I'm professor Greg Clark professor of
city leadership and urban innovation at
University College London and I'm an
advisor to the brookings institution and
the Urban Land Institute and the OECD
and I visited about 200 cities and I'm
really delighted to be here in Berlin
for the first installment of the urban
persuasion seminars.
Yeah well as a person I've
visited Berlin I guess 40 or 50 times I
love Berlin I'm one of those people who
loves to come here because of this
amazing historical city with all of the
things that's been associated with and
yet this new funky lifestyle coupled
with this rather wonderful sort of
civility makes it very attractive. And so
I've got two overriding feelings about
Berlin. First, I'm really happy and
pleased that berlin is succeeding again
growing again and becoming the
innovative and inventive city that
everybody knows it is once again. And I
think that the Berlin has an opportunity
to really be a leader and to make the
most of that and of course it's doing
that. That is to be applauded and
celebrated and enjoyed. The other thing
that I'm preoccupied with though is a
kind of constraint and I would put it as
simple as this: what's Berlin's appetite
for its own future. In order for Berlin
to optimize the opportunities it now
faces in the innovation economy and
population attraction, institutional
development, as a center for higher
education, creativity, technology and many
other things it would really need to
grow its population base in order to do
that. And that would mean a willingness
to build more houses, build more railway
lines, densify the land uses, increase and
change the skyline to a certain extent,
accommodate more growth within the same
space making that good growth good clean
inclusive and productive space. And it's
not clear to me whether Berlin at the
moment is enjoying a temporary wave of
fame as a great new city of technology
and startup or whether Berlin has
committed itself to becoming one of the
great global cities of the world once
again – so the question of appetite for me
remains a question mark.
Yes, I would see Berlin as a global city
but it belongs in a kind of special
subcategory of re-globalizing cities
because Berlin has been of course a
global city in the past, a huge cultural,
industrial, technological, educational,
scientific city over many centuries. And
where we find ourselves today is that
Berlin fits rather well with another
group of cities that I would think of as
Vienna and Amsterdam and a few others
which are cities that find themselves
facing the new cycle of globalization
when a lot of the global integration in
the economy is being driven by sectors
that are impacted by new technologies. So
unlike the last cycle where London and
New York and Hong Kong and Singapore and
Paris were seen as the global cities
– because they were financial and business
and professional service centers and
Media Center's – the new cycle is very
much about the adoption of advanced
technologies into industries that are
globalizing. And my third group of global
cities – the new global cities – are
smaller cities below five million people,
very high quality of life, usually very
well managed cities, great connectivity,
usually with access to fantastic natural
environment and those cities are able to
specialize in these industries that are
disrupted by these new technologies and
Berlin I think fits perfectly into that
category. It just so happens it also has
a history which it brings to bear which
brings it culture credibility,
authenticity and a different kind of
identity so Berlin is a new global city
So when we looked back at the cities in
the past that had developed roles beyond
their natural borders or their natural
domestic markets we discovered five
things were very important. The first
thing was that the impulse to trade
led to an investment in connectivity. And
if we look at Berlin today we can say
that digital connectivity is very good.
Aviation connectivity is improving.
Obviously a new airport is on the way
that will be important when it comes. The
rail connectivity is good.
Berlin's diplomatic connectivity, its
soft power is increasing all of the time.
The second thing we observed is this
strong drive for innovation, the need to
invent new products and new activities
and of course Berliner is a hub of
innovation today. The third thing is that
the innovation and the trade and the
connectivity attract new populations, the
city becomes open. Merchants, migrants,
workers, thinkers, all kinds of people
from all over the world. And this is a
deep part of Berlin's history and its DNA.
And you can see the reemergence of this
DNA today as Berlin becomes a more open
city. But I think there's a question mark
about what Berlin's appetite is and how
open it really wants to be. How much
population growth does it really want to
accommodate? The fourth thing is that
because of innovation these cities
become influential. They start to set the
rules by which other things happen. Of
course Berlin as the capital of Germany
is a very influential city and it's
increasingly influential in technology
and culture and creativity. And then
lastly these global cities tend to be
very good at making the most of
geopolitical opportunity. In moments of
change they tend to find how to use
those moments of change to acquire
new activities or to find new
opportunities. Berlin has obviously been
good at that throughout its history,
there's no reason to presuppose it won't
be good at that again. Clearly as the the
current situation in Europe regarding
both national
politics, migration, the future shape of
the European Union, the the future growth
of the European economy, the shift of the
European economy towards a
knowledge-based economy. Berlin has lots
of opportunities in all of those big
changes to become once again a very
important decision-making center and
influential center within Europe.
