| Summary: | Traditionally observers of the urban scene have held that by
unilaterally shifting the balance between central and local control over urban
management, conditions within cities could be improved. More recently a
theoretical synthesis has been advanced which advocates the
decentralization of some urban functions to the neighborhood level and the
centralization of others to a metropolitan wide authority. Adherents of this
latter position hold that healthy cities operate best on the principle of a
“federation of neighborhoods”.
Following a review of the construction of modern society, this thesis
considers the theoretical benefits of dividing responsibility for four
categories of urban functions between local and central authorities. The ideal
theoretical division of various environmental, economic, social and political
functions has subsequently been tested against an implemented form of
neighborhood self management in Jerusalem. The results of this comparison
confirm that properly constituted neighborhood authorities can indeed
deliver human services more effectively and with considerable financial
savings. It has also become apparent that social cohesion is enhanced by
recognizing and legitimizing local communities. The Jerusalem experience
further reveals that a strong metropolitan wide authority is crucial in
securing the judicious use of natural resources and preventing
environmental degradation, thereby ensuring long-term economic well
being.
The considered balancing of urban functions between central and local
control would benefit metropolitan areas worldwide, particularly those
considering a comprehensive revitalization. === Applied Science, Faculty of === Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of === Graduate
|
|---|
