The aerotropolis - development catalyst or distraction?

The aerotropolis development catalyst or distraction? Simon Huston1 The urban conundrum Today, half the world’s population is urban based but many cities are overcrowded, congested or polluted (Larson 2012). Incremental blight from unchecked development threatens littorals (Romano and Zullo 2014). Appropriate development of the built environment requires infrastructure but private sector investors face uncertain payback or are tempted by more lucrative, alternate prospects. Many regional municipalities are side-lined by metropolitan dominance or buffeted by its financial tailwinds. Airport-led urban development in the form of the ‘aerotropolis’ (Kasarda 2012; 2014) could cure housing-fuelled malaise. If properly designed, a modern airport is a glamorous symbol of modernity. It can differentiate a city from its rivals and validate its smart credentials. However, strategic airport gateways face design, planning project management, institutional and funding issues. Does the aerotropolis notion and investment is strategic aviation gateways make sense? The research reviews smart city conundrum and dissects the notion of an ‘aerotropolis’ within the context of global airport expansion. It notes issues and the polemic surrounding Heathrow’s mooted expansion. The article then sketches a structured research pathway for a complete answer to the airport gateway problem. Smart city development The aerotropolis is a genus within the spectrum of technological or green ‘smart cities’ whose utopian roots stretch back to 1 The School of Real Estate and Land Management, Royal Email: simon.huston@rau.ac.uk Plato (c380 BC) but which Howard articulated in his ‘garden city’ (1902 [1898]). Smart city visions, constituents and advocated delivery mechanisms vary. Certainly, logistical infrastructure or technology networks alone are insufficient to incubate a ‘smart city’. Its multi-faceted considerations include spatially fitting and devolved governance (Bai et al. 2010), ecological resilience (Holling 1973) and rule of law. Health and education are concerns for smart cities. Anthropology helps understand social structure and strike the balance between creativity and conformity but recognition, dignity and meaningful cultural engagement underpin mental health and eudaimonic well-being (Ryan and Deci 2001). Modern smart utopias stress networks, skills, tolerance or creativity, home insulation or convivial neighbourhoods (Shaftoe 2012; Kirby 2014; MIT 2015). Figure 1: One modern rendition of a smart-creative city. Source: Carta, M. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4 4/Creative_and_Smart_City.jpg/590pxCreative_and_Smart_City.jpg Procedurally, the mechanism to deliver urban transformations balances centralised planning inspiration with devolved local feedback via emergent technologies. Conceptually, a smart city involves multiple domains in its space of flows with twin circles of influence (Castels 1996; Chourabi et al 2012). Technology, management, and policy is central surrounded by ‘governance’, ‘people’ and ‘communities, ‘natural environment’, ‘infrastructure’, and ‘economy’. Most contemporary ‘smart city’ notions at least pay lip service to ‘community’. ‘Quality of life’ and ‘education’ usually figure in ‘smart city’ renditions. The more radical ones address ‘social structure: power and social class’ (Molotch 1976:309). Neuman (2005) argues against the presumption of a compact focus. Libertarians also resist imposed ‘smart’ solutions. To ‘tea party’ or less radical ‘free-market’ ideologues, state planning for ‘smart cities’ is anathema. Greenfield (2014) points out cities are not ‘technical systems’, but ‘boiling crucibles of contestation’ about irreconcilable demands between, for example, environmentalists or developers (Logan and Molotch 1987). The aerotropolis For Freestone (2009), airports ‘are vital hubs in the global space of flows’. Industrially, airports employ people and sustain aviation technology. In 2006, Kasarda sketched the ‘aerotropolis’ concept, now refined into a glitzy development model (Kasarda and Lindsay 2012). Figure 3: Schiphol (Amsterdam Airport) – an emerging aerotropolis? Source: Niels, B. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NielsB#/media/Fil e:Schiphol-overview.png (14/05/15). Figure 2: Public transport link to Detroit International Airport Edward H. McNamara Terminal. Source: Danleo (2006) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DTW_Edward_H._ McNamara_Terminal.jpg (14/05/2015). Arguably, the following are exemplars of ‘smart cities:  Cupertino (California)  Tianjin, Incheon (Korea)  Singapore and Cyberjaya (Malaysia)  Sverdlovsk (Russia),  Helsinki, Malmo (Scandinavia)  Hannover or Freiburg in Germany  Toulouse and Sophia Antipolis in France  Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Glasgow and Aberdeen in the U.K. Essentially, the aerotropolis is a city built around an airport, geared on corporate efficiency and accessibility. Iconic exemplars include New Songdo City in South Korea, 65km south of Seoul (DiNardo 2013) and Al Maktoum International Airport, under construction in the Emirate of Dubai. With rising concerns about carbon emissions, fast rail links could mitigate the strategic objections to an aerotropolis (Fig.2). Table 1 itemises some prominent airports contenders for the aerotropolis designation. Table 1: prominent aerotropolii Airport New Songdo City Al Maktoum International Airport Abu Dhabi International Airport Guangzhou International Airport Hongqiao International Airport Jeddah International Airport Changi International Airport John F. Kennedy International Airport San Francisco International Airport Location Incheon Airport Dubai International Masdar City Guangzhou Knowledge City Shanghai King Abdullah Economic City Singapore New York California Source: Author 2014 and Florida 2012. Airports backdrop World Bank (2014)2 figures suggest that in the decade to 2013, the number of passengers carried has risen by over 12.95% in the UK and over 19.6% in China. In the UK, Middle Eastern competition and capacity constraints undermine Heathrow’s hub position. In 2011, Foster proposed the ‘Thames Hub’. In 2013, the Airports Commission published its interim report. HMG Standard Note: SN/BT/4920 (2012) summarises Britain’s current airport strategic quandary. Figure 4: Growth of air traffic London Heathrow Airport. Source Seadart, accessed at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:London_Heathrow _Statistics.png (14/05/15). 2 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR Transformation mechanisms Whilst many planning interventions improve urban form, costs and social repercussions can be considerable. In nineteenth century France, for example, Baron Haussmann’s re-development of central Paris involved large-scale evictions to the banlieu whose spatial injustice legacy persists (Lauriana and Funderburg 2014; Barthelemy et al 2013). Nowadays, scale interventions by planners are rare. Instead, planners now mainly facilitate negotiations to resolve conflict among competing landed interest groups who share power asymmetrically (Hawkins 2013). Mega-infrastructure projects, like airport construction, provide a justification for large-scale state intervention. An airport upgrade not only enhances substantive logistics but its progressive symbolism could spark regional investment because, as Keynes purportedly said, ‘successful investing is anticipating the anticipations of others’ (Bergman, 2006: 105). Issues Airport expansion is strategically important for national competitiveness. Grandiose foreign projects threaten Heathrow’s global pre-eminence. In 2013, Heathrow international passenger grew by 5.4% compared to 12.1%i in the Middle East. Expansion confronts a number of domestic obstacles. Rivalry between contenders is one that, in the UK, plays out between Heathrow and Gatwick. Terrorist and environmental concerns (noise and CO2 emissions) could also temper airport growth (Fig.4). To maintain the UK’s status as an international aviation hub, BATA (2013) advocates ‘a robust national aviation policy’ii. Yet, the expansion of London or any central hub accentuates existing pressures in airport hinterlands. Pressure manifests via house price inflation (London) or in externalities – like congestion, air pollution and sprawl (Jakarta). III. IV. V. VI. Figure 5: The airport security issue in popular culture. Source: Licht, M. Notions Capital.com, https://www.flickr.com/photos/notionscapital/4228752706 (14 May 2014). Political opposition to perceived infrastructure spatial imbalance grows. High-speed rail, such as HS2 underway in UK to link London with Birmingham, is one mechanism to spread largesse and rebalance a distorted ‘rentier’ economy (Beblawi and Luciani. 1990; Mahdavy 1970). Infrastructure finance is required to rebuild the ‘rapidly growing, unstable, and unstructured cities of the East’ (Adair et al. 2000; Adair et al 2007; Haran et al. 2013), could help to (Bannister 2012: 1). In such a rapidly globalising world, logistics pressure and institutional misfit (Ostrom 2011) can fragment regional subsystems (Hall 2014; Kratke 2013). Kasarda’s (2012) aerotropolis utopian airport solution mandates significant state funding. Structured aerotropolis research pathway The research investigates the format for and appropriate circumstances when airport led development is sensible. Hubris around the ‘aerotropolis’ notion provides a useful starting point for a structured investigation of the merits or pitfalls involved. Empirically, serious analysis will involve the selective sampling of regional airport success drivers or pitfalls. To answer this research question, the aerotropolis project proceeds sequentially in six phases: I. Problematisation II. Systematic literature review Conceptualisation Macro audit and analysis Operationalization via case study investigations Analysis, interpretation and dissemination of results The first phase situates the aerotropolis research problem and disentangles the confusion surrounding the notion. In its second phase, aerotropolis conducts a structured review of the literature surrounding ‘smart cities’ and airports, looking for definitions and alternative perspectives. The third aerotropolis phase develops a conceptual framework with project evaluation criteria for systematic analysis. The macro-audit uses the framework to grade global aerotropolii against critical success factors or bottlenecks. Statistical analysis looks for associations between differential growth rates and regional airport construction. The fifth, operational phase, of the aerotropolis project involves detailed ‘grounded’, exploratory investigations of airport, purposefully selected, case studies. Information-based rather than random sampling focuses on outlier (under/over) performing airports or failed projects which can reveal more than ‘representative’ ones. In the UK, possible contenders include the contrasting Cardiff and Manchester Airports. Overseas, emerging growth hubs provide supplementary avenues for opportunistic exploration. Archival research scrutinises relevant documents planning, procedural manuals or financial reports. Site visits observe and interview management or sound out experts, seeking fresh insights into airport operations, bottlenecks and issues. Aerotropolis documents ‘smart’ systems configuration or stupid practices in strategic foresight, leadership, intelligence, collaboration, responsiveness and resilience. Finally, after macro-analysis and microcase study feedback, the constituents for a successful regional aerotropolis are finetuned and the putative framework disseminated to industry, local government, academics and other stakeholders. The propose research pathway involves: o o Phase 1 (Problematisation) Contention surrounding airport expansion and provides an aerotropolis conspectus. Problematisation looks for interesting angles rather than gap spotting (Alvesson and Sandberg 2013). o o o Phase2: (Systematic literature review) Conducts a systematic literature review of smart cities and airports to clarify constructs and develop the aerotropolis model. o RQ2.1: What constitutes a ‘smart city’ or ‘aerotropolis? o RQ2.2: What factors influence the success/failure of these projects? Phase3: (Conceptual) o RQ3.1: Can a conceptual framework facilitate systematic aerotropolis evaluation? o RQ3.2: What factors characterise successful aerotropolii, in terms of strategy, project management and financial performance? Phase 4: (Macro-global) Selectively audits iconic global aerotropolii, looking for interesting data patterns and performance statistics. o RQ4.1: Is there a statistical relationship between aerotropolii and regional growth? o RQ4.2: What are key regional airport development environmental issues? o RQ4.3: What proportions of projects are bungled? (time, quality and cost)? o RQ4.4: Do any patterns emerge to identify ex ante project success or failure? Phase 5: (Case study operationalization) Investigates and conducts selective exploratory investigations into regional aerotropolii, teasing out institutional constraints or overlooked but critical project success factors. o RQ5.1: How can institutions facilitate successful airport expansion? RQ5.2: How do sponsor capabilities, configuration and alliances fit project requirements? RQ5.3: Are organisational litany and policies ‘smart’? RQ5.4: How effective is project financial oversight? RQ5.5: Is there feedback mechanisms for project flexibility? RQ5.6: Does sponsor culture facilitate continual systems upgrades? Phase 6: Analysis and interpretation The grounded inductive investigations are collated and analysed. The research is disseminated via conference and academic papers and, commercially available industry reports. Conclusion Aerotropolii fuelled growth is touted as an innovative urban development solution but little concrete research has been done on the circumstances when it makes sense for regional cities. The mixed methods research audits aerotropolii, looking first at global (macro) data and then local (micro) factors underpinning project success or failure. In its micro-operationalization phase, the project dissects informationrich case studies. Grounded aerotropolii investigations explore critical local project drivers or institutional bottlenecks. The project makes some theoretical contributions to urban regeneration and project management. It also provides practical risk-reduction spinoffs for public and private sector airport development and smart-city regeneration. References Alvesson, M. and J. Sandberg (2013). Constructing research questions: doing interesting research. London, Sage. Bai, X. McAllister, R. Beaty, R. and B. Taylor (2010). ‘Urban policy and governance in a global environment: complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation.’ Environmental Sustainability 2:129-135. Barthelemy, M., Bordin, P., Berestycki, H. and M. Gribaudi (2013) ‘Self-organization versus top-down planning in the evolution of a city’ Scientific Reports (3), Article number: 2153(2013), accessed at: http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130708/sr ep02153/full/srep02153.html (07/02/2014). Beblawi, H. Al and G. Luciani. (1990) ‘The rentier state in the arab world’, in Luciani, G. The Arab State, London, Routledge, p.87-88. Castells, M. (1996). Rise of the network society: the information age. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Chourabi, H. et al (2012). ‘Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework’, 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, accessed at: http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journ als/hicss_2012_smartcities/hicss_2012_sma rtcities.pdf (06/02/2014). DiNardo, K (2013), ‘South Korea's aerotropolis blueprint is no flight of fancy’, Washington Post available at The Guardian online 15 January 2013, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/ 15/songdo-south-korea-aerotropolis (07/2/2014). Florida, R. (2012), ‘america's most important airport cities’, available at: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/20 12/04/north-americas-most-importantairports/853/, (06/02/2014). Freestone, R. (2009), ‘Planning, sustainability and airport-led urban development.’ International Planning Studies. May2009, 14 (2): 161-176. Greenfield, A (2014), ‘Smart cities empty hype? ‘The Economist online edition Thursday February 6th 2014, accessed at: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/ 1052 (06/02/2014). Green, R. (2007), ‘Airports and economic development’, Real Estate Economics 35 (1): 91–112. Hall, Sir Peter, (1998), Cities in civilization, New York, Pantheon Books. Hawkins, C. (2013). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, forthcoming DOI:10.1080/09640568.2013.829027. Holling, C. (1973) ‘Resilience and the stability of ecological systems’. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 4:1-23. Howard, E. ([1898], 1902), Garden Cities of tomorrow: A peaceful path to real reform. London Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd. Kasarda, J. Lindsay G. (2012) Aerotropolis: the way nd we'll live next. 2 Edition, London, Penguin. Presentation accessed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy3OSm1 w-jY (07/02/2013). Kasarda, J. (2014) The Aerotropolis, accessed at: http://www.aerotropolis.com/airportCities/abo ut-the-aerotropolis (14/05/2015). Keynes, J.M. quote from Bergman, G. (2006). Isms p. 105, accessed at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_K eynes#Attributed (15/05/2015). Kirby, T. (2014), ‘Getting smart cities connected’, Guardian.com, accessed at: http://www.theguardian.com/smartercities/getting-smart-cities-connected, (06/02/2014). Larson, K. (2012),TEDx Boston: June 2012, accessed at: http://cities.media.mit.edu/projects/examples (06/02/2014). Lauriana, L. & Funderburg, R. (2014). ‘Environmental justice in France? A spatiotemporal analysis of incinerator location’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (3): 424-446. Logan, J. and H. Molotch. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley, University of California Press. Mahdavy, H. ‘The pattern and problems of economic development in rentier states: the case of Iran", in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, ed. M.A. Cook. Oxford University Press, Oxford. MIT (2015) City Science, accessed at: http://cities.media.mit.edu/about/cities (14/05/2015). Molotch, H. (1976). ‘The city as a growth machine: toward a political economy of place.’ The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82 (2): 309–332. Neuman, M. (2005). ‘The compact city fallacy’, Journal of Planning Education and Research 25(1): 11-26. Plato (c380 BCE), The Republic, accessed at: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html (06/02/2014). Romano, B. and F. Zullo (2014), ‘The urban transformation of Italy's Adriatic coastal strip: Fifty years of unsustainability’, Land Use Policy, 38: 26-36. Ryan, R. and E. Deci (2001). ‘On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.’ Annual Rev. Psychol. 2001. 52:141–66. Shaftoe, H. (2012). convivial urban spaces: creating effective public places. London, Earthscan. i International Air Transport Association, accessed at: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/pass enger-analysis-jan-2014.pdf (07 March 2014). ii British Air Transport Association (2013), accessed at:http://www.bata.uk.com/07/bata-statement-on-airportcapacity/ (07 March 2014).