiences in cities in different regions of the world; doing so means we can speak to the diversity of urban experiences across the globe, which are strongly influencing each other. Contrasting the declining scope for public participation in planning in the UK with the now well-established democratic urban planning process in South Africa, and emerging land markets, property rights awareness and concerns to generate vibrant urban communities in China expands our perspective of urban transformation to its full spectrum.

A distinctive feature of the research is that it has strong policy relevance. The research design creates a framework with a high potential for wider impact, including a dedicated strand of action research to co-produce knowledge with local residents and business groups, and a targeted engagement with planners and policy makers to enable direct learning across the three cases in relation to models of development finance and management.

Planned Impact

The project will support learning about innovations in relation to the shared governance challenges of large scale urban developments in three contexts (London, Shanghai, Johannesburg). These include: achieving sustainable and inclusive urban development through property-based models of financing; achieving metropolitan spatial integration; enabling community engagement at such a scale and over the long duration of these developments. For example, Shanghai planners have concerns with spatial integration, a large proportion of workers commute from the central city; government are working on a new vision of self-contained cities within the metropolis, and are eager to learn from other cases. Meeting development needs through property based development is of concern in Johannesburg, and the limits of London's current property development model have been raised by the London Finance Commission. We will enable direct learning through a meeting of senior operational planners and managers from each city and indirect learning through inviting user groups (widened through snowballing via our research interviews and contacts) to impact workshops and city-wide community conferences. The impacts of these developments on local residents and businesses raise concerns about how local residents and business groups can build effective engagements with planners and increasingly with developers. We will explore this through action-research with community groups in London and Johannesburg, with direct impacts for these groups and wider implications for communities and governments across these cities and in other contexts.
Our key research question, as to whether and how democratic forms of large scale urban development can be enabled, is crucial to the future of cities in all three contexts, and notably so in the UK where strong participatory planning practices, urban tolerance, and a democratic national culture are widely valued. We will disseminate results widely through end of project publications targeting communities and practitioners.

Examples of user groups most of whom we are already in touch with: Metropolitan strategic planners: GLA London Plan team (John Lett); City of Johannesburg Central Strategy Unit (Deputy director - Jan Erasmus); Shanghai Bureau of Planning (deputy director Xu Songyi); Shanghai Institute of Urban Planning and Design (research director, Shi Song); Applied urban researchers: (Shanghai Pudong Institute of Planning and Design (SPIPD) (contact, Luo Xiang); Gauteng City Region Observatory (Director, David Everatt); Trust for London (charitable funding and research agency (Bharat Mehta, chief executive); London Finance Commission Chair ( Prof. Tony Travers); Regional and National Government urban planning: Rashid Seedat - Head of Gauteng Planning Commission, Gauteng Province; UK Central Government Cabinet Office Cities Economic Growth Unit (Rob Keeling); Khulekani Mathe - Head of Secretariat, National Planning Commission, Presidency; Modjadji Malahlela - Head of SA Division of BRICS Secretariat; Business groups and consultants: Park Royal Business Group (Chair: Rahul Gokhale); West London Business (Frank Wingate); London First (Faraz Baber, Planning and Development Policy); Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Frank Moss (London, OO consultants - Park Royal Industrial Atlas); Community partners: London Tenants' Federation (Sharon Hayward); Just Space (Richard Lee); Planact (Mike Makwela); Grand Union Alliance (Old Oak community network); International urban policy networks: Cities Alliance (Director: William Cobbet; Adele Hosken, Pretoria); Metropolis (international network of cities in which Johannesburg is active, hosting 2014 conference); United Cities and Local Governments (city to city learning programme officer, Barcelona); Professional planning bodies for dissemination: Royal Town Planning Institute; African Planning Schools Association (hosted at UCT ACC; contact Prof Vanessa Watson).
 
Description Shanghai. While it is commonly believed that China adopts a state-led development approach, for mega urban projects like Lingang new town, the coordination of state activity is still a significant challenge. There are multiple state agencies behind this mega project, involving complex interaction between the municipal government, district governments, and town governments. The development course involves administrative adjustments and relocation of government responsibilities to different agencies. Secondly, the state-owned development corporations play a significant role in the actual development of this mega urban project. Private sector developers are involved but they are 'secondary' development actors because the primary land development (acquisition of land and infrastructure construction) has been carried out by core development corporations. To achieve the development goal, 'institutional innovation' and the market instruments (e.g. development corporations) have been introduced. In comparison, community participation is still weak, partially due to the state deliberate strategy to compensate generously relocated households. This is also in contrast to the common perception that Chinese state forcefully acquires land and demolishes and relocate the residents. These market instruments (here compensation) allow the operation of this mega urban project. Governing Shanghai's mega projects has shown important similarities to the other cases in this project: coordination challenges, and fragmented governance processes.

The overall intellectual objectives of the research have been met, bringing forward novel findings in the Shanghai case, notably the value placed on relocation compensation by residents; the agile negotiations between very local levels of government with residents; the ways in which powerful transnational influences in planning are strongly framed by local processes; the regular re-organization of relationships amongst state actors. The potential for comparative analysis with Johannesburg and Shanghai have also been effectively brought forward along the lines envisaged: comparable business models for development corporations concerned with income streams and land value capture; state-resident engagements and potential for sharing benefits from developments; cross-scalar institutional innovations to take forward large scale developments.

Johannesburg: For Johannesburg, the project was important for the way in which it brought a local initiative into the framework of thinking about large scale projects globally. This has provided significant insight and perspective into local thinking around spatial transformation. (1) The project has produced a sober perspective on the possibilities and limits of a long-range project such as the CoF which is being implemented in a fluid political and economic environment. It has countered both romanticised and overly negative interpretations. (2) The understanding of developers in spatial transformation was previously nearly non-existent in the academic community: through the work undertaken by Prof. Todes, and other researchers on related projects, such as Dr. Richard Ballard, this has significantly changed. (3) The project has brought the participatory dimension of large scale projects into much sharper focus. In Johannesburg, it has a produced a dialogue forum that has connected disparate community groups affected by a spatially extensive long-range project.

The intellectual objectives of the project have been achieved or are in the process of being achieved. In particular, it has provided: a much better informed understanding of the extent to which a large-scale urban development such as the CoF can act as a vehicle for achieving objectives such as social inclusiveness and economic growth; has provided a far stronger understanding than before of the role of developers in large scale projects (elaborated on in a paragraph below); has provided both a richer understanding of community engagement, and has actively supported communities in their engagement with city officials; has pointed to the extent and limits of social innovation in large scale city projects; has provided an understanding of the value of comparative insights (although the potential for comparison through direct transnational connections between the city projects may have been less than initially anticipated). There were however emergent constraints on the action-oriented dimension of the project. Most importantly, the change of the political landscape in Johannesburg had a direct impact on the City's dedication and commitment given to the CoF initiative. Indirectly, this has also had an impact on the research project itself as it has become more difficult to secure the long-term commitment of community members due to the uncertainty of the implementation of this megaproject. The shift from area-specific engagements to thematic engagements, enabling people from different backgrounds and neighbourhoods to exchange about the same themes and resonate at a larger scale speak to one of the overall objectives of the research to support cross-community engagements. This process would however have to be sustained and continued in order to achieve tangible results. The timing of engaged research is of relevance.

An important innovative area of research focus concerned property developers who are beginning to respond to the COF initiative through producing small units affordable to the lower-middle end of the market, which is significantly undersupplied. Some of this extends a model already in operation in the inner city, and developers are also moving into other well-located spaces in the city, close to areas of transport. This serves to some extent to shift patterns of property development and spatial organization in directions desired by planners, and which have long been elusive (higher density, transit-oriented). Developers are also responding to municipal planning objectives for mixed use and urbanist focused designs. It is thus enabling the desired spatial transformation to an extent. Developer response however is spatially uneven, focused in parts of the Corridor, and is only partially a result of the Corridors project itself. It is also constrained by infrastructural deficits, the outcome in part of the differing priorities between departments, and the weakened status of the Corridors project.

