IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v53y2021i3p525-547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unsolicited urbanism: development monopolies, regulatory-technical fixes and planning-as-deal-making

Author

Listed:
  • Dallas Rogers
  • Chris Gibson

Abstract

This article identifies the evolution of, and critiques, unsolicited urbanism—a project of city-shaping favouring powerful market actors but inconsistent with the neoliberal tenet of competition. Marked by predetermined outcomes, unsolicited urbanism legitimates secretive monopolies over specific sites and the normalization of planning-as-deal-making. Such features are not uncommon globally, as circuits of capital seek rent opportunities latent in urban land, and as market actors increasingly exercise power over development decision-making. But following casino-led mega-development in Melbourne (Southbank/Docklands) and Sydney (Barangaroo), Australia, unsolicited urbanism has coalesced as a clearly-identifiable project, inflected by relationships forged in the Asia-Pacific. The project, promoted by coalitions of developers, global capital, state government, and real estate, engineering and financing consultants, targets not just new sites for development, but the planning system itself. At its heart is a novel urban planning instrument, Unsolicited Proposals, that codifies and legitimizes bold and secretive bids for sites and assets over which governments and communities have not signalled intent or need for change. Unsolicited Proposal guidelines solicit premeditated, commercial-in-confidence bids to redevelop key urban assets without outside competition. Originating in two high-profile waterfront sites in Australia, the formalized Unsolicited Proposal planning process has spread elsewhere as a ‘fix’ to ‘unlock’ urban spaces for casino development, infrastructure financing and quasi-privatizations, with foreboding signs of its rapid mobility. The project of unsolicited urbanism connects money and power in new ways to reshape cities, and this analysis shows how a suite of regulatory-technical processes has been reconfigured to make this possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Dallas Rogers & Chris Gibson, 2021. "Unsolicited urbanism: development monopolies, regulatory-technical fixes and planning-as-deal-making," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(3), pages 525-547, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:53:y:2021:i:3:p:525-547
    DOI: 10.1177/0308518X20952421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X20952421
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0308518X20952421?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip Ashton & Brett Christophers, 2018. "Remaking Mortgage Markets by Remaking Mortgages: U.S. Housing Finance after the Crisis," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 94(3), pages 238-258, May.
    2. Francesco Chiodelli, 2019. "The illicit side of urban development: Corruption and organised crime in the field of urban planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1611-1627, June.
    3. Kevin Ward, 2018. "Urban Redevelopment Policies on the Move: Rethinking the Geographies of Comparison, Exchange and Learning," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 666-683, July.
    4. Marie dela Rama & Michael Lester, 2019. "Anti-corruption commissions: lessons for the Asia-Pacific region from a proposed Australian federal anti-corruption watchdog," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 571-599, August.
    5. Jamie Peck & Nik Theodore & Neil Brenner, 2013. "Neoliberal Urbanism Redux?," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 1091-1099, May.
    6. Manuel B. Aalbers, 2013. "Debate on Neoliberalism in and after the Neoliberal Crisis," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 1053-1057, May.
    7. Keith Jacobs, 2015. "The 'Politics' of Australian Housing: The Role of Lobbyists and Their Influence in Shaping Policy," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 694-710, July.
    8. Murray, Cameron K. & Frijters, Paul, 2016. "Clean money, dirty system: Connected landowners capture beneficial land rezoning," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 99-114.
    9. Jamie Peck, 2017. "Transatlantic city, part 2: Late entrepreneurialism," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(2), pages 327-363, February.
    10. Jamie Peck, 2017. "Transatlantic city, part 1: Conjunctural urbanism," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(1), pages 4-30, January.
    11. Chris Gibson, 2019. "Economic geography, to what ends? From privilege to progressive performances of expertise," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 51(3), pages 805-813, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martijn Konings & Lisa Adkins & Dallas Rogers, 2021. "The institutional logic of property inflation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(3), pages 448-456, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anthony M Levenda & Eliot Tretter, 2020. "The environmentalization of urban entrepreneurialism: From technopolis to start-up city," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(3), pages 490-509, May.
