Suchergebnisse

In den letzten Jahren entstand eine Reihe vergleichender Methoden. Forscher:innen bemühten sich dabei zunehmend um innovative Ansätze, um sich mit den vielfältigen und komplexen urbanen Welten von heute auseinanderzusetzen. Bisher haben sich jedoch im Bereich der Stadtforschung oder allgemein in räumlichen Disziplinen nur wenige auf Design und Umsetzung vergleichender Untersuchungen konzentriert. Mit diesem Artikel möchte ich einen Beitrag zu diesen aktuellen Debatten leisten, indem ich die Methodologie vorstelle, die wir als Team eigens für das Forschungsprojekt Patterns and Pathways of Planetary Urbanization entwickelten. Die Hauptfragen sind: Wie kann die Räumlichkeit großer städtischer Territorien empirisch untersucht werden? Wie lassen sich Urbanisierungsprozesse vergleichend analysieren? Um diese Fragen anzugehen, konzentriere ich mich auf unsere Erfahrung mit der Umsetzung eines vergleichenden Verfahrens und greife dabei auf ein komplementäres Set ethnografischer, kartografischer und historiografischer Methoden zurück, die für eine kreative, transdisziplinäre und stärker kollaborative Untersuchung von Urbanisierungsprozessen nützlich sind. Ich schließe mit einem Aufruf zu einer breiten methodologischen Diskussion und ihrer theoretischen Implikationen, indem ich den grundlegenden Zusammenhang zwischen Methodenentwicklung und dem Generieren vergleichender Konzepte hervorhebe.

"Dieser Beitrag befasst sich mit der Rolle von transdisziplinären Herangehensweisen innerhalb der Stadtforschung mittels einer theoretisch-methodischen Besprechung dieses Forschungsfeldes. Ausgehend von einem kurzen Rückblick auf die Methodengeschichte und die wichtigsten epistemologischen Debatten der empirischen Stadtforschung diskutiert die Autorin die Frage, welche neue Erkenntnis ein transdisziplinärer Zugang in der Betrachtung des Städtischen bringt, genauer: Wie kann Transdisziplinarität produktiv in eine kritische Forschungspraxis umgesetzt und als Strategie für Stadtforschung fruchtbar gemacht werden? Der Beitrag beschreibt die empirische Prägung der westeuropäischen Stadtforschungspraxis durch vorerst überwiegend intuitive transdisziplinäre Zugänge. Dabei zeigt die Autorin auf, dass insbesondere die aus der postmodernen und poststrukturalistischen Wende resultierende wissenschaftliche Reflexivität, die neu bewertete Ethnografie und der Fokus auf die soziale Produktion von Raum als zentrale sozialwissenschaftliche und erkenntnistheoretische Stränge die Stadtforschung auf inhaltlicher und struktureller Ebene bis heute durchziehen. In der kritischen Weiterentwicklung ebendieser methodischen und theoretischen Grundlagen der Stadtforschung sieht sie eine wesentliche Voraussetzung für Forschende, um Transdisziplinarität heute in eine explizite empirische Praxis zu übersetzen. Die große Bandbreite aktueller transdisziplinärer Ansätze bündelt sie schließlich schematisch und lote ihre Möglichkeiten und Grenzen für die Stadtforschung aus." (Autorenreferat)

AbstractIn this article, we discuss the concept of territory from a decolonized perspective. We engage with the ongoing debate on decentralizing urban studies to outline the potential drawbacks of essentializing, generalizing or objectifying the urban. Through the socio‐territorial approach utilized here we seek to address these issues by shifting attention, first, to the social production of territory, and secondly, from an analysis of state strategies to the urban scale. We understand territory as being produced when subjects struggle over the practices, meanings and tenures of urban space. An example from Mexico City is employed to illustrate how territory becomes both the site and stake of social struggle. By focusing on the subjects involved in the production of territory, and on the way different subjects produce and reproduce hegemonic spaces and counter‐spaces, we emphasize three aspects in particular: first, a territory's specific material conditions; secondly, the imaginarios (social imaginaries) various actors inscribe into it; and thirdly, the communal land use form of the ejido as a unique territorial regulation. Finally, we argue for the empirical groundedness of the concept of territory with the aim of further pluralizing the field of urban studies. The socio‐territorial approach we propose explicitly focuses on power relations in the production of both urban space and knowledge.

Cartography as an instrument for the analysis of urbanisation processes The speed, scale and scope of urbanisation have increased dramatically in recent decades. To decipher the rapidly changing urban territories across the planet, we need a radical shift in the analytical perspective on urbanisation. In this book, a transdisciplinary international research team presents an expanded vocabulary of urbanisation processes through a comparison of Tokyo, Hong Kong - Shenzhen - Dongguan, Kolkata, Istanbul, Lagos, Paris, Mexico City and Los Angeles. Based on a novel cartography and on detailed ethnographic and historical explorations, this book systematically analyses the diversity of responses to urgent contemporary urban challenges. It proposes a series of new concepts that allow us to assess the practical consequences of different urban strategies in everyday life. Essential book on urbanism New evaluation models for urbanisation processes Comprehensive analyses and illustrations of the urban patterns of international metropolises Comparison of urbanisation processes in eight metropolises around the world

AbstractThis article introduces the concept of popular urbanization to describe a specific urbanization process based on collective initiatives, self‐organization and the activities of inhabitants. We understand popular urbanization as an urban strategy through which an urban territory is produced, transformed and appropriated by the people. This concept results from a theoretically guided and empirically grounded comparison of Mexico City, Istanbul and Lagos. Based on postcolonial critiques of urban theory and on the epistemologies of planetary urbanization, we bring urbanization processes in these urban regions into conversation with each other through a multidimensional theoretical framework inspired by Henri Lefebvre focusing on material interaction, territorial regulation, and everyday experience. In this way, popular urbanization emerged as a distinct urbanization process, which we identified in all three contexts. While this process is often subsumed under the broader concept of 'urban informality', we suggest that it may be helpful to distinguish popular urbanization as primarily led by the people, while commodification and state agencies play minor roles. As popular urbanization unfolds in diverse ways dependent upon the wider urban context, specific political constellations and actions, it results in a variety of spatial outcomes and temporal trajectories. This is therefore a revisable and open concept. In proposing the concept of popular urbanization for further examination, we seek to contribute to the collective development of a decentered vocabulary of urbanization.

International audience ; This article introduces the concept of popular urbanization to describe a specific urbanization process based on collective initiatives, self‐organization and the activities of inhabitants. We understand popular urbanization as an urban strategy through which an urban territory is produced, transformed and appropriated by the people. This concept results from a theoretically guided and empirically grounded comparison of Mexico City, Istanbul and Lagos. Based on postcolonial critiques of urban theory and on the epistemologies of planetary urbanization, we bring urbanization processes in these urban regions into conversation with each other through a multidimensional theoretical framework inspired by Henri Lefebvre focusing on material interaction, territorial regulation, and everyday experience. In this way, popular urbanization emerged as a distinct urbanization process, which we identified in all three contexts. While this process is often subsumed under the broader concept of 'urban informality', we suggest that it may be helpful to distinguish popular urbanization as primarily led by the people, while commodification and state agencies play minor roles. As popular urbanization unfolds in diverse ways dependent upon the wider urban context, specific political constellations and actions, it results in a variety of spatial outcomes and temporal trajectories. This is therefore a revisable and open concept. In proposing the concept of popular urbanization for further examination, we seek to contribute to the collective development of a decentered vocabulary of urbanization.

International audience ; This article introduces the concept of popular urbanization to describe a specific urbanization process based on collective initiatives, self‐organization and the activities of inhabitants. We understand popular urbanization as an urban strategy through which an urban territory is produced, transformed and appropriated by the people. This concept results from a theoretically guided and empirically grounded comparison of Mexico City, Istanbul and Lagos. Based on postcolonial critiques of urban theory and on the epistemologies of planetary urbanization, we bring urbanization processes in these urban regions into conversation with each other through a multidimensional theoretical framework inspired by Henri Lefebvre focusing on material interaction, territorial regulation, and everyday experience. In this way, popular urbanization emerged as a distinct urbanization process, which we identified in all three contexts. While this process is often subsumed under the broader concept of 'urban informality', we suggest that it may be helpful to distinguish popular urbanization as primarily led by the people, while commodification and state agencies play minor roles. As popular urbanization unfolds in diverse ways dependent upon the wider urban context, specific political constellations and actions, it results in a variety of spatial outcomes and temporal trajectories. This is therefore a revisable and open concept. In proposing the concept of popular urbanization for further examination, we seek to contribute to the collective development of a decentered vocabulary of urbanization.