New Developments in the 21st century-14

‘Trends in Inner City Development in the 21st century; How to proceed?’, Max Jeleniewski, 2015 1
Trends in Inner City
Development in the
21st Century;
How to Proceed?
A European perspective
Max Jeleniewski
2015
23-1-2015

Trends in Inner City Development in the 21st
century;
How to proceed?
A European perspective
Max Jeleniewski MSc, Rijswijk, 2015
max.jeleniewski@ziggo.nl
23-1-2015
Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Modernism 6
3. Public Investments in the Inner Cities 9
4. Public Private Partnerships 10
5. Outline of a new period 12
Literature 15

1. Introduction
The urban landscape in Europe has witnessed dramatic changes in the past 65 years. A
number of political, social and economic transformations determine its present condition and
appearance. The restoration of Europe right after the World War II was carried out according
to Modernistic ideas.
In Europe the first urban development crisis came in the late 1960s. All over Europe people
demanded a political change. The pressure from revolutionary-minded people made
politicians review their approaches to urban development. Hence, new concepts emerged
and based on the ideas of e.g. the American journalist Jane Jacobs, who advocated
comfortable living in urban centres, with their own specific individual environment and
character. This was reflected e.g. in the construction of social housing in the inner cities.
During that period the private investment in cities were decreasing. As a result only public
investments were available for urban programmes in inner cities. This situation asked for a
different approach since public authorities were not able anymore to generate the necessary
resources themselves. A new period started with an important role for the private sector in
inner cities in the 1990s. As a result, the revenues of insurance companies and pension
funds were flowing back to the inner cities, there were new investments in the restructuring of
urban territories and the redevelopment of industrial and harbour zones. This was done
through a strong cooperation between municipal authorities and private companies. Such
projects were based on the principle of integrated development. Monuments, including those
of the industrial era, gained significance in this period.
The real estate investment bubble however, collapsed in 2008. The credit crisis of 2008 was
followed by a banking- and Euro-crisis. Finding financial means for urban development
became difficult. The supply market of the previous period had turned into a demand market.
On the other hand however, some cities and metropolitan areas perform very well. Growing
real estate prices can still be found in a few prosperous cities and/or metropolitan areas,
such as London, Paris, Milan, Munich, Berlin and Moscow. Economic growth on the national
level had been halted, but it continued in the most prosperous and dynamic cities and
regions.
Today we are in a new period. This new period has to provide solutions that arise from the
new reality. The solution, however, is not in actions, but in a change of thinking about urban
development and its relation with the economy. So the question is: How can we draw lessons
from the previous periods of urban development in order to better be prepared for and
possibly steer the outcome of the most recent crisis in the years to come?
To do so I will first give a description of the different periods of urban development after the
World War II. I distinguish three different periods. Each of these periods is correlated to the
social, financial, economic and political developments of that specific time. Each of the
periods started with enthusiasm, full of idealism and the will to perform better than before.
Then each of the periods sets and faces a crisis, which functions as a turning point in urban
development.

Earlier I distinguished three successive periods in Europe1
:
1 Modernism after the World War II.
2 Public investment in the Inner Cities; the time of urban renewal.
3 Public Private Partnership later referred to as area development.
From 2005 we witness the outlines of a new period. In this essay I will discuss the different
periods and successive turning points. This may tell us something about the present new
period of urban development.
2 Modernism
Although Modernism is an architectural and urban development concept that emerged back
in the 1930s under the influence of communistic ideas, it was only possible to fully implement
its ideology after the World War II. The distinct features of this approach were strict functional
separation and reordering of the four main urban functions: living, working, recreation and
traffic. The main aim of the movement was to eradicate housing problems in cities worldwide,
such as diseases due to contaminated water, air pollution, health problems, etc. Modernists
had a radical view of the future, building new transportation infrastructure and expanding the
boundaries of the cities. The period was closely related to the recovery of the battered cities
in the World War II. This period started in the late 1940s and ended in the late 1970s.
For national and local politicians in Europe the reconstruction of cities and infrastructure was
priority number one. After the World War II, Europe had to be rebuilt literally from scratch.
The capital needed for urban development had
evaporated. The private sector as well as the public
sector, central and local government, had limited
resources. The accumulation of capital had to start from
the beginning.
In the early years of this period, restoring the
(economic) infrastructure has been an important policy
priority. In subsequent years, the late 1950s and 1960s,
the residential and retail structure has been addressed.
The housing shortage was immense after the demolition
of European cities during the war. Serial housing
development became important. The Modernistic ideas
suited very well the demand for urban development at that time. Housing production was
cheap and could be implemented fast.
The ‘bible’ of the movement, La Charte d'Athenes2
, was drawn up during the 4th CIAM
(Congrès International d'Architecture Moderne) in 1933 aboard the vessel SS Patris, on its
way from Athens to Marseille. The Charte d'Athenes was published in 1943 by Le Courbusier
and contains a detailed description of the city of the future. The Modernistic ideas as
expressed in the Charte d'Athenes contained the right ingredients to meet the high demand
for housing.
1
Jeleniewski, Max, ‘Nieuwe Stedelijke Ontwikkelingen in de 21ste eeuw; Hoe nu verder?, Rijswijk, 2014. Before I presented these ideas in
several international conferences; e.g. in Riyadh (2007), Moscow (2011) and Brighton (2013).
2
Le Corbusier, ‘The Athens Charter’ (1933), translated from the French by Anthony Eardley, New York, 1973

