都市發展政治學專題 (Seminar: The Politics of Urban Development)
研擬學分數：2學分（碩、博士班上學期，M字頭課程）
研擬上課時間：星期三5、6節
課程綱要：

本課程將論述大型都市或都會區在土地使用及公共投資上之政治運作與決策形成過程。課程內容將涵括個案研究與理論分析。擬探討之課題有企業與政府關係、市中心與郊區發展關係、都市發展不均與社群區隔之政治衝擊、地方資源競逐、地方結盟之衝突型態與論述、中央政府在地方事務之角色、都市計畫與分區土地使用、都市更新、公私協力、公共建設規劃與投資、成長管理等，並以如何均衡公平正義與生活品質為主要之探討軸承。

Description:
Provides an overview of politics and policymaking for large cities and metropolitan areas, with special attention to land use and public investment issues. Readings include a mix of case studies and theoretical analyses. The course‘s topics include: business-government and suburban-central city relations; the politics of urban inequality and segregation; local competition for investment; patterns of conflict between local growth coalitions and their critics; the central government role in urban affairs; local planning and zoning; urban renewal; public-private partnerships for downtown revitalization; transportation planning and investment; and growth management. Focuses throughout on the challenge of balancing economic development with equity and quality of life interests.

Course Content:
This course views cities and urban regions as political constructs. It does not ignore the other dimensions of urban life—economic, sociological, and technological—but it is only concerned with them as elements of the context of urban politics and policy making. Its purposes are at once to enhance students’ understanding of the system and their capacity to act strategically within it.
The main features of any political system are revealed in its structural arrangements, its guiding ideas, and its policy outputs. This course examines the system of urban governance from each of these perspectives. When it turns to policy, however, it specializes--in those having to do with land use/public investment and the built environment.
Cross-cutting topics addressed in the course include the place of cities in the national system; the special role of business in local governance; inequality and segregation as in part consequences of public policy; the costs and benefits of local government fragmentation; proposals for metropolitan reform; and contending theories about the balance of forces in urban politics. Policy topics include land use planning and zoning; urban renewal and local strategies of economic development; major highway, transit, convention center, and sports facility investments; air quality regulation; and contemporary efforts to `manage` growth in selected cities and metropolitan areas.

Requirements
You are expected to participate actively in the class discussions, and to complete two take-home exams: a midterm and a final. The mid-term will require a short written analysis of one or more of the readings assigned before December 8. It is to be handed in prior to the class discussion(s) of the reading(s) in question. The final will occur in January.

Your term grade will be based approximately one-third on the midterm and two-thirds on the final exam--with a very important caveat. At the margin, I routinely bump up the grades of strong class performers. (Active participants in the class discussions reap another benefit as well. Having half-formed their ideas in preparation for class, and then obtained some feedback, they are much further advanced when they sit down to write than would otherwise be the case.)

Readings
We shall rely on a combination of three paperback books (with one more optional), xeroxed packets, and distributed readings. The textbooks are:
Paul E. Peterson, The Price of Federalism, (Brookings, 1995)
Bernard Frieden & Lynne Sagalyn, Downtown, Inc. (MIT Press, 1989)
John Logan & Harvey Molotch, Urban Fortunes (UC Press, 1987)
Alan Altshuler and David Luberoff, Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment (Brookings, 2003, optional)

Office Hours
Risharng Chiang will have office hours on Thursdays from 10:00-12:00 or by appointment. Email: rchiang@ntu.edu.tw.

Course Schedule:
Part I. Governing Urban
09/15 Introduction and Key Issues.
Pietro Nivola, `Are Europe`s Cities Better?` The Public Interest, Fall 1999, pp. 73-84.
Anthony Downs, `How America`s Cities are Growing,` Brookings Review, Fall 1998, pp. 8-11.

09/22 LULUs and NIMBYs: Do Veto Groups Rule? Competing for Investment.
Frank J. Popper, `Lulus and Their Blockage,` in Joseph Dimento and LeRoy Graymer, eds., Confronting Regional Challenges (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,1991), pp. 13-20 (para. 1), 22-27.
Arnold Howitt, `Extending the Red Line to Arlington (A),` Managing Federalism (Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984), pp. 267-300.
Bryan D. Jones and Lynn W. Bachelor, The Sustaining Hand, 2nd ed. (U. Press of Kansas, 1992), pp. 55-6, 60-2, 67-70, 73-108. Highly Recommended: pp. 109-22.
Lynn W. Bachelor, `Regime Maintenance, Solution Sets, and Urban Economic Development,` Urban Affairs Quarterly, June 1994, pp. 596-616.