London: Achievements: The project has built a strong analysis of the large scale development of Old Oak Park Royal across the key actors: government (planners, politicians), developers (teams of actors, including architects, landowners, planners, designers, developers) and community. We adopted an engaged research methodology, supporting and participating in residents' networks in the area, with a community researcher funded through the research project. Much knowledge and analysis of the process has been co-produced through close engagement with community networking, and through supporting community participation in planning consultation processes and planning determination processes. Through this two key lines of our analysis emerged. On the one hand, the different settings for community engagement in planning processes were brought into strong focus: policy consultation, which is fairly open and engaging; and planning application processes which are challenging to gain access to and influence. On the other hand, we were able to develop a careful analysis of the tensions amongst different actors in the process of negotiating planning permissions. The significant role of planning gain in funding and determining the shape of built environment outcomes has been made clear through needing to look very closely at this with community groups. Our extensive in-depth interviews with all actors in the process, attendance at numerous public events and consultations, and our own successful public engagement events, have deepened our insights on the ways in which institutions have been re-crafted and land value capture processes navigated to both enable development and influence the precise nature of outcomes. The complex pre-application negotiation processes put the different actors' interests into perspective. These findings form the basis for our early draft papers from the London case study.

The objectives of the study have been largely met. We have been able to draw a very nuanced picture of the institutional innovations associated with this large-scale development, including the first Mayoral Development Corporation associated with a new development (after the London Legacy Development Corporation which inherited the Olympic Park development). We have a close understanding of the governance arrangements which have been put in place and the ways in which different actors have been involved in shaping the progress of the development. We have an understanding of the range of different developers drawn into the process, and through that insights into a number of the transnational processes influencing investment and design in London. We have perhaps been less successful at specifically tracing the transnational financial actors involved in the study, as we have found these to be somewhat opaque to the usual research methods. Further efforts will be made on this in the future, including more ethnographic approaches to the planning process and developers; further research funding is being sought to specifically explore this important issue.

Overall Comparative Analysis. As we are concluding our analysis and coding of data, our comparative analysis is emerging along the following lines:
- Different ways in which transnational processes are folded into territorially embedded but trans-scalar planning and development
- Ways in which images and conceptualizations mobilise development
- A comparative perspective on state-owned development corporations, specifically considering their business models: sources of financing, temporal aspects of financing and phasing of developments, institutional reconfigurations, role in intensifying development.
- A comparative analysis of the ways in which land value is captured to support development (through planning gain, property taxes, and general taxation streams), how these impact on the outcomes of developments, and the different ways in which the values generated from large-scale urban developments are distributed across actors (state, developers, residents). We shift attention from globalising processes of financialisation to build a comparative perspective of the different ways in which large-scale projects are financed, and land value leveraged in concert with municipal financial regimes to bring development forward. New insights on urban development politics and financing have been produced.
- The role of private sector developers in shaping planning processes and outcomes. We have significant evidence on the ways in which developers and planners interact to bring forward developments which not only yield profit for developers, but also orchestrate delivery of public benefit and state income streams.

Our comparative ambitions have been strongly realized as all three cases have been brought into close comparability through the research team discussions and engagements over the life of the research project. A shared coding framework has been developed. Draft comparative analyses have been prepared and papers are in progress. Several project papers will be finalised through 2019 and publications completed by end 2020. Significant papers include:
Harrison, P., Rubin, M. Dittgen, R. and A. Appelbaum Corridors of Freedom: Analyzing Johannesburg's Ambitious Inclusionary TOD, Journal of Planning Education and Research (accepted, in press)
Robinson, J. and Attuyer, K. Extracting Value, London Style: States and Developers. (submitted, in revision)
Robinson, J., Harrison, P., Wu, F and Shen, J. Financing urban development, three business models: Johannesburg, Shanghai and London. (in progress, near completion)
Wu, F. and Wang, Z. Removals and Compensation in Lingang, Shanghai. (under review)
Todes, A. and Robinson, J. Re-directing Developers? New models of (post-apartheid) urban development? (under review)
Exploitation Route Johannesburg: The project has arguably assisted both communities and officials in developing their roles within the CoF. Beyond the timeline of the project it will be the responsibility of officials within the city administration who are committed to the CoF or, more broadly, to ideals of progressive spatial transformation to take initiatives forward. We will be available in other capacities to provide support. Similarly, community organisations will need to decide whether the dialogue forum set up during the course of the project will persist. Again, we could provide limited assistance in other capacities. The Planact research report on community engagement will hopefully provide a useful tool in this regard. The potential for financialisation of low income housing through Property REITs has been explored through the research, and offers one future area for research in Johannesburg and other African contexts.

London: The findings are being taken forward by our collaborator community based network Just Space to inform their inputs to wider London Plan policy development. Design-led planning and reliance on planning gain in the Draft New London Plan (2017) follow a similar procedure to that which we have observed in Old Oak and so we have been able to make a valuable contribution to community responses to the London Plan process, stressing questions of community engagement, and adequate provision of social and community infrastructure through existing financing mechanisms (S106, CIL). Further work on this supported community members to bring forward their experiences and insights to the Public Hearings on the London Plan later in 2018 2019 and explored practical ways for more democratic decision-making on planning gain. The OPDC implemented a planning forum, for example, encouraging good practice in consultation by developers and opening access to community discussion of live planning applications. The London Plan Inspectors pressed for stronger engagement with planning processes in Opportunity Areas and responded to our research-based contributions for Opportunity Area targets to be based on technical evidence, rather than to be set in the London Plan on an informal basis. We have seen considerable interest in our findings from government and professional actors in the area, including our emerging comparative analysis. Learning about different ways in which development finance can be raised (through city-wide taxes in Johannesburg; through rolling investments across developments in Shanghai), and the potential for community engagement to be included in private sector led developments and in planning processes more generally (in Shanghai, for example), are important areas where our insights from across the three cases will be useful to these actors. More generally we see potential for future research, community mobilisation and policy review. Contesting secretive elements of the planning process is core to the concerns of local residents' groups with some success in opening these up to closer inspection. A long history of community engagement in planning remains of some influence to expand democratic planning processes. Questioning the consequences of hyper-fragmented territorial forms of value extraction from urban development could be inserted into current debates on finding new ways to finance metropolitan local government, and are to some extent already under discussion through the London Finance Commission and Transport for London. Aggregating planning gain at a strategic metropolitan scale could make some difference to balancing strategic investment in infrastructure with implementing planning policy, an arrangement which has already been used to part-fund the cross-rail line. And in the longer term, extending the reach of land value capture to encompass the long-term benefits to developers, landowners and investors would relieve the pressure on the design of the built environment to fund urban development, which Transport for London has been exploring. W suggest that nuanced analysis and debate about the politics of urban development across London, in concert with building coalitions such as Just Space beyond numerous isolated community struggles, could help to shift attention to the potential for transformation in planning policy and urban development financing.

Shanghai: Municipal level planners attended the project's international stakeholders events in London in January 2018, and were able to familiarize themselves with the issues involved in planning in Johannesburg and London, and to explore how development corporations bring forward developments across a full range of stakeholders and actors. Mutual discussions of shared challenges of development were productive. Further engagement and insights will be developed from understanding the ways in which the business model of State owned development corporations frames potential outcomes; and residents' engagement in planning processes. Scope for further learning and engagement through research with planners has been well established.
Sectors Communities and Social Services/Policy,Construction,Creative Economy,Environment,Financial Services, and Management Consultancy,Leisure Activities, including Sports, Recreation and Tourism,Government, Democracy and Justice,Transport
URL http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/people/academic-staff/jennifer-robinson/governing-the-future-city
 
