Search

Recently we have witnessed the mounting of very large development projects (mega-projects) in European and American cities. There is a striking physical similarity among the schemes and also a convergence embodied in private-sector involvement and market orientation. They differ, however, as to whether they provide affordable units and tie together physical and social goals. This article investigates new mega-projects in New York, London, and Amsterdam. The dissimilarities among them indicate the extent of variability in contemporary property capitalism. The comparison shows that public-private partnerships can provide public benefits, but also shows that these large projects are risky for both public and private participants, must primarily be oriented toward profitability, and produce a landscape that does not encourage urbanity. Whether the gains from increased competitiveness are spread throughout the society depends on the size of the direct governmental commitment to public benefits. This is greatest in the Netherlands, where the welfare state, albeit shrunken, lives on; it is least in the United States, where the small size of national expenditures on housing and social welfare means that low-income people must depend almost wholly on trickle-down effects to gain from new development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of the attack on the World Trade Center have been especially felt within New York City's large tourism industry. An important source of employment for low-skilled workers, the tourism industry has sustained substantial job loss in the aftermath of September 11th. Within the context of regulation theory we can see that the tourism regime is caught in a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, it must develop the city in a way that seems welcoming to visitors -- that is, it must regulate the city for the benefit of visitors. On the other, it must regulate tourists to assure that they do not present a danger to residents, visitors and the industry itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For most of the 1980s the New York City economy surged, carrying its expensive municipal government along with it. the fiscal crisis of the middle 1970s had become a nearly forgotten product of fiscal mismanagement and the death throes of the industrial economy. The city framed its budget according to accepted accounting principles and with its newly achieved satisfactory bond rating, it could once again market its general obligation bonds. New York's restructured economy, based in finance and advanced services, reaffirmed its enhanced status as global city. Then, just as rapidly as the boom began, it ended. The 1987 stock market crash constituted the first harbinger of decline, nevertheless New York's economy continued to grow for the next two years, albeit at a slower pace. By the end of 1989, however, almost all indicators had turned down and for the years 1990 and 19991 New York City showed declines in employment, a virtually total real-estate slump and a drastic shortfall in tax revenues as compared to anticipated receipts. The paper examines the causes and outcomes of the two post-1970 fiscal crises to indicate the links between New York's economic base, the financial condition of its government, its politics and the way in which these factors intertwine.

During the 1980s two global cities New York City and London, England have shown a remarkable convergence in public policy and development patterns. The article analyzes the linkage between the pressures of world economic transformation, on the one hand and political and ideological forces on the other in determining the character of development in these two cities. London and New York are a particularly useful source for comparative study because their common attributes permit the identification of a limited number of variables to explain their differences. They both developed as great ports, their roles as centers of international trade and the requirements for financing that trade, caused them to become the locations of the world's most important financial markets. Each has been the financial capital of a dominant global economic power, and each faces increased competition from other world centers. It is further observed that the governments of New York City and London opted for the route of minimal planning, dampened participation and market distribution. These policies have contributed to highly uneven development, severe shortages of affordable housing, congestion and environmental deterioration.