城市群是未来中国建设的主方向

正在现代化的交通、通讯和信息技术条件下,城市的边界在模糊。在海运港口运输时代,最大通常也是最早的大型都市商业中心往往临海而建,人口在此集中;在汽车运输时代,则是城市化向郊区扩展的阶段;在航空运输时代,则是大都市区进一步向大型化发展的阶段,人口和产     

21世纪中叶现代化:城市化

国内外对城市化内涵与城市化方式争议较多 ,城市化既是不可阻挡的全球性浪潮 ,也是中国特色社会主义现代化的必由之路 ,其内涵有二 :一是农村人口、地域转变为城市人口、地域的过程 ,即城市化数量过程 ;二是城市文化、生活方式及价值观等城市文明在农村地域扩散过程 ,即城市化质量过程。中国城市化的必然性 ,包括亿万农民的追求、人口众多的国情、耕地资源的稀缺性和大都市连绵带的辐射 ,以及经济全球化的推波助澜。中国城市现代化战略选择是城市发展多元化、创造世界特大城市群体、建立沿海城市经济带、开拓长江城市群体系、整合传统城市群和建立国家城市化目标等。     

中国都市连绵区的界定与治理对策述评——基于全球大都市区发展的启示

目前中国城市化率超过50%,并已转变为人口向以大城市为核心、由众多大中小城市组成的城市密集区集聚的发展新阶段。大都市带建设成为中国向内需主导发展模式转变,发挥大国优势实现大国崛起的战略聚焦点。该文认为,国内在都市连绵区的界定标准上应首先取得共识,这是国内都市带发展规划的前提,针对国内都市连绵区发展中存在的几个普遍问题,在梳理并借鉴国际成熟都市带的相关成功经验基础上,提出了一些对策建议。     

美国＂逆城市化＂现象反思

20世纪以来,美国大都市区的人口增长率一直高于非都市地区,大都市区化成为美国城市发展的主流。所谓大都市区,简单地说,就是一个人口在5万以上的中心城市及其周围与之有着密切的社会经济联系的郊区所构成的共同体。非都市区就是大都市区以外的其他地区,比如农村和小城市。但到上世纪70年代,美国人口的发展出现了异常现象,即非都市地区的发展速度超过了大都市区。这一现象被某些学者称为“逆城市化”。     

大都市带理论梳理、概念评析与研究展望

自国外大都市带理论引入中国以来,出现了众多关于城市群体的名称,概念的不统一导致理论研究上的混淆。该文在回顾大都市带理论形成与发展的基础上,对与大都市带相关的概念加以辨析,提出统一相关概念的个人观点。同时,对大都市带研究的新特征进行了描述,并在总结国内相关研究的基础上,提出了今后研究的方向。     

美国大都市区管治实践的借鉴与启迪

美国大都市区管治的形成与发展表明,大都市区管治问题是城市（镇）空间布局发展到高级阶段时所面临的重要问题。本文通过深入分析美国大都市区行政体制、管治特点及管治模式,提炼出美国大都市区管治成功经验,对我国的大都市区管治具有很强的借鉴意义。     

评《全球城市区域的空间生产与跨界治理研究》

<正>20世纪后半叶以来,全球化浪潮中的世界城镇化进程加速发展,人口和财富向大城市进一步集中,既表现为超大规模城市数量的激增,又表现为巨型城市、大都市区和城市群、城市连绵区和全球城市区域等新型城市地域组织的不断涌现。其中,"全球城市区域"(Global City-regions,简称GCRs)是由一个或多个行使全球性生产或管理职能的特大城市为核心,集聚相当数量的不同性质、类型和规模的城市,并且借助于高度发达的现代化信息和交通设施以及便     

广州现代化水平评估

进入21世纪以来,广州确立了建设现代化大都市的宏伟目标。目前对于大都市的衡量标准尚无一个权威标准,大多从城市人口和城市面积两个方面来判断。2001年末广州户籍人口为712.6万人,城市辖区面积为7434.4平方公里。与国际上的大都市相比,广州的这两个指标都不低。但是大都市未必是现代化的,现代化大都市首先必须是现代化,对广州当前现代化进程进行科学的评估,是广州制订现代化大都市发展战略的基础和出发点。20世纪80年代后期,关于城市现代     

中国大型城市群组建刍议

城市群的出现,是生产力发展、生产要素优化组合的产物,在世界上现已形成一些大型城市群,如美国的西岸都市连绵区、大巴黎地区、大东京都市带等;在我国,城市群也正成为城市化发展的新趋势,有条件的地方逐渐通过建立大型城市群的方式来提升区域竞争力,如以上海为龙头的“长二角”经济区推出营建连接15个城市的基建计划,准备把“长三角”地区建成世界上人口最多和规模最大的大都市圈;以广东为中心的“珠三角”城市群也计划     

