Advertisement

Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for Multi-dimensional Governance

  • Carlos Balsas
Part of the cSUR-UT Series: Library for Sustainable Urban Regeneration book series (LSUR, volume 7)

Abstract

Human activity on earth and the increasing gregarious movement into cities are some of the most fascinating enterprises of mankind. This impact is difficult to measure, but (1971) and (2005) have defined it as a composite measure of population, affluence, technology and governance. Central to this equation is the long-term dimension of population impact and our ability to govern ourselves in order to minimize our impact on the planet. The sustainable development construct addresses intergenerational equity but also provides a framework to address city living and its regulatory milieu. Urban sustainability is now a major policy goal in many planning instruments and processes. Even though sustainable development means different things to different people, there is a consensus that sustainability is needed in order to achieve and maintain higher levels of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social responsiveness (Newman and Kenworthy (1999); (Berke (2002); (Gunder (2006).

Keywords

Urban Growth Sonoran Desert Urban Governance Growth Management Maricopa County 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arefi, M. (2003): “Revisiting the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI)”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22Google Scholar
  2. Arizona Growing Smarter Oversight Council (2006) Growing Smarter Guiding Principles 2006, http://www.azcommerce.com/CommAsst/GrowSmart/Guiding+Principles.htm (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  3. Astleithner, F. and Hamedinger, A. (2003) “Urban sustainability as a new form of governance: obstacles and potentials in the case of Vienna, Innovation, 16(1)Google Scholar
  4. ASU (2004) Downtown Phoenix campus, http://www.asu.edu/cdp/dtn.html (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  5. Ayre, G. and Callway, R. (eds) (2005) Governance for Sustainable Development, a Foundation for the Future. EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  6. Balsas, C. (2006) “The Phoenix Capitol Mall studios as examples of community embeddedness”, Open House International, 31(3)Google Scholar
  7. Berke, P. (2002) “Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first century”, Journal of Planning Literature, 17(1)Google Scholar
  8. Berman, D. (1998) “The growth management challenge in Arizona”, in Melnick, R. (ed) Growth in Arizona, The Machine in the Garden. Morrison Institute for Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, B. and Chapman, J. (2001) Pieces of Power: Governance in Arizona. Arizona Town HallGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, E. and Kenney, E. (2005) “Building and Maintaining Urban Water Infrastructure: Phoenix, Arizona, 1950–2003”, Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 67Google Scholar
  11. City of Phoenix (2004) Transit Oriented Development TOD Guidelines—Phoenix, http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/ (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  12. City of Phoenix (2006) Phoenix Infill Housing Program. http://phoenix.gov/BUSINESS/infilpgm.html (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  13. Collin, J., Leveillee, J. and Poitras, C. (2002) “New challenges and old solutions: Metropolitan reorganization in Canadian and US city-regions”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(3)Google Scholar
  14. Collins, W. (2005) The Emerging Metropolis: Phoenix, 1944–1973, Arizona States Park BoardGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies, J. (2002) “The governance of urban regeneration: A critique of the “governing without government” thesis”, Public Administration, 80(2)Google Scholar
  16. Davis, L. (2004) “Finding room for history in the desert: Can Tempe afford-or afford not to-keep its oldest house?”, The Next American City, February http://www.americancity.org/ (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  17. Ehrlich, P. and Holdren, J. (1971) “Impact of population growth”, Science, 171Google Scholar
  18. Fraser-Moleketi, G. (2003) “Quality governance for sustainable growth and development”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(4)Google Scholar
  19. Gammage, G. (2003) Phoenix in Perspective-Reflections on Developing the Desert (2nd Edition). Herberger Center for Design Excellence and Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Gammage, G. and Fink, J. (2004) The Phoenix Experiment (Paper delivered at the conference “On the Edge: Metropolitan Growth and Western Environments” Stanford University, April 15–16)Google Scholar
  21. Gober, P. (2006) Metropolitan Phoenix: Place Making and Community Building in the Desert, University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Gober, P. and Burns, E. (2002) “The size and shape of Phoenix’s urban fringe”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21Google Scholar
  23. Gordon to cities: Tax lures must end. Arizona Republic, May 19, 2005.Google Scholar
  24. Growing Smarter Commission (2000) Regional Planning Issues Technical Advisory Subcommittee Report and Recommendations, http://www.azplanning.org/commission.html (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  25. Grymm, N. and Redman, C. (2004) “Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: The case of central Arizona—Phoenix”, Urban Ecosystems, 7Google Scholar
  26. Gunder, M. (2006) “Sustainability, planning’s saving grace or road to perdition?”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26Google Scholar
  27. Hall, J. (2002) “Reconsidering the conection between capacity and governance”, Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 2Google Scholar