09/29 What Do Local Governments Do Best? And Worst? Exchange v.s. Use Values in Land: The Contours of Conflict.
Paul Peterson, City Limits (University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 22-32 131-35 (end of para. 2), 150-52, 156-62, 167-73,178-81 (end of para. 3).
Paul Peterson, The Price of Federalism (Brookings Institution Press, 1995), pp. 16-49.
John E. Petersen, `What`ll Be Left to Tax?` Governing, August 1997, p. 62.
John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch, Urban Fortunes (University of California Press, 1987), pp. 17-23, 27-49, 62-91, 111-24, 134-39. Recommended: pp. 139-46, 200-236.

10/06 Metropolitan Governance: Why So Elusive? Should We Care?
John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch, Urban Fortunes (University of California Press, 1987), pp. 179-187.
David Rusk, Cities Without Suburbs (Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Second Edition, 1995), pp. 9-15, 18-19 (BOX), 28-29 (BOX), and the following tables: 2.2, 2.3,2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.20, 2.21.
Scott Greer, Metropolitics (John Wiley & Sons, 1963), pp. 1-18, 60-80, 195 (line 3)-200.
“What If Brooklyn Hadn’t Surrendered?” New York Times Magazine, December 28, 1997, pp. 18 ff.
John P. Blair, et. al., “The Central City Elasticity Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal of Rusk’s Theory...,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 1996, pp. 345—53.
**Alan Ehrenhalt, `Secrets of Urban Bodybuilding,` Governing, January 2001, pp. 6-8.

10/13 Local Political Systems as Regimes. The Intergovernmental Dimension.
Clarence N. Stone, Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988 (University Press of Kansas, 1989), pp.3-6, 160-74,186-96 (bottom), 210-14.
Berry, Portnoy, and Thomson, The Rebirth of Urban Democracy (Brookings, 1993), pp. 46-53, 1350150, 157-158.
Sidney Verba, et. al., “The Big Tilt: Participatory Democracy in America,” The American Prospect, May-June 1997, pp. 74-80.

Peterson, The Price of Federalism, pp. 50-84.
Paul Peterson, Barry G. Rabe, and Kenneth K. Wong, When Federalism Works (Brookings, 1986), pp. 81-82 (para. 2), 131-43 (para. 3), 158 (para. 1).
Thomas R. Dye, American Federalism: Competition Among Governments (Lexington, 1990), pp. 13-26,179-89,197-99.
**Peter Eisinger, `City Politics in an Era of Federal Devolution,` Urban Affairs Review, January 1998, pp. 319-23 (optional).

Part II. Land Use Planning and Development
10/20 The Evolution of City Planning.
Donald Krueckeberg, ed., Introduction to Planning History in the United States (Rutgers U. Press, 1983), pp. 3-6 (Krueckeberg).
M. Christine Boyer, Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning (MIT Press, 1983), pp. 63-70.
Alan Altshuler, The City Planning Process: a Political Analysis (Cornell U. Press, 1965), pp. 84-135
Norman Krumholz, `A Retrospective View of Equity Planning: Cleveland 1969-1979,` in Krueckeberg, ed., pp. 258-79.


10/27 Alternative Planning Visions. Zoning: Regulation for What? And for Whom?
Robert B. Jaquay, Civic Vision: Participatory City Planning in Cleveland in the 1980s (Kennedy School Case C16-91-1060.0), pp. 1-18 (read carefully) and 36-43 (scan).
**Judith E. Innes, `Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal,` Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 1996, pp. 460-72.

Robert H. Nelson, Zoning and Property Rights (MIT Press, 1977), pp. 7-11, 16 (para. 3)-21, 47-50, 84-87.
Michael Danielson and Jameson Doig, New York: The Politics of Urban Regional Development (University of California Press, 1982), pp. 75-98, and 106-109.

