These new urban landscapes that were examined in the previous parts, marked by the massive transformation, underlining the effect of spectacle and fascination and requiring a highly developed technical prowess and a sophisticated expertise, are sometimes described as a result of the globalization of urban policies, and sometimes they are considered as a specific product of the particular Dubai’s context and more generally the GCC context.
These questions are hence frequently confronted in the GCC literature; are the spectacular and iconic projects and urban extension the reflection of a globalized world of urban models and references, and a pure logic of urban neo-liberalism, or the result of a set of cultural, social and politico-economical contexts that are highly influenced by the monarchical systems.
Beyond a binary answer for these questions, this situation may be understood through the literature of ‘mobile urbanism’. ‘Policymaking must be understood as both relational and territorial, as both in motion and simultaneously fixed, or embedded in place’
(McCann & Ward, 2011).
Even if urban policies are often local, grounded and tied to specific places (Friedman, 2005; Peck and Tickell, 2002), the second half of the picture shows that contemporary policymaking is fundamentally shaped by a context of ‘fast policy transfer’ (Peck and Theodore, 2001), where ‘transfer agents’ (Stone, 2004), including, among others, politicians, practitioners, activists and consultants are transferring knowledge about urban policies around the world.
The broader category of these transfer agents, called in the literature ‘the transnational capitalist class’ (TCC), is defined as people and organizations from many countries operating at a transnational level, with relationships to transnational social spaces (Sklair, 2005; Olds, 2001; Robinson & Harris, 2000; Carroll, 2009). The international firms in the domain of engineering and consultancy are considered as part of this class.
Designated also as Global Intelligence Corps (GIC) (King, 1990, Olds, 2001, Rimmer, 1991), the role of these international consultancy firms is more and more crucial
worldwide. The emergence of transnational clients, coupled with the development of communication technologies, have enabled these firms to become a global powerful actor, spreading office networks worldwide, following the grid of powerful cities (Knox
& Tailor, 2005; Faulconbridge, 2010).
International consultancy firms in the domain or urban planning (ICFUP) – that include architectural and engineering oriented firms- constitute a main agent in widening channels of cross-border policy transfer (Peck, 2003), contributing at transferring policies, practices, models and references that would be translated into urban forms.
However, these transferred elements are the subject of an adaptation process, relative to each local context. Even in the literature on mobile policies and policymaking, the word
‘transfer’ is defined as a ‘socio-spatial, power-laden process in which policies are subject to change and struggle as they are moved’ (McCann & Ward, 2011).
Studies on knowledge mobility and policy transfer underline different levels of transfer.
They differentiate between transfer, diffusion and learning (Stone, 2004). While
‘transfer’ involves – as it was defined previously- processes of struggle and change,
‘Diffusion’ describes a trend of successive or sequential adoption of a practice, policy or programme. It is contagious rather than chosen and it connotes spreading, dispersion and dissemination of ideas or practices from a common source or point of origin (Ibid).
Stone (2004) considers as well that the diffusion has its limitations since it does not say a lot about how policies or practices are altered during processes of adoption. ‘Learning’
is defined by Stone (2004) as occurring when ‘policy-makers adjust their cognitive understanding of policy development and modify policy in the light of knowledge gained from past policy experience’. In his essay on Knowledge transfer in the Arab Emirates and the other Gulf states, Ewers (2013) discusses to what extents the imported expertise can be a lever to local capacity development. Levels of learning – according to Ewers vary between sectors, the financial sector being the sector with high level of local learning via interaction with foreign experts. In this same line, this article aims at discussing as well the level of learning within local context that can be identified via the presence of ICFUP and the ‘transferred knowledge’.
Fig 1.23: The images shows an example of circulated tools, practices and knowledge. Up:
Abu Dhabi 2030 vision-model. Down: Singapore New Downtown- model. The comparison shows a striking similarity in the scale and the way the plans are promoted and displayed.
In Dubai (and more generally in the GCC) the ICFUP play a fundamental role. The city, enrolled in a development process and strategies that are creating iconic spaces and
megaprojects that would contribute in creating a world city image, has relied significantly on foreign knowledge (Ewers, 2013). In Ren (2011) many of the GCC cities (such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha) are listed among the top cities where international consultancy firms in the construction domain have branch offices. These rankings reflect the significant role of the international firms who are implementing these iconic landscapes and megaprojects.
Despite the significant reduction of construction activities during the 2008 global financial crisis, most of international firms have adapted in order to cater to the new post-crisis optimistic mood. Their role seems to have been crucial in the rebounding of the GCC cities from the effects of the crisis.
These ICFUP, object of this essay, will be examined in the beginning as an actor that is very evocative of a mode of urban production relying heavily on a new mode of urban planning that is shaped by knowledge mobility, and characterized by megaprojects as a key output. By relying on literature on urban planning history in the wider Arab and Middle Eastern contexts, the introductory part will stress the particularity of the situation of Dubai, marked by a relatively recent and brief urban planning history, and of the ICFUP, as main urban planning knowledge mobility channel and main urban planning producer.
Next, these firms will serve as an analytical framework in helping to understand the market and the politico-economic context. Interactions between the context and the firms will be underlined. More particularly the market conditions and challenges that contribute to the adaptation process undertook by ICFUP will be unveiled.
Finally we examine the diversity of ICFUP and divide them into two main categories, based on their operational modalities, strategies and structures: the architectural firms and the engineering-architectural firms. Despite their similar role in contributing to the building of urban space, the study will demonstrate interesting divergence and convergence in the way they adapt their knowledge and operational mode to the context of urban planning in Dubai, and in the way they contribute to knowledge transfer in the urban domain.
Starting from the identification of 100 masterplans in the GCC countries, based on online resources such as blogs, website, journals, and based as well on the two site visits to the UAE, the consultants who were involved in two or more master plans were
selected for study. The results have identified a total of 13 international firms. Three of these did not reply to our request for interview, leaving a total of ten firms constituting the focus of this research. The 13 firms were responsible for 61 out of the 100 master plans (see table 1.1), while the remaining 39 master plans were done by 39 smaller international and regional firms. Two persons were interviewed in each firm: the targeted profiles were those of urban planners, mainly seniors or heads of departments, depending on their availability. The interviews were semi-direct, questioning the firm’s presence, strategy in accessing and maintaining position in the GCC, the types of cooperation undertaken with other firms, the theoretical frameworks they use, and finally the communication and self-evaluation tools mobilized in the context of urban megaprojects in the GCC. The firms are Aecom, HOK, Halcrow, Perkins and Will (P&W), Arup, KEO, Benoy Architects, Fosters and Partners, Dar al Handassa and Khatib & Alami. In the paper, all the stated information is taken from these listed sources – unless designated otherwise. Referring the information to an interview will be done through mentioning between brackets the name of the firm, as for example (HOK).
Architecture Firms EA Firms