“CIAM demanded that housing districts should occupy the best sites, and a minimum amount
of solar exposure should be required in all dwellings. For hygienic reasons, buildings should
not be built along transportation routes, and modern techniques should be used to construct
high apartment building spaces widely apart, to free the soil for large green parks”3
.
There are many international examples of Modernism. One of the most known is the
realisation of the new capital Brasilia in Brazil. The start of that project was at the end of
1950s. The city is based on an urban plan, made by Lucio Costain, in the shape of an
airplane. A broad central boulevard was made, where all the government buildings were
located. Architect Oscar Niemeyer designed a large number of monumental buildings.
Other examples of applications of the ideas of Modernism can be found in the city of
Chandigarh, India (the new capital of the state of Punjab) and the district Pruitt Igoe, St.
Louis, Missouri in the United States.
The Pruitt–Igoe housing scheme in St Louis, Missouri, was designed in accordance with the
modernistic ideals. The housing complex, made up of 14 storeys, was built in 1951. July 15th
1972 the Pruitt–Igoe housing scheme had to be demolished. The 1982 film Koyaanisqatsie,
directed by Godfrey Reggio with music composed by Philip Glass, has shots of the
demolition and is still an impressive document4
. The experiment had failed because of the
social problems connected with the implementation of the ideas of the Modernism.
In Europe as well larger projects arose. In the
1950s and 1960s in almost all European cities
architects made plans for and implemented major
urban projects. The idea was that the old should
be replaced by the new. Plans for inner cities
included the demolition of large parts of historic
city centres and homes that were built in the late
19th and early 20th centuries. Some city centres
had to be rebuilt from scratch as their centres had
been (partly) demolished during the World War II.
The demolition of Pruitt Igoe housing estate
The centre of Rotterdam is such an example. The inner city was bombed in the early
morning of May 14, 1940 by the German Air Force. Only a few buildings remained standing:
the town hall, the post office and cynically also the police headquarters. The first plans to
reconstruct the inner city date back to 1940-1945, but it is after the war that rebuilding really
started. The inner city was rebuilt according to the ideas of Modernism. The plan included the
construction of residential complexes (in 10-12 layers), set in between green areas in the
centre of the city. The first pedestrian shopping area in the world was built in Rotterdam; the
Lijnbaan. The first part was completed in 1953. In the 1950s and 1960s, it became a great
commercial success. Architects from all over the world come to Rotterdam to see the results.
3
Mumford, “The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960”, The MIT Press, 2000
4
Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance, is a 1982 film directed by Godfrey Reggio with music composed by Philip Glass and cinematography by
Ron Fricke.