Description The findings in Johannesburg and London have informed community-based engagements in the planning process. As this is very challenging to achieve in large scale developments, the methodologies adopted here in collaboration with our partners, Planact and the London Tenant's Federation, are innovative and potential useful in other situations. A community conference was held in each city to develop and share insights from the research, and to take these forward. In London research supported community debates and discussions on changing planning gain and land value capture mechanisms in London, including consultation responses from the Just Space network on the Draft New London Plan (February 2018). The Grand Union Alliance presented details of their findings to a wide network of over 100 residents' and third sector groups, including presentation based on the comparative element of the research in Johannesburg. Direct input was made from the project findings in the case study area of Old Oak Park Royal to the Just Space network consultation response to the London Plan, notably to the chapters on Spatial Development Patterns and Chapter 11 Funding. Here the research has directly impacted on community understandings of London's development model, and insights on how to seek to influence policy at the metropolitan scale to secure stronger community influence and outcomes to the benefit of communities. Documentation is available on the extent to which community engagements supported by this project have shaped planning policy in the Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation area. Research has informed community based contributions to the planning review process, including consultations on the Draft New London Plan (2017) including extensive contributions to Just Space submissions on Opportunity Areas and Financing the London Plan. Here some amendments to the London Plan (Chapter 2) were achieved, including the need for targets for Opportunity Areas in the London Plan to be seen as only indicative and to be based on detailed technical work. Extensive contributions and support for community responses to consultations on the Old Oak Park Royal Local Plan (Regulation 18, 19 (1 and 2)) have made a significant impact on the public debate and planning process. Also, ongoing support for community responses to consultations on individual developments draws closely on research findings. Two public-facing stakeholder events in London (April, 2017 - focused on the London research; January, 2018 - international comparative aspects of the research) opened up wider impact from the project with stakeholders in many areas of London facing large-scale development. Here discussion was most productive when it considered examples from different contexts. In the first stakeholder event we introduced research findings from ETH-Zurich on "Urban Qualities" with comments from Prof Christian Schmid and Dr Simon Kretz on a recent research-based publication on protecting urban qualities through urban planning and design. Peter Bishop (Allies and Morrison, UCL Bartlett) offered commentary which drew relevant insights for the London Context, where he has produced the important text, "Design for London". Introducing ideas from our case studies to an audience of practitioners and professionals, in both our events we opened up discussion about both the goals of large-scale development, and the potential to find models for inclusive development, within financing envelopes. Strong grounds for future research and engagement on these issues were established. GLA Officers from the Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation contributed to both stakeholder events, and engaged in discussion about ways in which the priorities of large scale development can be (and are) balanced across large developments in the different contexts this research project includes. The benefits of a higher level discussion on challenging aspects of development, and the ability to draw insights from contrasting cases (Johannesburg and Shanghai) was noted by these participants. Johannesburg: During the course of the project there have been major political shifts in the City of Johannesburg. Specifically, the African National Congress which launched the Corridors of Freedom lost control of the Johannesburg Metropolitan Council and was replaced by a de facto coalition between the centre-right Democratic Alliance and the left wing Economic Freedom Fighters. The Corridors of Freedom survived this shift but was de-prioritised and downscaled, and a number of key officials associated with the CoF left the service of the city. Within this fluid and difficult context we think that the project has made a number of contributions: 1. We have assisted in keeping ideas of transit-oriented development (TOD), and inclusive spatial transformation more broadly, within local debate and discourse through seminars, public lectures and sustained formal and informal engagements with politicians and officials. While we cannot attribute the 'survival' of the CoF specifically to this project, the new political administration has been constrained by the profile that the CoF has. 2. Through our consistent engagement with politicians and officials through this project we have offered a 'sounding board' for policy development and have provided support to (otherwise increasingly isolated) officials working on the CoF through intellectual and practical input into their work, and by involving them in international and local discussions on large projects. A significant series of contributions have emerged on inclusionary housing policy - the research offers insight into how municipalities and developers can collaborate in low-income housing provision in the inner city through the private sector. 3. The project has helped translate the technocratic language of planning into something more accessible for communities (through information leaflets, presentations etc.). 4. The project has possibly prompted the city administration to improve its public participation processes by highlighting deficiencies in this area. 5. The project has provided a platform for bringing together previously disconnected communities affected by the CoF. This may have strengthened the voice of communities but the longer terms effects are not known. The project has stimulated policy and public debate about how Transit-oriented development can meet the needs of the urban poor. For China/Shanghai: through interacting with the government research centre, professional design institutes, this project generates impacts on Chinese policy users and planners on how to govern sustainable communities. The research reveals the challenge of coordination and the difficulty to attract population in a newly constructed industrial development area and its adjacent new town. Chinese urban planners across different scales (national, municipal, district) recognise the limitation of the approach of mega urban projects. The impact has spilled over Shanghai, including, for example, senior planners from Wuhan municipality, participating in our stakeholders' workshop. The Shanghai case also reveals the importance of land ownership and coordination for London. The requisition of land in Shanghai has been facilitated by generous compensation and land reclamation from the sea. The need to coordinate within the state agencies has been recognised in Shanghai. For China, the under-development of social innovation is a major obstacle towards future urban governance. Ongoing expert contributions by Prof Wu are sought by planners in the Shanghai context on the governance challenges of large-scale development, and strategies for urban development. The comparative findings on the role of the state and the relationship between the state and developers in urban development in Shanghai, London and Johannesburg have informed analyses of land value capture, and engagements with planning processes in all three contexts.The comparative experiences of China (where land value benefits are fed forward into future developments through development corporation profits) and Johannesburg (where property taxes at a metropolitan scale allow value capture to be directed strategically across the city) have informed analysis and inputs to stakeholder engagements in all three contexts. In Johannesburg, close relationships with city officials and developers have allowed interim findings on the potential for institutional innovation to be shared directly with practitioners. Practitioner workshops in each city and a joint workshop in London in early 2018 created opportunities for these insights to be taken forward. The financial constraints of the London development model (reliant on planning gain at the site of development) and the wide social objectives of the Johannesburg development, were instructive insights to focus discussion with stakeholders on alternative models of development. Future research will seek to take forward these insights into a wider range of stakeholder forums. In a "pathways to impact" model, early publication of findings will support wider impact, based on these strong engagements with a range of stakeholders to date.
First Year Of Impact 2016
Sector Communities and Social Services/Policy,Government, Democracy and Justice
Impact Types Policy & public services
 
Description London Plan Opportunity Area policies
Geographic Reach Local/Municipal/Regional 
Policy Influence Type Contribution to a national consultation/review
URL https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/inspectors_report_and_recommendations_2019_final.pdf
 
Description ERC Advanced Grant (Making Africa Urban: The transcalar politics of large-scale urban development, )
Amount € 2,500,000 (EUR)
Funding ID 834999 
Organisation European Research Council (ERC) 
Sector Public
Country Belgium
Start 09/2019 
End 09/2024
 
Description Rebuilding communities after displacement - Examining the social cost of relocation in urban China
Amount £9,998 (GBP)
Funding ID SRG18R1\180249 
Organisation The British Academy 
Sector Academic/University
Country United Kingdom
Start 10/2018 
End 10/2019
 
Description Rethinking China's Model of Urban Governance - ChinaUrban
Amount € 2,500,000 (EUR)
Funding ID 832845 
Organisation European Research Council (ERC) 
Sector Public
Country Belgium
Start 01/2020 
End 12/2024
 
Title Developer Database 
Description Compilation of an excel database of property developers active in the OPDC area and submitting planning applications for approval to the OPDC (including those delegated back to their respective local authorities). Gathering information of the developers and their partners (geographical origin, local link, business size, nexus of consultants relied upon), as well as documenting the nature of the development projects imagined by the private developers and how they evolve through time. Identifying the forces and actors shaping the developers' proposals and amendments (rationale for changes, if any; justification for type of development proposed and approved). 
Type Of Material Database/Collection of data 
Year Produced 2018 
Provided To Others? No  
Impact This database will allow analysis of a selected range of urban development partnerships in London, providing several case studies of development processes and outcomes in the case study area of Old Oak. 
 
