Suchergebnisse

Challenging the heteronomy of urban research -- The resilience of neoliberal urbanism -- Gentrification beyond false choice urbanism -- Displacement, rent control, and housing justice -- Neighbourhood effects as tautological urbanism -- The production and activation of territorial stigma -- Ghetto blasting -- Some possibilities for critical urban studies.

Questo articolo affronta l'annosa questione del "ghetto", soffermandosi in particolare sulla pericolosa mitologia e sul panico politico che circonda il termine. A partire dall'uso opportunistico del termine ghetto, si mostra come questo sia una strategia politica di stigmatizzazione di aree in cui vivono in gran parte le minoranze etniche, in particolare quelle che risiedono in complessi di edilizia popolare, fondamentalmente dissoluti e irrimediabilmente disorganizzati. Concentrandosi su tre contesti nazionali, Gran Bretagna, Danimarca e Belgio, l'articolo attinge alla concettualizzazione del ghetto di Loïc Wacquant per sostenere che le costruzioni fittizie di "ghetti" hanno tutto a che fare con la denigrazione razziale della vita delle persone che non può essere separato dalla intensa stigmatizzazione dei luoghi in cui vivono.

In this article I explore the question of rent control: one of the most despised yet misunderstood policies across a variety of disciplines and professions concerned with urban and housing issues. The hegemonic view is that rent controls – in any form, in any context – will eventually hurt those on whose behalf they are supposedly introduced (people struggling to find somewhere affordable to live). I use the concept of agnotology – the study of the intentional production of ignorance – to demonstrate that this view is riddled with vested interests and grounded in deep contempt for state regulation and in veneration of the supposed "efficiency" of the "free" market. I expose and dissect three of the prevalent myths of rent control: (1) that it negatively affects the quality of rented properties; (2) that it negatively affects the supply of housing; and (3) that it leads to 'inefficiencies' in housing markets. I take a close look at different kinds of rent control and, more broadly, at what leads to high housing costs, and by doing so I shift the analytical and political focus towards the urgent question of housing justice. ; En este artículo exploro la cuestión del control de alquileres: una de las políticas más despreciadas y aún incomprendidas por una variedad de disciplinas y profesiones relacionadas con cuestiones urbanas y de vivienda. La visión hegemónica es que los controles de alquiler – en cualquier forma, y en cualquier contexto – eventualmente perjudicarán a aquellos en cuyo nombre supuestamente se introdujo (personas que luchan por encontrar un lugar asequible para vivir). Yo uso el concepto de agnotología – el estudio de la producción intencional de ignorancia – para demostrar que esta visión está plagada de intereses particulares y se basa en un profundo menosprecio por la regulación y en la veneración de la supuesta «eficiencia» del mercado «libre». Expongo y analizo tres de los mitos prevalentes en el control de la renta: (1) afecta negativamente la calidad de las propiedades alquiladas; (2) ...

AbstractThis article advances a critique of the 'neighbourhood effects' genre in urban studies, by arguing that an acceptance of the 'where you live affects your life chances' thesis, however well‐intentioned, misses the key structural question of why people live where they do in cities. By examining the structural factors that give rise to differential life chances and the inequalities they produce, and by inverting the neighbourhood effects thesis to: your life chances affect where you live, the problem becomes one of understanding life chances via a theory of capital accumulation and class struggle in cities. Such a theory provides an understanding of the injustices inherent in letting the market (buttressed by the state) be the force that determines the cost of housing and therefore being the major determinant of where people live. The article draws on Marxist urban theory to contend that the residential mobility programs advocated by neighbourhood effects proponents stand on shaky ground, for if it is true that 'neighbourhood effects' exceed what would be predicted by poverty alone, moving the poor to a richer place would only eliminate that incremental difference, without addressing the capitalist institutional arrangements that create poverty.

AbstractThis rejoinder begins and ends with some remarks on the gentrification strategies taking place in post‐Katrina New Orleans, and responds to and builds on the commentaries by outlining, first, how the eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research has continued, second, how displacement must be understood as multifaceted and contextual, and third, how urban researchers have become seduced by the rewards of claiming 'policy relevance'. It concludes by offering some thoughts on the state of resistance to gentrification, and how much more research is needed not just on working‐class experiences of gentrification, but on how people fight for their right to place in the gentrifying city.Resumé Cette réponse débute et finit par quelques remarques sur les stratégies de la 'gentrification' qui opèrent à la Nouvelle‐Orléans depuis Katrina. Entre‐temps, elle réagit et ajoute aux commentaires en exposant, d'abord, comment se poursuit l'éviction des perspectives critiques de la recherche sur la 'gentrification', ensuite, comment il faut appréhender le déplacement comme présentant plusieurs facettes et dépendant du contexte et, pour finir, comment les chercheurs urbains ont cédé aux mérites de revendiquer une 'pertinence politique'. En conclusion, elle propose plusieurs réflexions sur l'état de résistance à la 'gentrification' et sur le volume de recherches supplémentaires nécessaire, non seulement sur les expériences de la classe ouvrière, mais aussi sur la manière dont les gens luttent pour leur droit à une place dans une ville en cours de la 'gentrification'.

AbstractRecent years have seen an extraordinary resurgence of interest in the process of gentrification, accompanied by a surge of articles published on the topic. This article looks at some recent literature — both scholarly and popular — and considers the reasons why the often highly critical perspectives on gentrification that we saw in earlier decades have dwindled. Whilst a number of reasons could be put forward, three in particular are discussed. First, the resilience of theoretical and ideological squabbles over the causes of gentrification, at the expense of examining its effects; second, the demise of displacement as a defining feature of the process and as a research question; and third, the pervasive influence of neoliberal urban policies of 'social mix' in central city neighbourhoods. It is argued that the 'eviction' of critical perspectives from a field in which they were once plentiful has serious implications for those at risk from gentrification, and that reclaiming the term from those who have sugarcoated what was not so long ago a 'dirty word' (Smith, 1996) is essential if political challenges to the process can be effective.

In Mexico City, as in many other large cities worldwide, contemporary modes of urban governance have overwhelmingly benefited affluent populations and widened social inequalities. Disinvestment from social housing and rent-seeking developments by real estate companies and land speculators have resulted in the displacement of low-income populations to the urban periphery. Public social spaces have been eliminated to make way for luxury apartments and business interests. Low-income neighbourhoods are often stigmatized by dominant social forces to justify their demolition. The urban poor have however negotiated and resisted these developments in a range of ways. This text explores these urban dynamics in Mexico City and beyond, looking at the material and symbolic mechanisms through which urban marginality is produced and contested. It seeks to understand how things might be otherwise, how the city might be geared towards more inclusive forms of belonging and citizenship