One of the most striking other examples of modernism is Les Halles in Paris. Les Halles
used to be the wholesale market of Paris, but due to congestion had to move in 1970 to one
of the suburbs of Paris, Rungis. The redevelopment of Les Halles replaced the old market
with a large complex, including an important subway station and a big shopping mall, four
levels underground. The large-scale redevelopment of Les Halles is the reason for the book
"L'Assissinat de Paris"5
in which the writer Louis Chevalier follows the ideas of Jane Jacobs.
Jane Jacobs criticized in her famous book in 1961 the modernistic way of looking at urban
development and city architectural design. She comes up with the term human scale to show
how new strategies to enhance actual city performance6
. The French book described the
megalomaniac plans in Paris in the 1960s and 1970s. The book was a plea for the human
scale, the diversity of the city and public life in the city. In this way the book is an
‘assassination’ of the Modernistic ideas.
In former Eastern Europe, the urban development has been also under strong influence of
the principles of Modernism. Whether it is Prague, Warsaw, Tirana, Almaty or Moscow,
everywhere new neighbourhoods
emerged with high-rise apartment
buildings (with 5, 12 or 20 floors). They
were mostly located at the outskirts of
cities, sometimes in the inner cities. As a
consequence the densities in the
suburbs, compared to inner cities,
became very high. This is in
contradiction with the free market theory
that land costs and densities fall down
the more the land is situated from the
city centre.7
The Petrzalka neighbourhood in Bratislava
On the other hand big infrastructural projects were implemented to connect the suburbs with
the city centre. The monumental character of the city was not always acknowledged8
. A good
example of these developments is Bratislava, with the inner city projects and the Petrzalka
neighbourhood in Bratislava. This neighbourhood was built in the 1960s and 1970s on the
other side of the river Danube and now houses more than 120,000 inhabitants.
Modernism was characterised by a top-down approach, that is where the planners
determined how people should behave and live in the city. Districts were developed on
strictly defined principles of urban planning. In the early 1970s a process of democratisation
within the low income areas started. People demanded access to decision-making. There
was a tendency towards a more bottom up approach. More public investments were needed
to implement this shift of policy; Urban Renewal became the new buzz word. By 1975 the
period of Modernism was really over.
5
Chevalier, Louis, ‘The Assassination of Paris’, Chicago/London, 1977/1994
6
Jacobs, Jane, ‘The death and life of great American cities’, New York, 1961
7
Bertaud, Alain and Renaud Bertrand, ‘Cities without Land Markets. Lessons of the Failed Socialist Experiment’, World Bank discussion
papers 227, Washington, 1994
8
Urban Agenda, ‘Which Management Model is better for Russian Cities’, in: ‘Lessons from the Moscow Urban Forum 2011’, Moscow, 2012

3 Public Investment in the Inner Cities
The war in Vietnam, rock music instead of jazz, the protests against private developers or
speculators; there was something new in the air in the 1960s. Under the influence of bottom
up thinking a new public policy was introduced, aimed at improving the housing conditions of
the lower income groups in the inner cities. Lower income groups had been living in these
neighbourhoods for decades, centuries; renting houses in poor conditions from slumlords. In
the time of Modernism housing policy was focused on new residential areas, whereas
housing conditions in the inner cities were neglected. The time had changed, primary
attention was paid improving the poor housing situation of low income people in the old
neighbourhoods in and around the inner cities.
Public pressure made the municipalities start improving these neighbourhoods. The
principles of urban renewal or ‘building for the neighbourhood' were implemented. The large
majority of the residents had low income. These low income groups lived in the worst
houses, in the slums and adjacent alleys. In the 1970s and 1980s, most of these districts
underwent a complete metamorphosis in the physical sense. New buildings replaced the old
slum houses and alleys and other houses were being renovated. This was social housing
with low rents. The new rents were higher than the old rents but thanks to central and local
government subsidies the new rents were kept at an affordable level. In this way the
(physical) living conditions were significantly improved.
The city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands
has been at the forefront of social housing,
especially in the early days of urban
renewal9
. In other Dutch as well as in
German and other European cities (e.g. The
Hague, Berlin and Glasgow) this approach
was copied.
Everywhere in Europe the social crisis was
evident in the late 1960s, also in Eastern
Europe.
Protest meeting at the Sorbonne University Paris 14 May 1968
The invasion of the Russian army in Czechoslovakia, the crisis in Poland and the student
movements at the universities were clear examples of this social unrest. In Western Europe
the social crisis was translated into new urban policies, however this was not the case in
Eastern Europe. This meant that in Eastern Europe the ideas of Modernism remain prevalent
in urban development for a much longer period. This came to an end only with the fall of the
Berlin Wall in 1989.
Private developers and investors, meanwhile, slowly withdrew their investments from the
(inner) cities. Private investment in inner cities dried up in the mid 1980s. In the end all main
9
Priemus, Hugo, ‘Stadsvernieuwing; Problemen en Perspectieven. Analyse van de Rotterdamse aanpak’, Alphen aan de Rijn, 1978