  28. Hall, J. (2004) “Who will govern American metropolitan regions?”, in Phares, D. (ed) Metropolitan Governance Without Metropolitan Government? AshgateGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, J. and Melnick, R. (2004) “Regional roles, relationships and the future of the Phoenix metropolitan area”, in Phares, D. (ed) Metropolitan governance without metropolitan government? AshgateGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamilton, D., Miller, D. and Paytas, J. (2004) “Exploring the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the governing of metropolitan regions”, Urban Affairs Review, 40(2)Google Scholar
  31. Heffernon, R. and Melnick, R. (2001) Growth management and open space protection in Arizona: Current tools and progress (Issues in Brief on behalf of Greater Phoenix Leadership) Morrison Institute for Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
  32. Heim, C. (2001) “Leapfrogging, urban sprawl and growth management: Phoenix 1950–2000”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 60(1)Google Scholar
  33. Kearney, B. (2006) Copper square and downtown Phoenix: The next great American downtown (Presentation made to the ULI Arizona District Council. August 30)Google Scholar
  34. Keil, A. (2006) “New urban governance processes on the level of neighborhoods”, European Planning Studies, 14(3)Google Scholar
  35. Kidokoro, T. (2006) “An introduction to sustainable urban regeneration and local governance in regional cities” (Paper presented at the International workshop on Sustainable Urban Regeneration and Local Governance in Regional Cities. January 17–18)Google Scholar
  36. Kirby, A. et al. (2006) “Examining the significance of housing enclaves in the metropolitan United States of America”, Housing, Theory and Society, 23(1)Google Scholar
  37. Kress, A. (2005) “Phoenix mayor calls for opportunity corridor”, Phoenix Business Journal, March 18Google Scholar
  38. Lafferty, W. (ed) (2004) Governance for Sustainable Development, a challenge of adapting form to function. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  39. Lang, R. (2006) The sun corridor: Arizona’s emerging megapolitan area (Presentation delivered at the Arizona Town Hall, Prescott. April 9, http://www.mi.vt.edu/ (Accessed on December 20, 2006))Google Scholar
  40. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2003) Phoenix: The Urban Desert, a documentary film Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  41. Luckingham, B. (1989) Phoenix: The History of a Southwestern Metropolis. The University of Arizona PressGoogle Scholar
  42. MAG (2000) Valley Vision 2025—Vision Report. Maricopa Association of Governments.Google Scholar
  43. MAG (2002) “MAG Regional Council endorses governance concepts”, MAGA-Zine, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  44. MAG (2003) Regional Transportation Plan, http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/ (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  45. MAG (2005) Regional Report, A Resource for Policy Makers in the Maricopa Region. Phoenix Maricopa Association of GovernmentsGoogle Scholar
  46. Maricopa County (2002) Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan—MC2020, http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/compln/ (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  47. McCabe, B. (2006) “Privatizing urban services through homeowners associations: the potential and practice in Phoenix”, International Journal of Public Administration, 29(10–11)Google Scholar
  48. McLennan, A. and Ngoma, W. (2004) “Quality governance for sustainable development?”, Progress in Development Studies, 4(4)Google Scholar
  49. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (2000) Hits and Misses: Fast Growth in Metropolitan Phoenix. Morrison Institute for Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
  50. Moya, S. (1998) “Growth management in Maricopa County, 1988–1992: An application of Kingdom’s agenda setting model”, The Social Science Journal, 35(4)Google Scholar
  51. Murphy, P. (2000) “Urban governance for more sustainable cities”, European Environment, 10Google Scholar
  52. Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability and cities. Island PressGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD (2001) Cities for Citizens: improving metropolitan governance. OECDGoogle Scholar
  54. Peirce, N. Johnson, C. and Hall, J. (1993) Citistates: how urban America can prosper in a competitive world. Seven Locks PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Pijawka, D., Blair, J., Guhathakurta, S. et al. (1998) “Environmental equity in central cities: Socioeconomic dimensions and planning strategies”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(5)Google Scholar
  56. Portney, K. (2005) “Civic engagement and sustainable cities in the United States”, Public Administration Review, 65(5)Google Scholar
  57. Pursue a centennial dream (2005) Arizona Republic, December 8Google Scholar
  58. Quay, R. et al. (2003) GP2100 Greater Phoenix Regional Atlas. ASUGoogle Scholar
  59. Quay, R., Mathien, J. and Richert, D. (1997) Phoenix’s Strategic View of Growth, http://www.design.asu.edu./apa/proceedings97/quay2.html (Accessed on December 20, 2006)Google Scholar
  60. Redman, C. and Jones, N. (2005) “The environmental, social and health dimensions of urban expansion”, Population and Environment, 26(6)Google Scholar
  61. Regional Transportation Commission (2006) Examples of regional governance, http://www.psrtc.wa.gov/ (Accessed on December 20. 2006)Google Scholar
  62. Tiebout, C. (1956) “A pure theory of local expenditures”, The Journal of Political Economy, 64(5)Google Scholar
  63. ULI (2001) Light-rail transit in Phoenix, Arizona, economic development along the planned light-rail line, http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail (Accessed on December 20, 2006).Google Scholar
  64. Yabes, R. and Pijawka, D. (2004) Public participation in achieving sustainability in central city neighborhoods (Paper presented at the IUPEA 2004 conference in Louisville)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Balsas
    • 1
  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations