Search results

É difícil encontrar na Europa, ou em qualquer outro lugar, uma metrópole onde a estrutura urbanística e a Arquitetura tenham se modificado com tal frequência e drasticidade, como aconteceu em Berlim no século 20. Durante esse século, a cidade serviu como capital estatal para cinco sistemas políticos diferentes e sofreu a separação física, pelo muro de Berlim, por 28 anos. Pouco tempo depois da reunificação da Alemanha, em 1989, Berlim foi nomeada a capital da Alemanha unificada. Isso provocou uma grande atividade de construção dos ministérios federais e outras construções governamentais, a maioria delas levada para o centro velho ("Mitte"), onde os antigos regimes de várias ideologias - do Império autoritário (1871-1918) até o governo autoritário comunista na República Democrática da Alemanha (1949-89) - tinham construído sua maior representação estatal arquitetônica. Todas essas épocas ainda têm suas memórias concentradas no distrito Mitte. Mas não somente de construções governamentais é formado o centro de Berlim - sem contar que se transformou drasticamente nos últimos 20 anos: havia também projetos culturais, comerciais e industriais e, é claro, prédios de apartamentos, que foram projetados e realizados. Com todas essas razões para construção, vem à tona a questão sobre o que fazer com os prédios antigos e como construir novos. De 1991 em diante, as autoridades responsáveis pelo Urbanismo de Berlim desenvolveram diretrizes de construção sob os moldes de um plano piloto para o centro (Planwerk Innenstadt), que foi baseado no conceito geral (Leitbild) de 1980, chamado "Reconstrução Crítica das Cidades Europeias". Muitos críticos, arquitetos e teóricos chamaram o conceito, que, em certo âmbito, representava tendências políticas conservadoras ou mesmo reacionárias na Alemanha unificada, de doutrina proibitiva. Este artigo procura reconstruir as linhas majoritárias dessa discussão, para avaliar a influência das políticas estéticas no Urbanismo da pós-unificação de Berlim. ; Difícilmente haya otra metrópolis en Europa, o en cualquier lugar, donde la estructura urbana y el rostro arquitectónico hayan cambiado tan frecuente y dramáticamente como en la Berlín del siglo XX. Durante este siglo, la ciudad fue capital de cinco sistemas políticos diferentes, sufrió una destrucción parcial durante la II Guerra Mundial y la separación física con el Muro de Berlín por veintiocho años. Poco después de la reunificación de Alemania, en 1989, Berlín fue declarada capital del país unido. Esto generó una inmensa actividad constructora para los ministerios federales y otras construcciones gubernamentales, la mayoría llevadas a cabo en el viejo centro de la ciudad (Mitte). Fue allí donde los regímenes anteriores de ideologías diversas - del autoritarismo imperial (1871-1918) al socialista de la República Democrática Alemana (1948-1989) - habían construido sus mayores representaciones arquitectónicas estatales. Los restos de todas estas épocas aún permanecen concentrados en el distrito Mitte de Berlín. Pero no fueron solo las edificaciones gubernamentales las que transformaron a Berlín y su Mitte drásticamente en los últimos veinte años, sino que también se dieron proyectos culturales, comerciales e industriales y, por supuesto, edificios para viviendas, que fueron proyectados y completados. Con todas estas razones para construir, surgió la pregunta de qué hacer con las edificaciones antiguas y cómo construir las nuevas. Desde 1991, la autoridad urbanística de Berlín ha elaborado lineamientos que establecen marcos estéticos para toda la actividad constructora. El mismo Planwerk Innenstadt (Plan maestro para el centro de la ciudad), de 1999, se basó en un Leitbild (concepto general) de la década de los ochenta, llamado "Reconstrucción crítica de una ciudad europea". Muchos críticos, arquitectos y teóricos consideran el concepto - que, hasta cierto punto, representa tendencias políticas conservadoras e, incluso, reaccionarias de la Alemania unificada - una doctrina prohibitiva para la construcción. Este artículo busca reconstruir las ideas principales de esta discusión y evaluar la influencia de la estética política en el Urbanismo posreunificación de Berlín. ; There is hardly a metropolis found in Europe or elsewhere where the urban structure and architectural face changed as often, or dramatically, as in 20th century Berlin. During this century, the city served as the state capital for five different political systems, suffered partial destruction during World War II, and experienced physical separation by the Berlin wall for 28 years. Shortly after the reunification of Germany in 1989, Berlin was designated the capital of the unified country. This triggered massive building activity for federal ministries and other governmental facilities, the majority of which was carried out in the old city center (Mitte). It was here that previous regimes of various ideologies had built their major architectural state representations; from to the authoritarian Empire (1871-1918) to authoritarian socialism in the German Democratic Republic (1949-89). All of these époques still have remains concentrated in the Mitte district, but it is not only with governmental buildings that Berlin and its Mitte transformed drastically in the last 20 years; there were also cultural, commercial, and industrial projects and, of course, apartment buildings which were designed and completed. With all of these reasons for construction, the question arose of what to do with the old buildings and how to build the new. From 1991 onwards, the Berlin urbanism authority worked out guidelines which set aesthetic guidelines for all construction activity. The 1999 Planwerk Innenstadt (City Center Master Plan) itself was based on a Leitbild (overall concept) from the 1980s called "Critical Reconstruction of a European City." Many critics, architects, and theorists called it a prohibitive construction doctrine that, to a certain extent, represented conservative or even reactionary political tendencies in unified Germany. This article reconstructs the main lines of this discussion and evaluates the influence of political aesthetics on post-unification Berlin urbanism.