investments in inner cities (infrastructure, housing and public space) had to be financed with
public money, which became a financial and social burden for local governments.
On the other hand the Western European cities witnessed a process of massive immigration
from countries in Northern Africa, Turkey and former colonies. These groups increased the
demand for social housing dramatically. An acceleration of new inner city social housing
programmes was necessary. With the massive immigration the demography of the inner city
population changed completely. Inner cities became an area with huge social problems and
the commercial areas in the inner cities were deteriorating fast. This urged the need for the
inflow of private capital to inner cities.
In this same period, in countries where the market was more relaxed (UK and especially the
United States), a new phenomenon came up: Gentrification10
. Young Urban Professionals
came to settle in the underdeveloped inner city areas, chasing out people with low incomes.
Sometimes, private developers to pursue their goals used unscrupulous methods. It was an
expression of a market that no longer was functioning properly. The balance became lost,
giving room to a new approach.
With these changes the urban renewal period came slowly to an end. The period of urban
renewal continued for years until the mid-1990s. The seeds for Public Private Partnership
had been planted.
4 Public Private Partnerships
A new phenomenon in the United States was picked up in Europe in the last years of the
1980s: Public Private Partnerships (PPP)11
. Local governments and private developers
worked together in partnership in renovating inner cities. In order to do so both developers
and municipalities had to make different arrangements and had to work together more
closely; a process that needs time. It is the return of the private sector investing in inner
cities.
The following definition of a Public Private Partnership was used in the early years of this
period Public Private Partnership was defined if12
:
“- one or more governments are involved, and;
- one or more private parties are involved; who
- work together to a common aim;
- that is set in an organisational context;
- whereby each party can identify themselves with the common aim;
- these actors contribute resources, are sharing revenues and are accepting the risks
involved."
The period of Public Private Partnerships meant that private parties gradually invested again
in inner cities. The focus was initially on the redevelopment of areas in the city that have
been historically underdeveloped and/or use a lot of space: waterfronts, port areas, industrial
10
Smith, Neil & Peter Williams (ed.), ‘Gentrification of the city’, Boston, 1986
11
Committee for Economic Development, ‘Public-private partnership; an opportunity for urban communities’, New York/ Washington,
1982
12
Akro Consult/Seinpost, ‘Publiek-private samenwerkingsvormen in de burgerlijk- en utiliteitssector’, Zoetermeer/Den Haag, 1987

areas, etc. At the same time there was a renewed attention to the monumental character of
the (inner) city.
Projects in this period had in common that they were focussed on specific areas of the urban
fabric of inner cities. The term ‘area development’ did not exist in the 1980s but is slowly
introduced in the 1990s. In contrast to the large inner city projects of the 1960s and 1970s
the ‘area development’ was more related to the historic urban fabric.
Examples of ‘area development’ can be found
everywhere in Europe. To name a few: Canary
Wharf in London, Hafen City (195 ha) in
Hamburg, in Orriols, Valencia (Spain; the
Valencia Model) and several in France:
Marseille (495 ha), Bordeaux and in Paris;
Rive Gauche (around the Bibliotheque
National de France (BNF), 130 ha) and
Boulogne Billancourt (former Renault factory;
84 ha)13
.
Sometimes the legal framework was adapted to the new reality. The French projects make
use of a special national legal arrangement for Public Private Partnerships; the Société
d'Economie Mixte (SEM). In Spain new regional legislation was introduced to facilitate area
based development plans14
.
Area development is "the development of a demarcated area in all its aspects, aimed at
bringing together public and private interests. Area development is a form of Public Private
Partnership15
."
Paris, Boulogne – Billancourt. Plan for the Redevelopment of the former Renault complex; “Developpement Durable”.
The focus of this period was no longer on the low-income groups, as it was in the urban
renewal period, but was aimed at the more affluent residents. Cities were seen as the basis
of economic development. Both Richard Florida16
and Charles Landry17
were indicating some
13
Val de Seine Amenagement, ‘Ile de Seguin Rives de Seine; Le Development Durable en Actions’, Paris, 2010
14
Donker, Henk, “Gebiedsontwikkeling op zijn Valenciaans”, in: Geografie, 2011
15
Franzen, Agnes & Zeeuw, Friso de; ‘De engel uit graniet’, Delft, 2009
16
Florida, Richard, ‘The Rise of the Creative Class, and How it is Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life’, New York,
2003 and Florida, Richard, ‘The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity’, New York, 2010