西安国际化大都市的战略定位：文化大都市

本文针对西安建设国际化大都市的核心问题展开研究。本文认为,丰富的历史文化资源是西安建设国际化大都市的基础,因此,可将西安国际化大都市的战略定位为“富有历史文化特色的国际化大都市”,围绕着文化大都市定位。论文对西安国际化大都市的主题文化、城市精神以及城市品牌形象等核心内容进行了深入分析,最后结合西安建设国际化大都市的目标,对西安建设国际文化大都市的具体路径进行了探讨。     

地区经济差距与人口流动:基于七国大都市区人口分布的比较研究

大都市区是一国人口的吸纳池。我国东部大都市区对人口的吸纳作用小,各大都市区的郊区和所辖县,以及多数大都市区的市区尚有很大的潜力和空间吸纳外来人口。鼓励包括中西部在内的农村剩余劳动力向东部大都市市区及郊区迁移,是一条减少地区和城乡经济差距,实现农村劳动力转移的有效途径。     

走以大城市为主导协调发展的城市化道路

人口城市化道路“以小为主”还是“以大为主”,争论的实质在于城市规模效益的评价。突破以往仅就经济特别是工业化评价城市规模效益的局限,以科学发展观为指导,提出集经济、社会、人口、资源、环境效益于一体的评价指标体系,运用多指标综合评价因子分析方法对我国城市规模效益进行实证研究,得出综合效益与城市规模成正相关变动的结论,为阐发以大城市为主导、大中小城市协调发展的城市化道路提供有力理论支撑;走“以大为主”协调发展的城市化道路,并非城市规模越大越好,因为城市规模与经济、社会因子等的效益不完全成正相关变动,需要具体分析,警惕拉美超大城市畸形发展的城市化“陷阱”发生。     

高密度和低密度城市的蔓延特征对比——中美大城市对比分析

对比研究高密度城市和低密度城市的蔓延特征有助于为城市规划和管理提供参考。以人口超过100万的12个中国城市、9个美国城市为样本城市,采用圈层分析法和反S方程,对比分析1990、2000和2014年以中国为代表的高密度城市和以美国为代表的低密度城市的蔓延特征。结果表明:①同等人口规模下,中国城市的建设用地面积较小,但土地扩张速度快。中国和美国城市的土地扩张分别主要发生在郊区和城市内部。②中国城市相对更为紧凑。高密度松散的城市土地扩张趋于紧凑,低密度城市蔓延程度在降低。③高、低密度城市的总体人口密度都呈下降趋势。高密度的中国城市尽管空间形态更紧凑,人口密度下降得较快,有必要遏制中国的城市蔓延趋势。④空间紧凑的城市人口密度下降得较慢;蔓延和紧凑的空间增长使高密度城市的人口密度下降变快和变慢,而对低密度城市没有表现出显著影响。     

A model of urban demography

This study develops an overlapping generations model that involves the endogenous determination of demographic and city structure to fully analyze the social and natural changes in city populations. We provide conditions under which the model exhibits the spatial features of demography observed in urban areas: city centres have a lower total fertility rate than suburbs and larger cities have a lower total fertility rate than smaller cities. Through calibration, we also show that spatial factors have a significant impact on demographic characteristics and city growth.     

城乡二元结构下中国城市化发展道路的选择

中国的城市化道路究竟怎么走?对比东亚韩国、中国台湾、印度和拉美等发展模式,中国过去30年的城市化有很大的风险。城市化过程中,是发展大城市,发展中等城市,还是发展小城市和小城镇方面,决定于创业及劳动者发展和就业机会、工资水平、进入城市成本和在城市中生活的成本等因素。都市、大城市、中等城市、小城市和小城镇怎么布局,应当由市场机制来调节,政府只能是加以引导。     

论成渝经济统筹发展

Chengdu and Chongqing are two megalopolises with the synthesized economic strength and the strongest urban competitiveness in the entire western region, which have very important positions in the development of western China. Through horizontal contrast of social economic developing level of the two cities, the two cities‘ economic foundation of unitary development is analyzed from complementary and integrative relationship. Then the policies and measures of economic unitary development of two cities is put forward.     

Central city fiscal conditions and MSA population distribution

This article empirically examines the relationship between local fiscal conditions and the distribution of population within a metropolitan area. Specifically, it is concerned with how central city policies may affect shifts of population to the suburbs. This has strong policy implications especially for cities undertaking economic redevelopment programs, which may have spillover benefits or costs to their surrounding suburbs. This analysis utilizes a panel of county level Census of Population and Census of Governments data spanning 1960-90 to examine these issues. The results show that central city fiscal conditions are expected to affect the relative size of an MSA's city and suburban population. Some of the data utilized in this analysis were made available by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). The data for County and City Data Book Consolidated Files, County Data 1947–77, County and City Data Book Consolidated Files, City Data 1944–77, County and City Data Book, 1983, and County and City Data Book, 1988 were originally collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Neither the collector of the original data nor the Consortium bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.     