    2. Hulya Dagdeviren & Ewa Karwowski, 2022. "Impasse or mutation? Austerity and (de)financialisation of local governments in Britain [Regul(ariz)ation of fringe credit: Payday lending and the borders of global financial practice]," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 685-707.
    3. Özgür Sayın & Michael Hoyler & John Harrison, 2022. "Doing comparative urbanism differently: Conjunctural cities and the stress-testing of urban theory," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 59(2), pages 263-280, February.
    4. Pablo Mendez & Noah Quastel, 2015. "Subterranean Commodification: Informal Housing and the Legalization of Basement Suites in Vancouver from 1928 to 2009," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1155-1171, November.
    5. Yong Tu, 2018. "Urban debates for climate change after the Kyoto Protocol," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(1), pages 3-18, January.
    6. Richard Waldron, 2019. "Financialization, Urban Governance and the Planning System: Utilizing ‘Development Viability’ as a Policy Narrative for the Liberalization of Ireland's Post‐Crash Planning System," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 685-704, July.
    7. Michael Janoschka & Fabiola Mota, 2021. "New municipalism in action or urban neoliberalisation reloaded? An analysis of governance change, stability and path dependence in Madrid (2015–2019)," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(13), pages 2814-2830, October.
    8. Mark Davidson, 2020. "Extreme municipal fiscal stress and austerity? A case study of fiscal reform after Chapter 9 bankruptcy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(3), pages 522-538, May.
    9. Mace, Alan & Holman, Nancy & Paccoud, Antoine & Sundaresan, Jayaraj, 2015. "Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 56768, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Steffen Wetzstein, 2017. "The global urban housing affordability crisis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(14), pages 3159-3177, November.
    11. Gabriel Schwake & Haim Yacobi, 2024. "Decolonisation, gentrification, and the settler-colonial city: Reappropriation and new forms of urban exclusion in Israel," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 42(4), pages 618-638, June.
    12. Bell, William Paul & Zheng, Xuemei, 2018. "Inclusive growth and climate change adaptation and mitigation in Australia and China : Removing barriers to solving wicked problems," MPRA Paper 84509, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Navaz Naghavi & Muhammad Shujaat Mubarik & Devinder Kaur, 2018. "Financial Liberalization And Stock Market Efficiency: Measuring The Threshold Effects Of Governance," Annals of Financial Economics (AFE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 1-24, December.
    14. Muhammad Zeeshan Younas, 2020. "How Did Risk Management Methods Change After The 2007 Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis In The United Kingdom?," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 9(1), pages 22-31, March.
    15. Talia Margalit & Adriana Kemp, 2019. "The uneven geographies of post-political planning: Objections to urban regeneration projects in peripheral and central Israeli cities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 51(4), pages 931-949, June.
    16. Anders Lund Hansen & Henrik Gutzon Larsen & Adam Grydehoj & Eric Clark, 2015. "Financialisation of the built environment in Stockholm and Copenhagen," Working papers wpaper115, Financialisation, Economy, Society & Sustainable Development (FESSUD) Project.
    17. Jennifer Robinson & Katia Attuyer, 2021. "Extracting Value, London Style: Revisiting the Role of the State in Urban Development," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 303-331, March.
    18. Matthew Thompson & Vicky Nowak & Alan Southern & Jackie Davies & Peter Furmedge, 2020. "Re-grounding the city with Polanyi: From urban entrepreneurialism to entrepreneurial municipalism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(6), pages 1171-1194, September.
    19. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Shouying Liu & Fang Xia, 2020. "Property rights reform to support China’s rural ‐ urban integration: household‐level evidence from the Chengdu experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(1), pages 30-54, January.
    20. Murray, Cameron & Gordon, Josh, 2021. "Land as airspace: How rezoning privatizes public space (and why governments should not give it away for free)," OSF Preprints v89fg, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:53:y:2021:i:3:p:525-547. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.