While political economic perspectives of urban globalization tend to generalize the economic pressures upon socio-political transformations of cities, recent European research has stressed the institutional context of urban collective action. However, the structural bias of the European city model merely complements the criticized economization by a culturalist essentialization of urbanity, and thus fails to conceptualize political agency. In order to elaborate the theoretical foundations of a political counterhypothesis to urban globalization, this article clarifies the different historical and normative conceptions of institutional structure and agency in the urban context. Most research of cities implies — more or less implicitly — a common urban ideal which associates centrality with a local integration potential of plural societies. However, distinguishing between a historically embedded empirical category, a normative model of public space, and an analytical ideal-type of political agency helps to overcome the static structural conception of an essentially European urban culture and problematizes the role of knowledge models in reflectively constructing urban realities. Therefore, a dynamic and contextual relation between political economic functions, historic heritage, and normative frames might contribute to an open-ended comparative framework of urban collective action that can be applied to any ordinary city across and beyond Europe.

The focus of this thesis is one "component" of EC competition regulation, namely that of merger control.

In 2010, R. T. Erdoğan publicly acknowledged that he does not believe in equality between women and men. Following the subsequent general election in 2011, Erdoğan has solidified his power first as Prime Minister and, since August 2014, as the President of Turkey. Thus, his patriarchal and Islamist discourse on women has become stronger and more visible. The more powerful Erdoğan has become, the wider his discourse on women has been appreciated by the society. His discourse has started to reinforce women's 'place' in society both in public and private spheres. This article examines Erdoğan's speeches between August 2014 and August 2019, focusing on International Women's Day (8th of March), Mothers' Day (second Sunday of May), and International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (25th of November) using the framework of 'Logic of Misogyny' (Kate Manne 2019) to determine to what extent patterns of misogyny inform Erdoğan's discourse on women's rights, equality and agency. In order to deconstruct Erdoğan's discourse and analyse the relationship between discourse and misogyny, this article adopts feminist critical discourse analysis (FCDA) as the research method. In doing so, the article aims to contribute to the literature on both FCDA and misogyny with a study focusing on Turkey. ; In 2010, R. T. Erdoğan publicly acknowledged that he does not believe in equality between women and men. Following the subsequent general election in 2011, Erdoğan has solidified his power first as Prime Minister and, since August 2014, as the President of Turkey. Thus, his patriarchal and Islamist discourse on women has become stronger and more visible. The more powerful Erdoğan has become, the wider his discourse on women has been appreciated by the society. His discourse has started to reinforce women's 'place' in society both in public and private spheres. This article examines Erdoğan's speeches between August 2014 and August 2019, focusing on International Women's Day (8th of March), Mothers' Day (second Sunday of May), and International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (25th of November) using the framework of 'Logic of Misogyny' (Kate Manne 2019) to determine to what extent patterns of misogyny inform Erdoğan's discourse on women's rights, equality and agency. In order to deconstruct Erdoğan's discourse and analyse the relationship between discourse and misogyny, this article adopts feminist critical discourse analysis (FCDA) as the research method. In doing so, the article aims to contribute to the literature on both FCDA and misogyny with a study focusing on Turkey.

This review looks at The Social Imperative: Architecture and the City in China, a collection of critical essays and manifestos aimed at enhancing the discourse on contemporary Chinese architecture and urbanism. In particular, it introduces the voices of Chinese architects, urbanists and intellectuals who are themselves central to this discourse.

Introduction: Socialist and Post-Socialist Urbanisms / Lisa B. Welch Drummond and Douglas Young -- Part 1: Housing Experiences and Life Trajectories -- From Socialist Moderns to Urban Poor: Gender and the Housing Question in Post-Reform Vinh City / Christina Schwenkel -- From ABC to Post-Industrial Suburb: Living in a Vision / Bo Larsson (Translated from Swedish by Aidan Allen) -- The Rise and Fall of Collective Housing: Hanoi between Vision and Decision / Lisa B. Welch Drummond and Nguyen Thanh Binh -- Wrestling with the Soviet State: A Life History of Housing in Leningrad / Thomas Borén and Michael Gentile -- Part 2: Planning and Architecture: Designing Socialist and Post-Socialist Urbanisms -- Only Visions: The Case of South City, Prague / Steven Logan -- Phnom Penh During and after Socialism: Permanence and Reshaping of the Urban Centrality / Gabriel Fauveaud -- Planning for "Renaissance": Vanguard Urbanism in Addis Ababa / Jesse McClelland -- Recuperate, Recycle, Reuse: Adaptive Solutions for the Socialist Architecture of Bucharest / Laura Visan -- The Paradox of Preserving Modernism: Heritage Debates at Alexanderplatz, Berlin / Markus Kip and Douglas Young -- Part 3: Governance and Social Order -- China's "New" Socialist City: From Red Aesthetics to Standard Urban Governance / Carolyn Cartier -- Property Relations and the Politics of the Suburban Living Place in the Post-Communist City: Transition Stories from Tirana, Albania / Marcela Mele and Andrew E.G. Jonas -- Urban Natures in Managua, Nicaragua / Laura Shillington -- The Reshaping of Post-Socialist Hồ Chí Minh City: Leisure Practices and Social Control / Marie Gibert and Emmanuelle Peyvel -- Mapping Khujand: The Governance of Spatial Representation in Post-Socialist Tajikistan / Wladimir Sgibnev -- Conclusion / Douglas Young and Lisa B. Welch Drummond.

"Building on emerging interests in the resilience of cities, this book and the symposium it represents considers river cities and city rivers to explore how histories have shaped the present, and how they might inform our visions of the future. Cities have been built alongside rivers throughout history. These rivers can shape a city's success or cause its very destruction. At the same time city-building re-shapes rivers and their landscapes. Cities have harnessed, modified, and engineered rivers, altering ecologies and creating new landscapes in the process of urbanization. Rivers are as informed by the development of cities as urban landscapes as the cities are shaped by their relationship to the river. In the river city, the city river is a dynamic contributor to the urban landscape with its flow of urban economies, geographies, and cultures. Yet we have rarely given these urban landscapes their due. This collection of essays asks how river landscapes are shaped by and shape urban settlements, and in turn how their histories inform ideas of urban resilience and adaptability"--