Title Stakeholder interviews 
Description Across three sites close to 150 in-depth interviews have been conducted with government, planning consultants and private developers and community actors in three large scale urban developments. These are in process of transcription, anonymising for storage on shared secure website. Johannesburg: City officials: 15 transcribed official interviews (e.g. Development Planning, International Relations, Central Strategy, Housing, Transport, Land-Use Management, Facilitation Agency) in addition to numerous informal discussions. " Developers: 23 interviews with various types of developers, as well as with financiers including the French Development Agency and South African Banking Association). " Communities: 28 transcribed interviews with community representatives from various sectors (NPOs, churches and community and business associations). " Communities: seven focus group discussions " Consultants: 9 interviews (both individual and group interviews) with consultants directly involved in the public participation process; commissioned to produce particular products related to the CoF; urban designers and planners working with developers; academics knowledgeable about the property industry " Observation of meetings: observation of at least two of the city's public participation meetings (linked to the Special Development Zones process in Orange Grove and in the Knowledge Precinct); participation in a Heritage Foundation tour focused on the Corridors of Freedom along the Louis Botha Corridor; participation in a day-long City of Johannesburg/ South African Property Owners Association meeting on inclusionary housing. London: In London, the research methodology has involved in-depth interviews with developers, public officials and community representatives with interests in the large scale development examined, analysis of policy and planning documents pertaining to the proposed developments, and observation of community and public meetings. In London, we have successfully secured and undertaken 47 interviews, consisting of 14 interviews with community representatives, 16 interviews with government representatives and a total of 17 private actors from the property development industry. Interviews were carried out over an extended period of time, namely from the 3rd of August 2016 to the 8th February 2018, and lasted between 40 minutes and 2h25. Interviews were taped and transcribed. All transcribed interviews have been stored on a secure UCL server. Additionally, when participants agreed to it, the transcripts were anonymised and uploaded to a Zotero database accessible to team researchers located outside of the UK. This facilitated the comparative element of the research. Four public consultation meetings relating to six separate site proposals were observed (3 by the RA and 1 by the external consultant). Four short notes were produced detailing the type of information made available to the public by developers and their consultants. Additional documents such as copy of the panels and visuals displayed at those events when secured were added to our property developers' database. Data and information related to development proposals for ten sites located in the London case-study area was compiled from different sources. For each proposal, a folder was created; each comprising information about the initial proposals for the site and how these have evolved over time, as well as data on the private firms involved in shaping such proposals. We identified that 8 developers (individuals or joint ventures) were engaged in submitting planning applications or/and in pre-planning discussions (for the ten sites) during the course of our research. An excel spreadsheet was also created to map and record details about the wide range of actors involved in advising property developers and shaping their proposals. Details of the architects, private planning and consultation firms engaged were recorded. This mapping allowed the identification of actors involved in more than one scheme and their characteristics (London-based or national/ international firm and so on). Documents submitted by the developers and their team to the planning authority when seeking planning permission have also been stored for analysis. Another set of documents pertaining to planning policy in the London case-study area was compiled. Governmental draft and approved plans (Vision, OAPF, reg 18, reg 19 draft plans) as well as evidence-based studies produced on behalf or by the planning authority formed part of our sources for our document analysis. We have archived such policy documents. Additionally, discussions about key aspects of the development process were observed through attendance at a number of public meetings. These include the determination of the first planning application submitted to the mayoral development corporation (13th July 2016) and the approval of the amended Statement of Community Involvement by the planning committee (12 October 2016). Notes were made and typed up. When deemed useful, a detailed transcript of the discussion was produced and archived. This helped documenting concerns, constraints and divergence of opinions about the future of either the overall area or specific sub-parts. This generated a rich and large body of notes relating to the planning committee meetings, 12 recorded for analysis through detailed notes. These notes are archived on our Zotero private site. Other events organized by the local authority to engage with the local residents and business community were attended and observation notes were created. Lastly, a list of documents produced by local community groups have been compiled and stored. This includes letters sent to the planning authority (objection letters relating to individual planning permission, letters to the board), responses to consultation sought by the local authority, newsletters, and community plans and visions for the area issued by the main groups in the area (GUA, OONF). Notes were also produced when attending the GUA and OONF meetings to better understand how local residents' visions for the area differ from the future imagined by government bodies and/ or developers and the tools they use to influence planning policy documents. Shanghai: 51 Interviews in total (government officials, planning officials, private developers, local residents): Government officials: 13 interviews (including the local government of Lingang, municipal and district level governments, township and neighbourhood governments), in addition to numerous informal discussions State owned Development Corporations: 14 interviews (e.g. Lingang Group, Harbour City Group, corporations owned by the Pudong district government and other district governments and developing in Lingang) Communities: 15 interviews (individual or group interviews) with Lingang residents (e.g. relocated and non-relocated residents, migrant residents) Private Developers: 4 interviews (including housing developer, shopping mall developer and theme park developer) International firms: 2 interviews (Arup and GMP Architects) Lingang experts: 3 interviews (including previous advisor of Shanghai municipality on the deep-sea harbour in Lingang; expert on the industrial zone; current advisor to the municipality on the Shanghai. 
Type Of Material Database/Collection of data 
Year Produced 2018 
Provided To Others? No  
Impact The database will allow in-depth and critical analysis of each of the three cases, and will enable comparative insights across the three cases. It will inform revision of wider theoretical and general insights into urban development in all three cases. 
 
Description Johannesburg community participation 
Organisation Planact
Country South Africa 
Sector Charity/Non Profit 
PI Contribution Support for community events, assistance with design of survey instrument, background information and collaborative engagement with local authorities and planning organisations.
Collaborator Contribution Our partner Planact has primarily undertaken the research component dealing with community participation and engagement. The initial phase evolved around completing a social mapping exercise of the Corridors of Freedom Initiative as a whole. Drawing on this initial report, Planact conducted interviews with 30 stakeholders along segments of the Empire Perth and Louis Botha corridors to collect data from a range of different neighbourhoods. In connection to this groundwork, two community stakeholder forums and two smaller meetings have been organised. The aim of the first stakeholder gathering (June 2016) was to reiterate and outline the ambitions of the CoF project (with the participation of City officials) as well as explain the objectives of the comparative research project. The purpose of the second one, held in November 2016, was to present and test the preliminary findings from the first phase of interviews to understand the priorities of each of the neighbourhoods represented in the room and gauge to what extent it is possible to start engaging across different areas along the corridors. In year two of the research project, Planact (in collaboration with the research chair) held area specific focus groups in the three areas earmarked for in-depth analysis. The themes developed during these group discussions arose from previous individual interviews conducted in each of the three areas. The first meeting (29 May 2017), bringing together members form Noordgesig, Orlando East and Pennyville (all forming part of Soweto), dealt with the question of 'stitching and/or unstitching communities through spatial interventions linked to this large-scale project [http://www.planact.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Planact-Orlando-Noordgesig-Corridors-of-Freedom-Brief.pdf]. Given that this segment of the Corridors had already witnessed infrastructure upgrades in the lead up to the 2010 World Cup, it also provided an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which the changes in the built environment have impacted on adjacent communities and on social cohesion. The second engagement targeted neighbourhoods along the Louis Botha corridor, a major transport artery along which the BRT system is currently being rolled out. This focus group, held in Alexandra (20 September 2017) and mostly attended by entrepreneurs, engaged around the theme of changes in mobility and transport systems, as well as adaptations in lived practices and experiences. The group discussion in the Greater Sophiatown area (23 September 2017) focused on the knowledge dissemination, economic opportunities and reclamation of radically changed neighbourhoods in the context of the implementation of the CoF project. All of these group discussions and individual interviews served as the basis for area-based information sheets, providing a brief background of each of the three areas, their engagements with the public participation process linked to the CoF, challenges as well as opportunities. Following these area-based conversations, we co-organised a larger workshop, inviting all the stakeholders from previous group discussions, to start shifting the conversation from area-specific to broader thematic issues, attempting to start engaging across communities [http://www.planact.org.za/event-inter-community-dialogue-on-the-corridors-of-freedom]. During breakaway sessions, attendants from different areas discussed themes such as densification, accessibility, safety or entrepreneurship. All of these discussions and various engagements will feature in a final report (that is currently being finalised) with the objective of organising a launch and engagement between community representatives and City officials.
Impact Outputs so far are limited to data generated for research, but also information sharing with community groups and consideration of community based research in the context of large-scale developments. Summaries of conference events available at url indicated above. Aside from the final report (to be published as an accessible pdf document), the focus group discussions in the three areas mentioned above were also repackaged into brief information sheets. The research report in draft form: Planact (forthcoming), Planact's Social Facilitation Role in the Research Project Linked to the Comparative Analysis of Governance Innovations in Large Scale Urban Developments in Shanghai, London and Johannesburg, a research report prepared by Planact, to be disseminated as an online publication.
Start Year 2016
 