elements of the new period in their writings over the past ten years. Richard Florida
acknowledged different “Great Resets” in the past 200 years in the United States. One of the
Great Resets is the present crisis. However he does not focus on the other trends we
witness here in Europe. On both continents however the value of the creative sector in the
economic development of cities became important. He argued that industry and/or trade is
no longer essential to economic development. While Florida's emphasised the economic
value of human creativity, Landry saw the need for a new cultural thinking and the use of the
creativity. This ran parallel with the introduction of internet, the rise of social media and
innovations in electronics like the iPad.
And yes, same as has been evidenced for other periods, the period of Public Private
Partnerships ended with a crisis; the credit- or financial crisis of 2008. Earlier there were
some first signs of the coming crisis, few people saw this, but it became evident only with the
collapse of the Lehman Brothers bank September 15th
2008. This was a clear signal for the
need of a new beginning, a new period.
5 Outline of a new period
It is general acknowledged that in the context of history crisis inevitably give rise to
periodically changes in economy. This implies also changes in urban development. In the
previous chapters I have given a description of three periods of urban development in
Europe after the World War II:
1 The period of Modernism. This period started after the World War II and ended
around 1975.
2 The period of Public investment in the inner cities. This period started in the 1960s
and ended around 1995.
3 The period of Public Private Partnerships. This period started around 1985 and will
end somewhere around 2015.
In modernism an optimistic and a somewhat utopic view on society prevailed. It is the time of
large urban development projects all around Europe. The period ended with a lack of
flexibility and a too rigid top-down approach. The student revolts and factory strikes lead to a
new way of thinking. There was an economic crisis (1968) and an oil crisis (1972). The
turning point is the combination of social unrest and the first economic (international) crisis
after the World War II.
The period of urban renewal showed a shift to more public investments in urban
development. The human scale became important. The public investments lead to the
production of social housing in cities, but also to demographic changes. The fall of the Berlin
wall marked the end of the cold war. Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous essay "The End of
History"18
. By the end of the 1970s the lack of private investment in (inner) cities became
evident. The turning point around 1990 is a political and real estate crisis. There is a
complete political shift to neo liberalism. Across Europe, we find many new initiatives to get
cities back on the map.
17
Landry, Charles, ‘The Creative City, a Toolkit for Urban Innovators’, London, 2000
18
Fukuyama, Francis, ‘The end of History and the last Man’, New York/Toronto, 1992

We also have seen the period of public private partnerships. In this period the European
Union expanded from 12 member states in 1990 to 27 in 2007 (and 28 in 2014). Privatisation
is a buzz-word in Western as well as in Eastern Europe. In urban development concepts
such as city marketing, waterfront projects and brown field development became important.
The projects again became larger; a programme approach was introduced to create
integrated projects. Public and private parties worked together to redevelop inner cities in a
new setting: Public Private Partnerships. This approach proved promising in the beginning.
Many projects and programmes start in inner cities. Over time however it goes wrong. After
the Russian crisis, the Internet crisis, the rise of populism and international terrorism (9-11),
there is a new turning point; the credit crisis. A lack of confidence in the economy is evident.
Financial products have become too complicated.
Not everywhere in Europe we witnessed exactly the same developments. The three periods
are visible in Western Europe. Central and Eastern Europe followed a different path, but
anyway ended up in same credit-crisis as in Western Europe. In countries like Russia and
China however, we still see today many elements of Modernism19
.
Each of the periods shows three phases:
- Pioneering phase
- Stabilisation phase,
- Crisis or turning point; followed by a reduction phase (runs synchronously with the
pioneer phase of the next period).
The duration of a full period is about 30 years. Roughly this period can be divided in a 10-
year pioneering phase, a 10-year period of stabilisation, followed by a crisis, and phasing out
for another 10-year.
The periods are partly overlapping each other. The reason for this is that planning,
implementation and financing of real estate projects take a long time realise. For construction
projects it takes 5 to 10 years to complete a project and for area development this can be
even 20 to 30 years.
Modernism Urban
Renewal
Public Private
Partnership
New period
Scale Large projects Human scale Large
programmes
Human scale
Main actor Public/private Public Private/public Private
Planning Blue print Sectoral Strategic Flexible
Implementation Directive Bottom up Partnership Facilitating
Turning point Economic and
social crisis
Lack of private
investments
Credit crisis ?
Prevailing elements of each period of urban development in Europe
19
Jeleniewski, Max and Shi Nan, ‘Whether Russian Cities should follow the European or Chinese Model’, in: ‘Urban Agenda; Cities for
People; Lessons from the Moscow Urban Forum 2011’, Moscow, 2012