11/03 Can Land Use Regulation Become Inclusionary? Development Exactions: A Valuable Planning/Fiscal Innovation or an Instrument of Extortion?
Christie Baxter, Moderately Priced Dwelling Units in Montgomery County, Maryland (KSG Case Program, 1043.0).
William A. Fischel, Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics (Harvard U. Press, 1995), pp. 336—41.
William A. Fischel, “How Serrano Caused Proposition 13,” The Journal of Law and Politics, Fall 1996, pp. 607—36.
**Christopher Swope, `Little House in the Suburbs,` Governing, April 2000, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 18-22 (optional)
**Karen Destorel Brown, Expanding Affordable Housing Through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington Metropolitan Area, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Brookings, 2001, pp. 4-7, 12, 17-21 (optional).

Altshuler and Gomez-Ibnaze, Regulation for Revenue, chs. 1, 3, 4 (Brookings, 1993)

Part III. Government in the Pro-Active Mode: Renewal and Economic Development.
11/10 Urban Renewal in The 1950s & 1960s.
Bernard Frieden and Lynne Sagalyn, Downtown Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities (MIT Press, 1990), pp. 15-19, 22-27, 39-44, 49-56.
Danielson and Doig, ch. 9 (pp. 291-309).
Heywood T. Sanders and Clarence N. Stone, “Developmental Politics Reconsidered,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, June 1987, pp. 521-24, 532-38.

11/17 Public-Private Partnerships to Develop Downtown Festival Malls in the 1970s & 1980s. Post-1990: The Boom in Sports Facility and Convention Center Development.
Frieden and Sagalyn, Downtown, Inc., pp. 87-162, 191-97, 215-27.
**Review Symposium on Susan Fainstein, The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London (Second Edition, University of Kansas Press, 2001), in Urban Affairs Review, March 2003, pp. 603-14.
**Review of Lynne B. Sagalyn, Times Square Roulette: Remaking the City Icon (MIT Press, 2001), by David Gordon, in Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2003, pp. 198-199.

Dennis R. Judd, `Constructing the Tourist Bubble,` in Judd and Susan S. Fainstein, The Tourist City (Yale U. Press, 1999, at NTU Library), excerpt: pp. 35-44, 51-53.
Altshuler and Luberoff, Mega-Projects, pp. 18 (para. 3)-21, 32 (all but first four lines of text)-42.
**Heywood T. Sanders, `Convention Center Follies,` The Public Interest, Summer 1998, pp. 58-65, 69-72.
**William Fulton, `Planet Downtown,` Governing, April 1997, pp. 23-26.
Charles C. Euchner, `Tourism and Sports: The Serious Competition for Play,` in Dennis R. Judd and Susan S. Fainstein, eds., The Tourist City (Yale U. Press, 1999, at NTU Library), pp. 215-32.

11/24 Siting an Urban Freeway in the Fifties. Mobility and Clean Air: Can We Have Both?
Altshuler and Luberoff, Mega-Projects, pp. 77-84 (line 6).
Alan Altshuler, The City Planning Process: a Political Analysis (Cornell U. Press, 1965), pp. 23 (line 5)-28, 40-83.
Mark R. Rose and Bruce E. Seeley, `Getting the Interstate System Built...1955-85,` Journal of Policy History, 1990, pp. 23-55 (esp. pp. 27-33).

Arnold M. Howitt, `The Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Controls.` in Howitt, Managing Federalism, Studies in Intergovernmental Relations (CQ Press, 1984), pp. 114-22, 139-56, 161-79.
Arnold Howitt and Alan Altshuler, `The Politics of Controlling Air Pollution,` in Jose Gomez-Ibanez, et. al., Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy (Brookings, 1999), pp. 223-55.
Daniel A. Mazmanian, `Los Angeles` Transition from Command-and-Control to Market-Based Clean Air Policy…, in Mazmanian and Michael E. Kraft, eds., Toward Sustainable Communities (MIT Press, 1999), pp. 77-112.

12/01 Boston`s Central Artery/Tunnel and the New Politics of Highways. The (Political) Rebirth of Urban Transit.
Altshuler and Luberoff, Mega-Projects, Chapter 4.
Altshuler and Luberoff, Mega-Projects, Chapter 6.
Susan Rosegrant, Sound Move: The Debate Over Seattle`s Regional Transit System (A)(KSG Case C14-01-1639.0), pp. 1-14 (to section break) and Exhibits A-J. The rest of the case and the remaining exhibits are recommended.
Robert Cervero, The Transit Metropolis, (Island Press, 1998, at NTU Library), pp. 72-75 (para. 2), 83-95.