Description Supporting community engagements in London planning through mutual support 
Organisation London Tenant's Federation
Country United Kingdom 
Sector Private 
PI Contribution A partnership with the London Tenant's Federation has been the core of our research methodology, in which we have collaborated in supporting community networking to facilitate wide and effective participation in the development planning policy (including through neighbourhood planning), analysing planning proposals, engaging in planning authority and London Mayoral consultations and contributing to wider meetings and public events. The methodology of participation and engagement sits alongside a wider suite of methods involving observation and participation, and proposes a distinctive vantage point from which to develop insights on urban development processes, from the bottom up. The array of activities includes: o Attendance at events organized by property developers as part of the statutory and non-statutory consultation process. It has proved very useful to network with property interests representatives, identify knowledgeable individuals in the development or consultancy firms involved and to secure interviews. This strategy has proven more successful than emailing potential parties of interest without prior face-to-face interaction. For instance, email demands to Essential Living and Quod were left unanswered, while requests after contact at an event where the researcher introduced herself resulted in positive replies. Examples of events attended include a consultation meeting organized by Cargiant for GUA members, a planning forum to present the North Kensington Gate application submitted to the OPDC by Aurora and Quod, and a public exhibition about the Perfume Factory site run by Essential Living. A short note was produced for each of these three events. o Attendance at governmental workshops and committees opened to the public. This has included physically attending planning committee (PC) meetings (also available online) in order to make contact with potential interviewees and introduce to them the research project. Two members of the planning committee have been interviewed; two others agreed in principles but have since not engaged with written communications sent to them directly by the researcher or on her behalf (planning committee secretary circulated an invitation to participate). To avoid creating a feeling of harassment, it is envisaged that a follow up will only occur after a short respite period. Discussions about key aspects of the development process were observed through attendance. This includes the determination of the first planning application for review by the PC and the approval of the amended Statement of Community Involvement (see notes). Other events attended include a range of community and business engagement workshops, such as a presentation on the Community Infrastructure Levy, a meeting about the needs and future of businesses located in the Park Royal industrial estate, a workshop on housing in the OPDC area as part of the local plan consultation. o Support for community meetings including regular contributions to, attendance at and support for the Grand Union Alliance community meetings and conferences. This also helped to recruit participants for in-depth surveys and to better understand how this network of local groups is attempting to shape the future of the OPDC area, how their vision differs from the future imagined by government bodies and/ or developers. It has also assisted in gaining a better appreciation of the tools they use to influence policy documents that will both define the nature of development deemed desirable for the area and guide decision-makers when assessing planning applications. Events attended include -: a charrette (with workshops and hands-on planning sessions) facilitated by JTP architects and master-planners, organised London Tenants Federation, Just Space and UCL; an event analysing the evidence-based documents informing the draft OPDC Local Plan; a series of GUA meetings and a conference on developing OPDC planning policy; other GUA meetings with share and exchange sessions and discussions about - the group's own vision, objectives and priorities, the OPDC's statement of community involvement, planning gain, the socio-economic baseline for the OPDC area, making effective responses to planning applications, the London Mayor's review of the OPDC and the longer term sustainability of the network. A feedback meeting to the GUA community network was held on January 18, 2108, based on our comparative research in Shanghai and Johannesburg, with researchers from all three case study sites presenting, attended by 15 community members. The partnership with LTF has since 2019 been subsumed in a close working relationship with Just Space (www.justspace.org) and the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum as well as the Grand Union Alliance. This has involved using the results of our research to inform discussions at regular meetings, campaigns to protect local assets in the face of intense development pressure, inputs to Local Plan public hearings, and contributions to community responses to consultations on planning applications. Further ongoing contributions based on our research have been made in relation to Just Space contributions to public consultations on the London Plan (published 2021) and to a London Assembly review of Opportunity Area policy (in 2022).
Collaborator Contribution London Tenant's federation had grant funding from Trust for London and commissioned Just Space to work with them to develop the methodology of networking across very large scale urban development sites (including in the London Legacy Development Corporation area, to enable community-based organisations to provide mutual support in engaging in the planning process. The analysis and collation of interpretations of planning documents and processes informed research and data gathering more generally.
Impact Outputs (details are available at the URL grandunionalliance.wixsite.com- (i) organisation of 17 general meetings, a charrette, a half day and evening event and conference involving a total of 92 people from 45 resident and community groups since December 2015. (ii) Production of five newsletters, a GUA report December 2015-16, four briefings on - developing a Local Plan, Development Trusts, Planning Gain (CIL and Section 106), Making Effective Responses to Planning Applications and analysis of impact of GUA's response to the OPDC's regulation 18 Local Plan. (iii) Provision of support for GUA members together and individually in responding to consultations on the OPDC's draft CIL, regulation 18 and 19 versions of the OPDC Local Plan and the Mayor's review of the OPDC. (iv) Engagement of some members of the network in wider Just Space events on the draft new London Plan (end of project conference) and in other workshops and events relating to this project. (v) Organisation of a special meeting with the GLA officer heading the review of the OPDC and support in submitting a formal written response. (vi) Support in the submitting a GUA letter to the OPDC following the first OPDC planning approval (which many GUA members had objected to). (vii) Development of a local business directory and interactive map on the GUA website (following production of UCL masters students 'Harlesden Small Businesses on the Edge' in 2016) and the start of monitoring delivery of housing in the OPDC area (as applications are approved). " Outomes (i) Continued development of and support for a wide, cohesive network of resident and topic / theme-based community organisations from the three London boroughs, parts of which comprise the OPDC area, focused on influencing planning policy in this large-scale development areas. It's core members are around 40 organisations with other individuals and groups engaging less frequently but maintaining contact. Importantly the network was established prior to the formation of this second Mayoral Development Corporation in London so has been able, certainly in early stages, to be ahead of the game, have access to experiences of other groups and networks (through London Tenants Federation and Just Space) and at times able to construct positive alternatives to OPDC proposals. - An early example of this (prior commencement of this project was the development of a statement of intent and community engagement charter. The OPDC consulted on its own community engagement charter soon after being established - but never implemented it as the GUA had already formulated its own. GUA later had huge impact on the OPDC's formal Statement of Community Involvement (see below). " (2) Influenced the OPDC's draft Statement of Community Involvement - SCI - a formal document that planning authorities are required to publish. Through Just Space, GUA was informed of the influence achieved by a network of Neighbourhood Forums in Bristol on the city's SCI and inclusion of the network's 'ground rules' on community engagement. With academic support and that from JS and LTF, GUA members analysed these, modified and added to them, providing an effective alternative section (of 12 ground rules), included in their response to the OPDC's consultation. The response had quite significant impact on the SCI. Most of X number were included in the published version and further have been later added through lobbying of the OPDC and the Mayor's officer in relation to the review of the OPDC. A GUA member recently presented these at a Just Space and Greater London Authority event on the new draft London Plan where this was proposed as a model that the London Mayor should require planning authorities across London to adopt. " (3) GUA developed its own 'vision' and 'objectives' for the area. The vision was in part adopted by the OPDC in response to the GUA's collaborative response to the OPDC's regulation 18 Local Plan consultation. " (4) Growth in the network's capacity and ability to influence developing planning policy, through - peer learning, involvement of academics, support from London-wide networks of social-housing tenants and local and London-wide groups focused on attempting to influence planning policy London-wide. The network collaboratively and some members separately have been able to respond effectively using language that responds effectively to that of the planners. In addition, the development of the network's collaborative responses to consultations facilitated comment from a wide range of groups that wouldn't otherwise have felt able to respond to consultations. Opportunity areas, including the OPDC are generally based in areas where there are high levels of excluded and low-income household who would not ordinarily engage in planning policy discussion. Influence on policy was achieved at an earlier date in respect of the Mayor's 'Opportunity Area Planning Framework' and the collaborative response to the first version (regulation 18) of the OPDC's Local Plan. " (5) Two Neighbourhood Forums - one in the centre of the OPDC area and one on the immediate edge of the area (which has particularly high levels of deprivation and of transient low-income households living in short-term private rented homes) have been designated by the OPDC. The latter is near to having its Neighbourhood Plan formally adopted. While Neighbourhood Planning, introduced through the Localism Act 2011, is far from uncommon in London, it is rare in areas with high levels of deprivation. Both these Forums were established in an attempt to have greater influence on the OPDC's plans for the area. The collaborative support provided through this project has provided positive impact and is a clear example of widened capacity of members of the network and their desire to engage in developing their own or alternative community-based policy (albeit having to be in general conformity with the OPDC's Local Plan when adopted). " (6) There has been some active engagement by members of the network in responding (generally objecting) to planning applications in the OPDC area. An amount of consternation has been created in respect of a system that is designed to develop policy that will determine planning applications but is not delivering what draft policy originally suggested. While necessarily the draft policy has not yet been adopted, for many in the network this is very disappointing. Positively, however, this does demonstrate a determination by some to follow through on the work that has been achieved in influencing some levels of policy. A number of the network have also actively engaged in discussions on a new London Plan - looking to understand policy changes across London and also to share experiences with others. In summary, the major outcomes of the research will be the material influences on the planning process and community capacity for engagement. A detailed audit of this is currently underway. The strongest example of influence was in the adoption of 10 out of 12 "ground rules" proposed by the Grand Union Alliance for the OPDC Statement of Community Involvement. Academic-facing outcomes from this collaboration follow from critical and comparative reflections on the experience of collaborative community based research in Johannesburg and London, in preparation at the end of the project. Close engagement with community groups provides an interesting case of engaged research, with significant collaborative work. Reflection on how this committed approach affects the wider research process (e.g. in terms of data generation with other actors) is underway, and on the potential for engaged research to support citizen engagements through the planning process. Academic publications on this are in preparation. (7) Ongoing contributions to community-led responses to planning applications as part of the OPDC development.
Start Year 2016
 