The question remains, how the new period will develop. In the words of Richard Florida we
can identify already emerging tendencies as new consumption patterns, new forms of
infrastructure and a radically altered and much denser economic landscape.20
Obviously new
concepts are necessary. In the previous scheme the main elements of each period are
shown, including a prediction for the New Period. In Europe the outlines for the new period
are21
:
- We entered a prolonged time of low economic growth, combined with a fast aging
population;
- There is a strong diversification in urban development; some metropolitan areas and
cities do (much) better than others;
- Successful (inner) cities do not include only retail, but also housing, culture, creative
sector, leisure and catering. Flexibility between functions is condition ‘sine qua non’;
- At the local level, cities and regions are the motor or the hub of economic development;
- The time of large restructuring projects/programmes and brown field developments is
over, the role of project developers is less prominent;
- The human scale is back again in urban development;
- The guiding principle in urban development in the coming years is organic and
incremental development;
- To secure the quality of public space is a precondition for investments in real estate;
- New concepts based on a bottom-up approach are emerging, e.g. cradle to cradle22
,
temporary projects, guerrilla- and pop-up stores;
- Identity is the buzz-word. What matters is the DNA of individual metropolitan areas and
cities.
This new approach has consequences for the organisation of the process. Each period has
influence on the roles and relation between public and private sector. At the moment we see
the following happening:
- The private sector will have a more proactive role and will have to take more risks;
- Local governments will have a more restricted role in the implementation of urban
development, due to the lack of sufficient funding;
- Within local governments a reorientation of the departments of urban development is
needed; this means e.g. a shift from project- to programme-management.
The present legislation does not take these changes into account. The democratic processes
however should be respected. The public authorities will have less means to steer on details
and should steer on more general urban policies.
This New Period - a period of diversification - will eventually come to an end, just like any
other earlier period. Based on the length of the earlier periods we can predict that this will
happen around 2035, with a crisis around the year 2025. To speculate what type of crisis is
too early, but it will an economic crisis, increasing social inequality and could be very well
related to environmental problems or specific progress in science; e.g. nano-technology.
Meanwhile we need to set out good antennas to monitor the changes in urban development.
20
Florida, Richard, ‘The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity’, New York, 2010
21
E.g. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, ‘Gebiedsontwikkeling Nieuwe Stijl: eerste stappen in de praktijk’, Den Haag, 2014
22
Braungart, Michael & W. McDonough, ‘Cradle to Cradle’, New York, 2007