The crisis of urbanization in Asia: finding alternatives to megalopolitan growth

The rapid expansion of large Asian cities generates serious social, economic, and physical problems, and has thereby forced these areas to create alternative expansion plans, such as the idea of building up secondary cities and towns. The result of the rapid expansion of large cities, combined with poor urban management, accentuates the mass poverty in many Asian cities. This large urban population is expected to double or triple in size between 1970 and 2000. Because substantial resources are required to manage these megalopolitan areas, it is reasonable to deduce that millions of these city dwellers will be living in absolute poverty by 2000. It is the prospect of continued rapid growth over the next 2 decades that presents the most serious problem for Asian countries. Most metropolises cannot provide enough jobs for the current work force. In addition, public facilities, housing, transportation, and health services are examples of other problems threatened by a heavy concentration of people. Attempts to control this growth have been unsuccessful, mainly due to the 1950s and 1960s emphasis on productive investment, which left rural regions underdeveloped and poor. Secondary cities and regional centers in Asia perform important functions in promoting widespread economic and social development: 1) they stimulate rural economies and therefore establish a pattern of step-wise migration, and 2) they absorb population and therefore, relieve some of the pressure put on the largest metropolitan areas. Studies of secondary cities and their attempts at controlling growth of large metropolitan centers suggest broad guidelines for strategies. Some of these are: 1) the existence of large metropolises has little effect on the growth of primate cities; 2) few controls on growth of large areas are likely to be effective unless there are viable alternative locations at which high threshold economic activities can operate; 3) secondary cities must be closely related to the agricultural economies of their rural hinterlands; and 4) attention must be given to improving transportation and other communication between large metropolitan centers, secondary cities, and smaller cities and towns. The continued concentration of people and economic activities in vast megalopolitan areas will continue to generate serious economic and social problems that may help stimulate the evolution of some of these strategies.     

Urbanization and the problem of restricting the growth of very large cities

This article discusses the problem of preventing the excessive growth of very large cities to the detriment of the development of smaller urban settlements in the USSR. The increase in size of the urban population throughout the entire USSR is mainly connected with the increase in the number of city dwellers. In 1960 and 1970 the number of largest cities in the USSR increased, along with a share of the nation's population living in these large cities. The low natural increase in population of very large cities creates a high demand for labor power which must come from the population of other cities. In 1970-1980, Moscow, one of the largest millionaire cities, had the lowest population growth rate of all major USSR cities (113.7%). The growth of Moscow and other very large cities in the last few years has been due to the mechanical increase in population and the increase in area. The analysis of Moscow's pattern of population growth over time focuses on changes in the level of availability of social and everyday services. The prewar period is characterized by a reserve of labor resources, the highest growth in industry and science, but a low overall population dynamic in the city. In the postwar period there was a significant decline in the annual increase of all indicators; this was a period of strong social development of the city. The period between 1966 and 1980 shows a further slowdown in the growth rate of city forming branches by an accelerated development of municipal service branches. The demand for measures to restrict the growth of very large Soviet cities depends on: 1) the reorientation of the development of the economic base, 2) the restructuring of their economy, and 3) the siting of various types of production of goods and services. Developing the specialization of the urban economy consists of planned development of the production of goods and services based on the use of available resources.     

People, cities, growth and technological change : From the golden age to globalization

The concept of economic development appeared during the postwar period as the basis and the source of a very strong hope of eradicating extreme poverty from the face of the Earth. All along the three first decades of this period—the second half of the 20th century—this promise did not seem questionable. It was thought that there were clear signs that material progress reaching larger sectors of the population and economic growth were parallel processes, linked to urbanization. A new style was thus established—that of modern large cities. However, the dynamics of this period appears to be strongly associated with the economic activity related to the basic construction of one's own lifestyle. The effects of structural market saturation and the limits of the redistribution of income began to be noticed in as far back as the end of the 1960s, and even more clearly so towards the end of the 1970s. That was the moment when population growth in the megalopolises and large cities in general began to become stable and even to decline in absolute value. It was also the time when the acceleration of technological innovation began to play a major role in development policies, while low social inclusion and marginalization problems became evident. This paper delves into this hypothesis on the basis of ample empirical evidence. Numerous conclusions are drawn from the analysis, which are useful for a serious restatement of the controversial issue of Sustainable Development.