Description Academic Lectures 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Postgraduate students
Results and Impact Johannesburg Public Lectures and Seminars (mainly an academic audience but with government officials and practitioners also)

" Jennifer Robinson, , "Financialisation, Globalisation and Urban Development: Comparative Perspectives on the Role of the State", a public lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand, 23 August, 2017
" Allan Cochrane, "'Here, there and everywhere: Rethinking the urban of urban politics", a public lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand, 25 August, 2016

London Public Lecture: UCL "Governing the Future City" Seminar*

Financialization, land value capture and urban development: Comparative perspectives

Monday 15 January 2018
5pm to 7pm
Venue: Anatomy G29 J Z Young LT, entrance from Gower Street, UCL. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/maps/jz-young-lt

Ludovic Halbert (Université Paris-Est)
Beyond "yet-another case" of financialization of urban production: Financial infrastructures, comparative urbanism, and rent-based accumulation
and
Tom Goodfellow (University of Sheffield)
Property and land value capture in the finance periphery

The burgeoning literature on financialization, land value capture and urban development is often focused on transnational private sector actors, and has brought forward numerous detailed case studies of urban development in wealthier country contexts; interpretations veer between very wide-ranging generalizations on the circulation of capital, and detailed case studies of the politics of urban development. The two papers presented here intervene in the debates to build insights through comparative analysis across a wider variety of cases, including China, India, Africa, Chile, and attend to a diversity of actors, including states, smaller investors and emergent territorial networks.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016,2017
 
Description Community Workshops Johannesburg 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact A series of workshops with communities affected by the CoF. The Workshops held in collaboration with Planact, bringing together community members affected by the Corridors of Freedom, city officials and academics. The main objective was to create a platform of discussion alongside the official participation process and discuss strengths of the initiative as well as areas that need improvement.
" 25 August 2016 - Community stakeholder engagement (focus group discussion around the Corridors of Freedom), together with Planact
" Introductory community stakeholder engagement including Allan Cochrane, 25 August, 2016
" Noordgesig, Orlando East and Pennyville, 29 May, 2017 (around the theme 'Stitching and/or Unstitching Communities through Spatial Interventions linked to Large-Scale Projects')
" Civil Society Organisations Dialogue, "Thinking public participation and community engagement across different contexts", 20 July, 2017 (participation from PLanact, Wits, London Tenants Federation and Brown University)
" Louis Botha Corridor Communities, 20 September, 2017 (around the theme 'Changes in Mobility and Transport Systems')
" Greater Sophiatown Communities, 23 September, 2017 (around the theme 'Knowledge Dissemination, Economic Opportunities and the Reclamation of Radically Changed Neighbourhoods)
" Inter-community Dialogue on Public Participation in the Corridors of Freedom (CoF), 27 October, 2017 [an event which brought together community groupings from across the CoF]
" Various focus groups with specific groups including sports associations, churches, civil society, residents associations.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016,2017
URL http://www.planact.org.za/event-inter-community-dialogue-on-the-corridors-of-freedom/
 
Description Community based research in Old Oak 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Local
Primary Audience Third sector organisations
Results and Impact Regular attendance at community based meetings, notably the Grand Union Alliance meetings and Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum (interim) to support community engagements in planning, recruit participants and to better understand how this network of local groups is attempting to shape the future of the OPDC area, how their vision differ from the future imagined by government bodies and/ or developers and the tools they use to influence policy documents that will define the nature of development deemed desirable for the area and will guide decision-makers when assessing planning applications. Sessions attended include a workshop discussing the evidence-based documents informing the draft plan and a meeting with a GLA officer carrying out a review of the OPDC project.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016,2017,2018
URL http://grandunionalliance.wixsite.com/grandunionalliance/responses-to-consultations
 
Description Contribution to London Plan Evidence in Public Consultation Process 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact Prof Jennifer Robinson: Extensive contributions to Just Space preparations and submissions to Draft New London Plan (2017) review process. On the basis of the research undertaken for this grant, extensive contributions have been made to the Just Space submissions to the London Plan consultation process, including contributing to the public hearings (Evidence in Public) as an advisor to Just Space, on Opportunity Areas (Wednesday 23 January) and Financing the London Plan (May). Significant contributions were made outlining the way in which housing and employment targets for Opportunity Areas (such as Old Oak Park Royal, the focus of this study) are set through an informal and non-technical process, which circumvents formal planning procedures. The impacts of this on housing density, public space and social infrastructure in new developments are severe and lead to contested and non-policy compliant outcomes. Partly on the basis of the project research, and as a result of longer term collaboration with Just Space (a network of community based organisations across London), the Inspectors of the 2017 London Plan recommended that these targets now be set through detailed analysis of capacity (The Planning Inspectorate report to the London Mayor, 2019). While this has not led to an amendment of the arbitrary targets set for the Old Oak case study, whose targets remained in place despite evidence presented of potentially negative effects on the quality of the development, this impact of our research has significant consequences for future planning process. Extensive contributions on the impact on planning outcomes of the reliance on planning gain incomes to enable development, and the Mayor's policy to prioritise strategic use of planning gain for transport and affordable housing (as opposed to community and social infrastructure, or sustainable development goals), were not successful in changing the relevant London Plan policies.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
URL https://justspace.org.uk/hearings-eip-2019/
 
Description Contributions to Evidence in Public Consultations on the OPDC Local Plan 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Drawing directly on the research findings of the London case study of this project, extensive support was offered for community based collaborators to contribute to the public process of formal hearings concerning the OPDC Local Plan, in the presence of HM's Planning Inspector. The PI also made several contributions directly to this process, notably on more technical issues concerning assessments of viability, the impacts of financing arrangements (planning gain) on planning outcomes, and providing a systematic representation of community concerns with proposed plans for the OPDC area based on extensive interviews and multi-year collaboration. These contributions brought a strong input on the implications of financing for built environment outcomes, notably concerning density, social infrastructure, public and open space, and play space provision in planned developments. Viability issues formed a key element of the hearings and concerns with this, brought forward additionally by the major private developer, have led to the need for substantial revisions of the plan, which are currently in progress (March 2020).
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2019
URL https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/old-oak-and-park-royal-development-corporat...
 
Description Expert presentation Shanghai 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Prof Fulong Wu: Advisory talk at Expert Consultancy Meeting on Regional Integration Planning of the Northern Area of Pudong International Airport, Shanghai Institute, China Academy of Urban Planning and Design. 14 April 2018. Shanghai.

size: 15 people.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Housing workshop 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Prof Phil Harrison: Colloquium on Inclusionary Housing in the City of Johannesburg, held at the University of the Witwatersrand, 20 May, 2018
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Johannesburg Networking meetings 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Networking events

" Stakeholder breakfast with City Manager and Senior City Officials, 23 August, 2016
" Project participation in Planact 30th anniversary Symposium, 26 August, 2016
" Breakfast meeting with Member of the Mayoral Committee (MMC) for Development Planning, Councillor Funzela Ngobeni, 22 August, 2017
" Multiple less formal engagements with stakeholder including developers, government officials and communities, with other engagement, some coming under the category of 'fieldwork'
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016,2017
 
Description Just Space Community Conference on the New London Plan 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact This event was both part of the GLA's consultation programme on the draft of the new London Plan and a Just Space event to support community organisations in formulating their responses and to help Just Space formulate its collective response. Our research project and the Grand Union Alliance co-ordinated a workshop, shared in the plenary GUA progress with the Statement of Community Involvement, and Mike Makwela (from Planact, Johannesburg community researcher) reflected on the comparative element of our research with insights on community organising in response to large scale developments in Johannesburg. The learning from policy engagement and the model of building local networks of community organisations, developed in collaboration with the London Tenant's Federation, and the community researcher on the London element of the programme, was shared with the wider Just Space network across the city.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
URL https://justspace.org.uk/next-london-plan/community-conference-20-january-2018/
 
Description London Community Conference 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact The PI and the London RA were invited to present some on their findings at a community conference organized by the Grand Union Alliance (GUA), our research partner on 24 June 2017. This event was run by the GUA to help local residents and groups to input into the second round of consultation organized by the planning authority on the redevelopment plans for their area. Having reviewed a large body of technical documents informing the plan, as well as documents pertaining to approved planning applications to date, the PI and RA presented their findings and gave two presentations. One focused on infrastructure costs and viability issues of the overall plan, while the second examined the contributions new schemes in the Old Oak Park Royal area will make to the area and the extent to which developers will fund social infrastructures such as health care facilities and affordable housing. A total of 46 persons were in attendance on the day, many representing residents and interest groups with a significant membership to which attendees would feedback information later.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
URL http://grandunionalliance.wixsite.com/grandunionalliance/events
 
Description London Practitioner Workshop 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact In January 2018, we organised three additional events for research-users and the public. A format similar to the April 2017 event was adopted with a workshop for urban development practitioners preceding a public lecture. During the workshop, the findings from our three case-studies were discussed and practitioners from the three geographical contexts were given the opportunity to exchange and learn from each other. About 35 professionals from architect, planning, housing firms joined the event. The three themes covered were 'balancing different priorities', 'mobilising public and private development actors' and 'good design solutions for the future city'. The evening public lecture and panel discussion were advertised on Eventbrite and 104 of the 105 available seats were booked. Discussions were facilitated by the PI and Co-Is. The public talks and the discussions were also filmed, which will allow their future circulation to a larger public. The third event was for residents living in the area under study; the aim was twofold; first, presenting research findings about public participation in the three case-studies area, second, illustrating how the data collected through interviews with some of the attendees will be used.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
 
Description London Stakeholder public event and exhibition 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Firstly, on the 26th of April 2017, London researchers held a free practitioner-focused event to raise awareness of our project amongst research-users and facilitate learning through bringing together a wide range of actors who shape city development. The event consisted of two workshops, a public lecture and a free exhibition. The event was very successful in bringing together people from a wide range of backgrounds. Policy-makers, architects, private developers and housing association representatives, as well as members of resident associations and local groups interested in urban planning issues took part in two lunch time workshops that were run in parallel by the PI and the London RA. One of the workshops discussed how to include community voices in planning policy, with examples from the London case-study being drawn upon. In the second workshop, participants and researchers debated and shared ideas about planning new urban districts displaying a range of qualities (inclusiveness, accessibility, etcetera) in terms of design, social and economic functions. The workshops were built around preliminary research findings. Experiences from the Old Oak Park Royal area were drawn upon and fed into the discussion. We scheduled short 2-hour lunch workshops (with free food provided) to maximise attendance by practitioners and research-users under time constraints. Because of the small-scale nature of the workshops, they were accessible by invitation only; each counting about 20 persons.

The afternoon events were open to the public more broadly; they included a panel presentation and discussion on urban qualities, followed by a public lecture by Lee Polisano of PLP Architecture, lead on the master planning of one of the main sites we studied. In light of our emerging findings at that time, we suggested a presentation on the following theme: "Pioneering Urbanity in an Expanding Capital". As part of the event, we also curated a one-day exhibition on emerging proposals for the redevelopment of the Old Oak Park Royal area, displaying material we gained access to and explored as part of our data collection and analysis process. Wide-ranging organisations such as property development firms, architects, residents' groups, and the Greater London Authority provided access to and authorisation to use their document in the exhibition, which was accessible to all attendees on the day and during breaks time to students and staff members from the Bartlett.

We advertised widely this opportunity to learn about and from our research. For instance, an advert was placed in The Planner, a magazine published by the Royal Town Planning Institute. Members of the editorial team of specialist publications such as Property week were invited, as were members of key organisations such as the New London Architecture and planning Aid England. Information about the event was also circulated through our contacts in the community. Over 100 attendees (124) registered for the public lecture and exhibition, increasing the visibility of our research. The event also brought together a number of our research participants either as contributors or attendees. We received very positive feedback. One participant emailed me the following comments:

"On behalf of the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum, a belated thanks for the opportunity to speak at the April 26 Urban Qualities workshop and attend the public lecture sessions. The two-hour workshop flew by and it was incredibly useful since I got tough questions form seasoned architects / other presenters - who know more about the impacts of neighbourhood plans than I do. The questions will help our forum develop its plans""I hope you have already had much positive feedback for such a star-studded and thorough event"

Using ESRC-grant resources, the public events were filmed and authorization to make the videos available online (project website) to the public was secured, allowing an exposure of our research beyond the day's attendees.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
URL http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/people/academic-staff/jennifer-robinson/governing-the-future-city/london/
 
Description National Workshop on Inclusionary Housing 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact Prof Phil Harrison: National Workshop on Inclusionary Housing Workshop (joint civil society, government and academic, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 March, 2019
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Presentation by former Mayor of Johannesburg on the Corridors of Freedom. 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Local
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact Special Seminar Session and Public Interview with Parks Tau, previous Mayor of Johannesburg, President of the South African Local Government Association, and President of the United Cities for Local Government, University of the Witwatersrand, 8 August, 2018.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Public Lecture 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Prof Phil Harrison: Special Lecture by Councillor Parks Tau, previous Mayor of Johannesburg, President of the South African Local Government Association, and international President of United Cities and Local Government (UCLG), held at University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 8 August, 2018
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
 
Description Report Back on Project Publication 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Third sector organisations
Results and Impact Prof Phil Harrison and Mike Makwela: Launch of the Planact Social Facilitation report and Facilitated Discussion on Urban Co-production, University of the Witwatersrand, 17 September 2018
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2018
URL http://www.planact.org.za/publications-commentary/research-reports/
 
Description Stakeholder workshop, Johannesburg 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Local
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact "Understanding the Role of Urban Developers", a symposium organised collaboratively with the Gauteng City Region Observatory at the University of the Witwatersrand, 25-27 July, 2016 [presentation of papers on the role of developers which are to be shortly submitted as part of a special edition of Environment and Planning A; the audience included academics, government officials and private sector developers]. Full details: The CI Phil Harrison, Spatial Analysis and City Planning Research Chair co-organised with Gauteng City Region Observatory a 3-day developers forum bringing together scholars and different segments of the development industry. The event included early feedback on the London (Robinson) and Johannesburg (Harrison, Todes, Dittgen) research, as well as wider academic and practitioner input to take forward shared interests in understanding the role of developers in housing and other urban developments in Johannesburg. International speakers (Liza Weinstein, Donald Leffers and Gaving Shatkin) opened up comparative analysis on this topic. A major outcome was closer links and potential future interactions with practitioners and stakeholders, as well as ongoing intellectual and policy collaborations in Johannesburg.
Workshop: Understanding the role of urban developers
Wits Club (Map https://goo.gl/OoG82K)

(Programme version 22 July 2016. Subject to change. A final programme will be provided at the event)

26 July 2016

8:00-8:30 Registration

8:30-13:00 Session 1: Urban Lab (organised by the SA Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning, Wits)

13:00-14:10 Lunch

14:10-15:40 Session 2: Large scale projects (Chair Alison Todes)
14:10-14:20 Welcome from GCRO
14:20-14:45 Jenny Robinson, Professor of Human Geography, University College of London, 'What scope for Community-Developer engagement in London's Large Scale Developments? The potential of comparative perspectives.'
14:45-15:10 Richard Ballard, Specialist Researcher Gauteng City-Region Observatory and Phil Harrison, SA Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning, Wits 'Transnational Urbanism: Chinese investors seeking approval to build the 'New York of Africa' at Modderfontein'
15:10-15:40 Discussion

15:40-16:00 Break

16:00-17:30 Session 3: Faces of the city seminar (Chair Aly Karam)
Gavin Shatkin, Associate Professor, Northeastern University, 'Urban Planning and the Role of Developers: Reflections from Asian Cities'

27 July 2016
8:30-9:00 Tea

9:00-10:30 Session 4: Brownfields and inner city regeneration (Chair Gavin Shatkin)
9:00-9:20 Nthatisi Khatleli, Senior Lecturer, Department of construction Economics Wits, 'Inner-city regeneration and resident communities'
9:20-9:40 Liza Weinstein, Associate Professor of Sociology, Northeastern University 'Strategic Partnerships and Local State Power: Developer-State Relations in Low Income Housing Construction in Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru'
9:40-10:00 Kola Akinsomi, Wits University, Senior Lecturer, School of Construction Economics and Management Wits 'Effects of urban decay on office rents in Johannesburg Central Business District.'
10:00-10:30 Discussion

10:30-11:00 Break

11:00-12:30 Session 5: Greenfields (Chair Margot Rubin)
11:00-11:20 Federica Duca, Post Doc Public Affairs Research Institute 'Adding value to the house: the role of golf courses'
11:20-11:40 Donald Leffers, York University 'Suburban land developers in the Toronto region, Canada'
11:40-12:00 Sian Butcher, Postdoc, Gauteng City-Region Observatory, 'Old monopolies, new money: Producing affordable suburbia on Joburg's edges'
12:00-12:30 Discussion

12:30-13:30 Lunch

13:30-15:10 Session 6: Quick-fire Panel (Chair Jenny Robinson)
13:30-13-40 Aly Karam, Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Planning, Wits, 'Planning, developers and investments in our cities'
13:40-13-50 Solomon Ramalamula, Managing Director, Take Shape Properties 'The importance of urban sustainable development and education'
13:50-14-00 Thabelo Ramantswana, Associate Lecturer, School of Construction Economics and Management 'The influence of headquarters location in urban economics'
14:00-14:10 Ben Pierre Malherbe, CEO Calgro M3 Developments 'Integrated Housing in partnership with private sector'
14:10-14:20 Mark/Karina/Jacques?
14:20-14:30 Aidan Mosselson (tentative), Postdoc, Gauteng City-Region Observatory 'Housing developers as socially-embedded actors: experiences from the inner-city affordable housing market'
14:30-15:10 Discussion


15:10-15:30 Break

15:30-17:00 Session 7: Mixing (Chair Sian Butcher)
15:30-15:50 Prisca Simbanegavi. Lecturer, Wits School of Construction Economics and Management, 'Measuring the Impact of Mixed Income Housing; A Case Study'
15:50-16:10 Margot Rubin, Senior Researcher, SA Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning (Wits) 'Convergence, confluence and compromise: the case of Fleurhof Integrated Housing Development'
16:10-16:30 Romain Dittgen, Senior Researcher, SARChI Spatial Analysis and City Planning, Wits 'Features of modernity, development and 'orientalism': Reading Johannesburg through its Chinese' urban spaces'
16:30-17:00 Discussion



There is a resource list here for your interest, which you should be able to add to if you can think of further material to include: https://goo.gl/YJIF6p

Workshop Rationale
There is a growing literature on the role of developers in shaping urban change, concerned with their expanding role in planning and urban governance in some contexts, and the way in which the relationship between meeting social need and the search for profit in urban development is embedded in the often complex negotiations between governments and private sector developers over land use. The focus of much of this literature is on North America and Europe, so some important themes relevant to the South African context remain underexplored. And yet it is clear that developers are profoundly reshaping South African cities. For example, developers have not only shaped the city through private-sector led high-end property development, but have also been crucial to the delivery of low cost housing. Perhaps most strikingly, developers have produced a large amount of residential, retail and commercial space for relatively affluent users in the form of cluster housing, gated communities, high rise commercial and residential spaces, and malls. They are also key actors in the transformation of South African cities for less affluent users. Developers are instrumental in implementing the low cost housing programme, which has delivered more than four million houses since 1994. Furthermore, the rental market and the 'affordable market' are growing in importance in both brownfield and greenfield sites, including important examples of high risk-taking developments which have remade significant parts of the city, such as downtown Johannesburg. More systemically, as city governments are reliant on property tax income, the role of local "government" can sometimes appear more in the mode of "developer". This workshop will seek to develop analyses of the role of developers in shaping South African cities, including the array of actors who work as part of developers' teams, such as technical consultants and financiers.

Format:
Urban Lab: 'Urban Developers and Government': This urban lab is part of a monthly series organised by Prof Phil Harrison's unit at Wits University (South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning). The purpose of this particular lab is to bring together officials, developers, stakeholders and researchers who are interested in the nature of the relationships between developers and various spheres and sectors of government. Given that the 2015/2016 City of Johannesburg Spatial Development Framework is about to be finalised, the particular focus of discussion will be on the role this Framework will play in guiding development in the city. The lab will consist of a half day programme (the morning of 26 July) in which participants will be invited to use any of the following questions as prompts for discussion:
1. What impact have government spatial plans and visions had on the work of developers?
2. What impact will the 2015/2016 Spatial Development Framework have on developers in Johannesburg? (The draft 2015/2016 SDF is available here http://bit.ly/joburg-sdf-16)
3. How do developers and different spheres and sectors of government relate to one another?
4. What changes should be considered to the way in which urban development happens in South Africa?
In addition contributors to the urban lab may wish to reflect on any of the questions posed below for the academic workshop or indeed any other themes they consider to be important.

Academic workshop: Participants in the urban lab are invited to stay on for the academic workshop should they wish to do so. Although the focus will be on South Africa, several international speakers will bring in a comparative perspective. Academics and researchers presenting papers will invariably pick up on many of the questions raised in the urban lab. In addition they may also tackle any of the following questions:
1. What is the developer 'ecosystem'? How can developers be classified into different types (market, size, ownership, geographical focus)?
2. What are the basic business models which developers follow? (i.e. what are the key economic opportunities driving the various urban development markets?)
3. How are developers constituted organisationally and also within networks of financiers, consultants, construction firms, officials, and other key actors?
4. What is the journey from CGI to ribbon cutting? How do visions shift and what shapes the evolution of an urban development project?
5. What are the transnational flows of resources and expertise both into and out of South Africa?
6. How do local conditions reshape international flows of resources, expertise and business ventures?
7. How are governance arrangements and the broader relationships between developers and government playing out?

Participants (across all events)
Kola Akinsomi Wits University
Alli Appelbaum South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning
Richard Ballard GCRO
Geoff Bickford South African Cities Network
Pete Blanckenberg Summercon Property Development
Josh Budlender SERI
Sian Butcher GCRO
Sarah Charlton Wits Planning
Norman Cleaver Cosmopolitan Projects
Yasmin Coovadia National Treasury
Yasmeen Dinath JDA
Romain Dittgen SARChI Spatial Analysis and City Planning, Wits University
Federica Duca PARI
Arthur Germond Agence Francaise
Graeme Gotz GCRO
Johanna Greenspan SA Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning (Wits)
Christian Hamann GCRO
Jesse Harber
Kirsten Harrison Independent
Phil Harrison SA Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning (Wits)
Lindsay Howe ETH Zürich
Matt Jackson JDA
Aly Karam School of Architecture and Planning, Wits
Geci Karuri-Sebina SA Cities Network
Nthatisi Khatleli Department of construction Economics Wits
Boitumelo Khoza Uvuko Civils Construction and Maintenance
Neil Klug School of Architecture and Planning, Wits
Donald Leffers York University
Josiah Lodi Premier's Office, Gauteng Provincial Government
Camille Lot Agence Francaise
Peter Magni South African Cities Network (SACN)
Ben Pierre Malherbe Calgro M3 Developments
Lekgolo Mayatula SAPOA
Rob Moore GCRO
Aidan Mosselson GCRO
Mark Napier CSIR Built Environment
Lusanda Netshitenzhe TUHF Limited
Pressage Nyoni TUHF
Anokhi Parikh
Herman Pienaar City of Johannesburg
Solomon Ramalamula TAKE SHAPE PROPERTIES
Thabelo Ramantswana School of Construction Economics and Management
Angela Rivers JPOMA
Jenny Robinson UCL
Margot Rubin SA Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning (Wits)
Christian Schmid ETH Zurich, Dept. of Architecture
Gavin Shatkin Northeastern University
Yondela Silimela City of Johannesburg
Prisca Simbanegavi Wits School of Construction Economics and Management
Liana Strydom City of Johannesburg
Alison Todes School of Architecture and Planning, University of the Witwatersrand
Dylan Weakley City of Johannesburg: Development Planning
Liza Weinstein Northeastern University
Tanya Zack Tanya Zack Development Planners
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2016