Well one of the reasons that I'm really
enthusiastic about Berlin is actually
an industrial reason. When you look
around the world and you see the extent
of global urbanization, the people moving
to cities we know about, but the business
is moving back to cities, the
institutions moving into cities. This
creates a huge opportunity to do
urbanization better than we've ever done
it before and to do it as a scale which
is absolutely unrivaled in history. One
of the consequences of this is that
there is now huge demand for – what i
would call – advanced urban services or
advanced urban technologies around the
world. And to my mind the building, the
management, the maintenance of cities is
itself now a global industry in which
particular cities are able to specialize
in just the same way that cities can
specialize in digital industries or
fashion and film. Cities can specialize in
being great places to make, build and
manage cities. And what's so exciting
therefore about the Berlin TXL project
is that of course this is the first city
in the world to build a science park, a
technology park totally dedicated to
urban solutions and urban technologies.
So through this initiative not only will
we see an industrial development
extravaganza as more companies devoted
to these urban technologies succeed in
here in Berlin, but also we see Berlin
take its rightful place as a city which
is therefore branded, identified as one
of the great global leaders in city
making, city building and city management
worldwide
When you're asked to write a book
about global cities you face a start
choice: you can either go back to the
emergence of a global city theory
originally in the early part of the 20th
century and then more substantially from
about nineteen sixty onwards with Peter
Hall and then Saskia Sassen and Peter
Taylor and many others. Or you can say
well I'm interested in what makes cities
internationalize and what makes them
want to trade and have influence beyond
their borders in which case you have to
go back about four and a half thousand
years. And I decided to do the latter
because what I wanted to discover was
really the the DNA of global cities: what
is it that makes a city or a group of
cities want to extend their influence,
their trade, their activities beyond
their natural domestic area. And if you
look at that issue you uncover I think
some very interesting observations about
globalizing cities and lessons that are
as useful today as perhaps they were
4,000 years ago.
Yes I think there are lots of issues in here,
so firstly I'd say competition is a
necessary feature of the life of cities
today but it's not only competition.
Collaboration is pretty important,
working systematically with other cities,
forming alliances with other cities is
key. And those of us who are interested
in cities are more interested in how all
cities can get better than we are in how
one city can beat another in a
competition. But the competition not just
for capital but also for talent, for
knowledge, for investors and also for
particular kinds of institutions is
really critical and in order to compete
cities do need to adopt some of the
habits and disciplines of business: they
do need to be concerned about
benchmarking and branding and have a
competitive mindset and think about
incentives, they do need to organize
around a strategy to play to their
strengths. But cities have more to do
than be competitive, they also have to be
livable places for citizens, they have to
contribute to the global environment and
in that respect they often behave in
ways that are not like businesses. So
it's the ability of a city to be
competitive where it needs to be but
also to be sustainable, livable and
responsive where it needs to be that's
so critical. I am preoccupied with the
losers in the "winner and loser"-
conversation and that's why I'm very
interested in how we develop systems of
cities, cooperations between competitive
places and other places around them so
that they can broaden the space over
which the benefits are felt.
I'd say that there are two basic
challenges right now. The first challenge
of course is that we're living in a
period of great political change where
the growth of skepticism, the growth of
populism and the growth of a kind of
anti-globalism, anti-metropolitanism is
very much around and is very felt in all
of the activities that are happening
currently within national elections,
national political forces. The thing is
that I think that the real politic of
all of this is that these are debates
that in a sense have been around for a
while. And the politics it seems to me
doesn't really go very strongly with
either the demographics, the economics or
the technological trends. I think
economics population moves, technology
moves point towards increased
globalization, increased metropolitanization,
increased concentrations and I
think that after a while this political
movement will have to become more
informed by those trends. The second
thing of course then is the development
that need to happen particularly within
nation states where the global cities
need to partner much more effectively
with the other places within their
nations and form alliances which enable
the nation-state to be more effective in
supporting the competitiveness and
development of all of their territories.
Some of those will be competitive global
cities others of them will need to be
highly livable, highly sustainable, highly
resilient other kinds of places. So
this calls for a very different approach
from national governments in the future
and national governments are only
partially on their way there.
For more infomation >> Subaru XV 2.0 i AWD Luxury CVT-Automaat de Prijs is Rijklaar - Duration: 1:03. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét