@COMMENT{{This file has been generated by bib2bib 1.86}}
@COMMENT{{Command line: /usr/bin/bib2bib -ob people_pierre_filion.bib -c 'author: "Pierre.*Filion"' ref.bib}}
@ARTICLE{Fil96,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = { Metropolitan planning objectives and implementation constraints:
planning in a post-{F}ordist and postmodern age },
year = 1996,
journal = {Environment and Planning A},
volume = 28,
number = 9,
pages = {1637--1660},
keywords = { geography, urban planning, politics, canada, urban form },
status = {read},
abstract = {
Planning faces the predicament that as recommendations become
bolder possibilities for implementation deteriorate. This is
imputed to society's transition from a Fordist and modern to a
post-Fordist and postmodern era. On the one hand, postmodern
values account for more public participation and heightened
environmental sensitivity, which translate into proposals for
alternative forms of urban development. On the other hand, the
implementation of these proposals is impaired by reduced public
sector resources as a result of the economic instability
associated with post-Fordism. Another impediment is the
difficulty to achieve sufficient support for planning
objectives in the postmodern context. This context is marked by
a fragmentation of values, attachment to the existing built
environment, and suspicion between social groups. The empirical
focus is on Toronto's bold metropolitan planning proposals.
Most recent planning documents call for reurbanization efforts,
a compact urban form, and reduced reliance on the car. In this
paper I cast doubts, however, on the eventual actualization of
these proposals by highlighting weaknesses in the present
and anticipated implementation context. These are tied to
factors that are specific to Toronto, but also to a greater
extent to the post-Fordist and postmodern environment.
},
annote = {
A few interesting ideas. He argues that the postmodern attachment of
value to public participation and plural views could undermine
processes aimed at changing suburban form to better accommodate
plurality. He suggests that NIMBYism arises from suspicion
between factions in a fractured society, and this will in turn
hinder changes to existing urban form (infill, etc.) and favour
greenfield development where such arguments can be avoided. In the
light of his arguments, I find policies such as urban growth
boundaries more appealing: they prevent greenfield alternatives and
force NIMBYism to be confronted directly. Toronto already seems to
be headed in this direction, as social housing projects are
increasingly recognised as necessary and located in all wards, instead
of being fought off by all wards.
}
}
@ARTICLE{Fil00,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = {Balancing Concentration and Dispersion? Public Policy and
Urban Structure in {T}oronto},
year = 2000,
journal = {Environment and Planning C},
volume = 18,
pages = {163--189},
status = {read},
quality = 5,
keywords = { canada, urban planning, geography, urban politics, toronto },
annote = {
An excellent, detached and comprehensive overview of postwar trends
in the Toronto region. The hypothesis that Toronto may have ``the
best of both worlds'' by having both dispersed and concentrated
environments is an interesting one, although the retention of that
status would require both realms to grow at similar rates, which
has not been the trend in recent decades.
}
}
@ARTICLE{Fil01,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = {Suburban Mixed-Use Centres and Urban Dispersion: What
Difference do They Make?},
year = 2001,
journal = {Environment and Planning A},
volume = 33,
number = 1,
pages = {141--160},
status = {read},
keywords = {urban planning, transport planning, urban design, pedestrian planning},
annote = {
Some very good points in a comparison of several Toronto shopping
centres that I know well. Hard data makes for an interesting
comparison exercise. The amazing thing, really, is the allocation
of space in each centre: roughly 2.5:1 ratio of space for cars to
space for buildings (except North York Centre, at 2:1), compared
with 1:2 in downtown Toronto. North York Centre still comes out
almost as bad as the others, since it uses its saved space mostly
for open park space (38\% of total space!)
``If suburban mixed-use centres have been successful in juxtaposing
different land uses, their integration of these uses has been far
less impressive.''
}
}
@ARTICLE{Fil03,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = { Towards Smart Growth? {T}he Difficult Implementation of
Alternatives to Urban Dispersion},
year = 2003,
journal = {Canadian Journal of Urban Research},
volume = 12,
number = 1,
pages = {48--70},
keywords = { urban planning, urban politics, canada, urban form, smart growth},
status = {read},
abstract = {
The smart growth concept has recently achieved prominence within
the planning profession. It represents a reaction to mounting
resentment towards the adverse consequences of prevailing forms of
urbanization: air pollution, high development costs and
deteriorating quality of life. The article examines the possibility
of implementing smart growth proposals within the prevailing
political, economic and value environment. After drawing lessons
from the lack of success of attempts at altering urban development
over the last thirty years, the article proposes two smart growth
strategies. To maintain their implementation potential and capacity
to modify urbanization trends, the strategies avoid clashes with
entrenched preference patterns and powerful interest groups. The
first strategy consists in an expansion of the high-density
transit-oriented compact urban realm into the ambient low-density
car-dependent dispersed realm. The second strategy involves the
creation of mixed-use high-density corridors, hospitable to transit
use and walking, within newly urbanized areas.
},
annote = {
An excellent article, aimed at realistic incremental policies to
change urban densities, the main obstacle to mode share changes.
The solutions he presents are not new at all, but the political
context and discussion of suburban values are worth thinking about.
}
}
@ARTICLE{FilBunMcSTse04,
author = {Pierre Filion and Trudi Bunting and Kathleen Mc{S}purren and
Alan Tse},
title = {Canada-{U.S.} Metropolitan Density Patterns: Zonal Convergence
and Divergence},
year = 2004,
journal = {Urban Geography},
volume = 25,
number = 1,
pages = {42--65},
keywords = {urban planning, urban form, canada},
status = {read},
abstract = {
The paper compares density patterns of the three largest Canadian
metropolitan regions with those of a sample of 12 U.S. urban areas
with comparable populations. It verifies if such patterns support
claims of Canadian urban distinctiveness prevalent within this
country's research literature. Findings indicate that regional
differences among U.S. cities are as important as cross-national
distinctions. Measures of centrality and overall density place
observed Canadian metrpolitan areas within the same category as
older U.S. East Coast metropolitan areas. Inter-city comparisons of
historically and geographically defined zones suggest a period of
cross-national convergence before World War II, when the inner city
was developed, followed by a period of divergence from the 1940s to
the 1970s, when the inner suburb was built. The development of the
outer suburb, which began in the early 1970s, marks a return to
cross-national convergence. These results question the continued
relevance of the literature on the distinctiveness of Canadian
urbanization.
},
annote = {
Very interesting. They find that Canadian cities, as a group, do
stand out from American cities---they are denser overall (than
American cities of comparable size), and denser in their cores and
inner suburbs. In the outer suburbs, however, densities are
indistinguishable from American cities. Beyond that, however,
Canadian cities have much smaller exurban regions than their
American counterparts. They fit a cubic polynomial
to the density/distance-from-CBD graph, and don't find Canadian
cities to be as distinctive in that measure; I'm not sure how solid
their analysis there is, though (haven't read it closely enough).
Generally, the Canadian cities are distinctive as a group, since
all of the major Canadian cities are dense, but are generally
similar to northeastern American cities. The U.S. just has a wider
variety of cities. ``Our work does not so much refute the
perspective espoused by the Canadian urban specificity literature
as situate it historically and geographically. According to zonal
findings and events that have marked the evolution of cities in the
two countries, most of the noted cross-national differences can be
linked to the period that ran from the end of World War II to the
1970s.'' Overall, I don't think their results justify the final
sentence of their abstract (repeated in their introduction); I
think Canadian cities are quite distinctive. In particular, they
don't discuss exurban trends very much, although these are a very
significant part of American city development today: the Canadian
cities have only 18 percent of their population in exurban areas,
while the American cities are clustered closer to 30 percent, with
some as high as 50 percent (Atlanta, Boston).
}
}
@INCOLLECTION{BunFil96,
author = {Trudi Bunting and Pierre Filion},
title = {The dispersed city: its spatial and temporal dynamics},
pages = {9--54},
editor = {Pierre Filion and Trudi Bunting and K.~Curtis},
booktitle = {The Dynamics of the Dispersed City: Geographic and Planning
Perspective on {W}aterloo {R}egion},
year = 1996,
series = {Department of Geography Publication Series},
volume = 47,
publisher = {University of Waterloo},
address = {Waterloo, ON, Canada},
keywords = {urban planning, canada}
}
@ARTICLE{BunFil99,
author = {Trudi Bunting and Pierre Filion},
title = {Dispersed City Form in {C}anada: A {K}itchener {CMA} Case
Study},
year = 1999,
journal = {The Canadian Geographer},
volume = 43,
pages = {268--287},
keywords = {canada, urban planning}
}
@ARTICLE{BunFilPri02,
author = {Trudi Bunting and Pierre Filion and H.~Priston},
title = {Density Gradients in {C}anadian Metropolititan Regions,
1971--96: Differential Patterns of Central Area and Suburban Growth and
Change},
year = 2002,
journal = {Urban Studies},
volume = 39,
number = 13,
pages = {2531--2552},
abstract = {
This paper demonstrates that over the 25-year period, 1971-96, the
majority of Canadian cities have undergone transition towards an
increasingly decentralised urban form. The trends, however, are quite
diverse, pointing to fundamental differences in the respective
importance of growth in central and outer parts of the metropolitan
area. On the whole, the relatively high densities observed in Canadian
central cities, in comparison with US ones, appear to reflect residual
centralisation rather than continued growth in metropolitan regions'
innermost parts. Only Vancouver, and to a lesser extent Toronto and
Victoria, exhibit indisputable evidence of post-1971 central-area
growth. The predominant trend has been towards suburban-style,
low-density expansion, albeit with considerable intercity variation
regarding changes in central-area and suburban density. Findings
presented here point to previously unidentified trends towards
recentralisation in a few CMAs and, in about half of the surveyed
metropolitan areas, densification of suburban tracts.
},
keywords = {canada, urban planning, urban form }
}
@ARTICLE{Fil88,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = {The Neighbourhood Improvement Plan, {M}ontreal and {T}oronto:
contrasts between a participatory and a centralized approach to urban
policy making},
journal = {Urban History Review},
year = 1988,
volume = 17,
pages = {16--28},
keywords = {urban planning, canada}
}
@ARTICLE{Fil95,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = {Planning proposals and urban development trends: can the gap
be bridged?},
year = 1995,
journal = {Plan Canada},
volume = 35,
number = 5,
pages = {17--19},
keywords = {urban planning, canada}
}
@ARTICLE{Fil99,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = {Rupture or continuity? Modern and postmodern planning in
{T}oronto},
journal = {International Journal of Urban and Regional Research},
year = 1999,
volume = 23,
pages = {423--444},
url = {http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1468-2427.00206},
keywords = {urban planning, canada}
}
@TECHREPORT{Fil07,
author = {Pierre Filion},
title = {The {U}rban {G}rowth {C}entres Strategy in the {G}reater
{G}olden {H}orseshoe: Lessons from Downtowns, Nodes, and Corridors},
year = 2007,
month = MAY,
series = {Neptis Studies on the Toronto Metropolitan Region},
institution = {The Neptis Foundation},
address = {Toronto, ON, Canada},
keywords = {urban form, canada, toronto},
url = {http://www.neptis.org/library/cf_download.cfm?file=Filion_electronic_report_20070528.pdf}
}
@ARTICLE{FilBun93,
author = {Pierre Filion and Trudi Bunting},
title = {Local power and its limits: Three decades of attempts to
revitalize {K}itchener's {CBD}},
year = 1993,
journal = {Urban History Review},
volume = 12,
pages = {48--70},
keywords = {urban politics, canada, urban planning}
}
@TECHREPORT{FilBunCKPD98,
author = {Pierre Filion and Trudi Bunting and {City of Kitchener Planning
Department}},
title = {Housing Development Potential in {K}itchener's Core Area:
Markets and Recommendations},
year = 1998,
institution = {City of Kitchener},
address = {Kitchener, ON, Canada},
keywords = {urban planning, canada}
}
@ARTICLE{FilBunWar99,
author = {Pierre Filion and Trudi Bunting and K.~Warriner},
title = {The Entrenchment of Urban Dispersion: Residential Preferences
and Location Patterns in the Dispersed City},
year = 1999,
journal = {Urban Studies},
volume = 36,
pages = {1317--1347},
keywords = {urban planning}
}
This file has been generated by bibtex2html 1.86.