Background Literature
1. Akro Consult/Seinpost, ‘Publiek-private samenwerkingsvormen in de burgerlijk- en utiliteitssector’,
Zoetermeer/Den Haag, 1987
2. Bertaud, Alain and Bertrand Renaud, ‘Cities without Land Markets. Lessons of the Failed
Socialist Experiment’, World Bank discussion papers 227, Washington, 1994
3. Bosma, Koos & Helma Hellinga (ed.), ‘Mastering the City I & II, North-European City Planning
1900-2000’, NAI, Rotterdam, 1997
4. Boyer, Christine, ‘Cybercities, Visual Perception in the Age of Electronic Communication’,
Princeton, New York, 1996
5. Braungart, Michael & W. McDonough, ‘Cradle to Cradle’, New York, 2007
6. Burgers, J. & J. Vranken, ‘How to make a successful Urban Development Programme;
Experiences from nine European countries’, (UGIS Collection 3)’, Antwerpen/Apeldoorn, 2004
7. Castells, Manuel, ‘The City and the Grassroots; a Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social
Movements’, London, 1983
8. Castells, Manuel, ‘The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I, II and III’,
Oxfort, 1998
9. Chevalier, Louis, ‘The Assassination of Paris’, Chicago/London, 1977/1994
10. Committee for Economic Development, ‘Public-private partnership; an opportunity for urban
communities’, New York/ Washington, 1982
11. DeClerck, Joachim, ‘Building for Brussels; Architecture and Urban Transformation in Europe,
44 Projects’, Marseille, 2011
12. Donker, Henk, ‘Gebiedsontwikkeling op zijn Valenciaans”, in: Geografie, 2011
13. Franzen, Agnes & Zeeuw, Friso de, ‘De engel uit graniet’, Delft, 2009
14. Florida, Richard, ‘The Rise of the Creative Class, and How it is Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life’, New York, 2003
15. Florida, Richard, ‘The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash
Prosperity’, New York, 2010
16. Fukuyama, Francis, ‘The end of History and the last Man’, New York/Toronto, 1992
17. Glaeser, Edward, ‘The Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer,
Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier’, New York, 2011
18. Hall, Sir Peter, ‘Cities in Civilization’, New York, 1998
19. Jacobs, Jane, ‘The death and life of great American cities’, New York, 1961
20. Jeleniewski, Max, ‘Culture as Vehicle for Urban Regeneration; The case "Noord aan de Rotte"
in Rotterdam’, in: ‘Cultures of Cities; Transformations Generating new Opportunities’,
Rotterdam, 2001
21. Jeleniewski, Max, ‘Nieuwe Stedelijke Ontwikkelingen in de 21ste eeuw; Hoe nu verder?,
Rijswijk, 2014
22. Jeleniewski, Max and Shi Nan, ‘Whether Russian Cities should follow the European or
Chinese Model’, in: ‘Urban Agenda; Cities for People; Lessons from the Moscow Urban Forum
2011’, Moscow, 2012
23. Landry, Charles, ‘The Creative City, a Toolkit for Urban Innovators’, London, 2000
24. Le Corbusier, ‘The Athens Charter’ (1933), translated from the French by Anthony Eardley,
New York, 1973
25. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, ‘Gebiedsontwikkeling Nieuwe Stijl: eerste stappen in de
praktijk’, Den Haag, 2014
26. Mumford, ‘The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960’, The MIT Press, 2000
27. Priemus, Hugo, ‘Stadsvernieuwing; Problemen en Perspectieven. Analyse van de
Rotterdamse aanpak’, Alphen aan de Rijn, 1978
28. Powell, Kenneth, ‘City Transformed; Urban Architecture at the Beginning of the 21st Century’,
London, 2000
29. Sassen, Saskia, ‘The Global City; New York, London, Tokyo’, London 1991
30. Saunders, Doug, ‘Arrival City: The Final Migration and Our Next World’, Toronto, 2010
31. Smith, Neil & Peter Williams (ed.), ‘Gentrification of the city’, Boston, 1986
32. Val de Seine Amenagement, ‘Ile de Seguin Rives de Seine; Le Development Durable en
Actions’, Paris, 2010
33. Wagenaar, Cor, ‘Happy; Cities and Public Happiness in Post-War Europe’, Amsterdam, 2004

Information:
max.jeleniewski@ziggo.nl
Max Jeleniewski has more
than thirty years experience in
restructuring, implementing
and managing Urban
Development Programmes for
Local Governments and
International Development
Assistance Programmes. He
has a long term experience in
lecturing Urban Development
and Inner City Development
throughout Europe.
In the Netherlands he is
Manager Inner City for the
local government of The
Hague. He is member of the
Academy and is guest
lecturer at several
(international) universities.
Before he worked for OBR in
Rotterdam and for Institute
for Housing and Urban
Development Studies (IHS).

New Developments in the 21st century-14

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to New Developments in the 21st century-14

Similar to New Developments in the 21st century-14 (20)

New Developments in the 21st century-14