What is it about?
The paper's main thrust to the fields of urban history and urban studies is the revisiting of the three main contemporary North American schools of urbanism and an analysis of how two proxies—namely the Phoenix metropolitan area of central Arizona and the Albany Capital Region of upstate New York— function as approximations to the two archetypes of the Los Angeles and the New York schools of urbanism.
Featured Image
Photo by Jirka Konietzny on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The paper is guided by various questions, including: What is the role of “second tier” cities within major schools of urbanism? Do secondary cities have unique advantages to offer or exploit, or are they instead burdened or empowered by the destiny of those whose scholarly trajectories are associated with the conceptualized schools? Could we argue that Phoenix and Albany live in the shadows of Los Angeles and New York City, respectively?
Perspectives
It is argued that although the Councils of Government (COGs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are invaluable in producing land cover and land use change atlases and toolkits of their territories, fragmented units of government within metropolises intensify economic and fiscal disparities and can potentially undermine regional competitiveness and efficiency. The article’s key findings revolve around the current and most pressing challenges and strategies with the potential to move metropolitan governance institutions toward greater regional cooperation and planning.
Dr. Carlos J. L. Balsas, AICP
Ulster University Belfast
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Knowledge Concerning Land Management for Metropolitan Governance in the U.S.A., Land, February 2026, MDPI AG,
DOI: 10.3390/land15020290.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