Part IV. `Smart` Growth: The Frontier Issue of Contemporary Land Use Policy
12/08 Growth Controls: For What Purposes? With What Effects?
William Fischel, Regulatory Takings (Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 221-229, 235, 241-242, 248-250
Kee Warner and Harvey Molotch, `Power to Build: How Development Persists Despite Local Controls,` Urban Affairs Review, January 1995, pp. 378-406.
Brad Paul, San Francisco Growth Management (KSG Case 948.0, 1989).
Christopher Swope, `Rendezvous with Density,` Governing, March 2001, pp. 32-38

12/15 State Leadership for Smart Growth? Passing Fad or Wave of the Future?
John M. DeGrove, Planning and Growth Management in the States (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992), pp. 1-3 (line 3), 161-70.
Christopher Leo, `Regional Growth Management Regime: The Case of Portland,` Journal of Urban Affairs, 1998, pp. 363-94.
**Arthur C. Nelson, `Effects of Urban Containment on Housing Prices and Landowner Behavior, Landlines (Newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy), May 2000, pp. 1-3.
**Michael Jonas, `The Sprawl Doctor,` Commonwealth, Spring 2003, pp. 47-57.
**Randal O`Toole, `The Folly of Smart Growth,` Regulation, Fall 2001, pp. 20-25.
**Christopher Swope, `McGreevey`s Magic Map,` Governing Magazine, May 2003, pp. 45-50.

Part V. Economic Development
12/22 Private Sector Led Economic Development. New Strategies for Economic Development.
**Harvard Business School, Supermarkets in the Inner City, HBS Case N1-796-145.
**Michael E. Porter, `New Strategies for Inner-City Economic Development,` Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, (February 1997), pp. 11-27
Keith R. Ihlanfeldt and David L. Sjoquist, `The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: A Review of Recent Studies and Their Implication for Welfare Reform,` Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 9, Issue 4, (1998) pp. 849-892.
**Michael E. Porter, `Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy,` Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, (February 2000), pp. 15-34.
**Bennett Harrison and Amy K. Glasmeier, `Why Business Alone Won`t Redevelop the Inner City: A Friendly Critique of Michael Porter`s Approach to Urban Revitalization,` Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, (February 1997), pp. 28-38.
Timothy Bates, `Michael Porter`s Conservative Urban Agenda Will Not Revitalize America`s Inner Cities: What Will?` Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, (February 1997), pp. 11-27.

12/29 Improving the Business Climate. Expanding Access to Capital
**William P. Ryan, `Non Profit Capital: A Review of Problems and Strategies,` a paper prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation and the Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001. Please review the entire document but read carefully the `Executive Summary and Introduction,` pp 1-3, and `Strategy # 4,` pages 26 to 37.
www.rockfound.org/documents/453/npcapital.pdf
**Kristen Moy and Alan Okagaki, `Changing Capital Markets and their Implications for Community Development Finance,` Capital Xchange, July, 2001,
www.brook.edu/es/urban/capitalxchange/moy.pdf
Jeremy Nowak, `Civic Lesson: How CDFI`s Can Apply Market Realities to Poverty Alleviation,` in Capital Xchange, (July, 2001).
www.brook.edu/es/urban/capitalxchange/nowak.pdf

01/05 Rebuilding Urban Markets. Toward a Metropolitan Agenda
**Kennedy School of Government Case Program, Seeking Sustainability: Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago Faces Financial Challenge, A and B, KSG Draft Case.
**Gregory M. Stanton and Jed Emerson, `Going Mainstream: NPOs Accessing the Capital Markets: Exploring the Use of Traditional Financing Methods, Processes and Debt Instruments for Expanding the Capital Structure of Nonprofit Community and Economic Development Organizations,` February 2001.
www.redf.org/download/other/cmap_going.doc
William T. Bogart, `Civic Infrastructure and the Financing of Community Development,` A discussion Paper Prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, May 2003. www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/20030527_bogart.htm
**Vincent Scully, `The American City in A.D. 2025,` The Brookings Review, Vol. 18, No.3 (Summer, 2000) pp. 2-3.
http://www.brook.edu/press/review/Summer2000/scully.htm