Suchergebnisse

In my plenary for Dialogues in Urban Research I called for properly engaged dialogue in urban research and discussed my own attempts throughout my career (located as an outside-insider) to do just this. I am excited that those urban scholars invited to respond to my paper are on board – here I reply to the thoughtful and generous points made by Myfanwy Taylor; Steve Millington, Chloe Steadmann and Nikos Ntouris; Norma Rantisi; Jennifer Foster; John Lauermann; and Mark Boyle. I make the point that properly engaged dialogue is now more urgent than ever in the context of the new landscape of 'shitification'.

In this plenary for the new journal Dialogues in Urban Research, I discuss what constitutes (and should constitute going forward) engaged dialogue in urban research. Engaged dialogue is the process of working collaboratively with groups of people, whoever they are, in relation to particular issues that affect them, to understand those issues better. So what does engaged dialogue in urban research look like? Who is engaging with who, where, why, and how? Has it changed over time? Most, if not all, urban research engages beyond academia, but that engaged dialogue rarely makes it into the pages of academic journals in an inclusionary way. Who usually takes part in conversations on urban research in journals, but also who does not (or is less likely to), and who should? In a new world of publishing and government-funded research that is promoting open access, making research more publicly accessible and inclusive, there has been much less discussion of those engaged in the dialogue that is published. And, if academics do publish with nonacademics it is not usually in an academic journal; this is not inclusive, indeed it is exclusionary.

"And it's not just Fort Greene, it's not just Harlem. When I was growing up, D.C. used to be called Chocolate City. Now it's Vanilla Swirl! I used to go to London, hang out in Brixton. No more black people in Brixton. So gentrification, this thing is not just this borough, this city, this country, it's happening all over the world." (Lee 2014, http://flavorwire.com/newswire/spike-lee-we-predicted-gentrification )

In this article the ambivalence of public policy responses to diversity on the street are documented empirically through a detailed case study of the marginalization of youth from the downtown public spaces of Portland, Maine, USA. Urban planners, architects and property developers have become increasingly concerned with improving the quality of urban life and the public spaces on which it depends. They argue that urban revitalization initiatives must embrace diversity — cultural and economic, as well as functional and spatial. This diversity of different 'diversities' is often under‐theorized, as are the benefits of, and relationships among, social and cultural diversity, economic diversification, mixed‐use and multi‐purpose zoning, political pluralism, and democratic public space. It is my contention that this ambivalence is not simply a smokescreen for vested commercial interests, but also provides opportunities for expressing alternative visions of what diversity and the city itself should be. Looking specifically at youth, I explore a relatively underexamined aspect of inner‐city diversity. While there is a relatively well‐developed literature about the contested place of low‐income groups, racial minorities and the homeless in urban redevelopment initiatives, youth have largely been ignored.Dans cet article, l'ambivalence des réponses que la politique publique apporte à la diversité de la rue fait l'objet de données empiriques grâce à une étude de cas détaillée sur la marginalisation de la jeunesse dans les espaces publics du centre‐ville de Portland, dans le Maine (Etats‐Unis). Urbanistes, architectes et promoteurs se soucient de plus en plus d'améliorer la qualité de la vie urbaine et les espaces publics dont celleci dépend. Selon eux, les initiatives de revitalisation urbaine doivent englober la diversité, tant culturelle et économique, que fonctionnelle et spatiale. Cette diversité de plusieurs 'diversités' est peu théorisée, pas plus que les avantages et rapports mutuels de la pluralité culturelle et sociale, de la diversification économique, d'un zonage plurifonctionnel et polyvalent, du pluralisme politique et de l'espace public démocratique. L'article soutient que cette ambivalence, loin d'être un simple paravent pour droits acquis commerciaux, crée des possibilités d'exprimer d'autres visions de ce qu'une diversité et la ville elle‐même devraient être. Concernant les jeunes, il explore un aspect plutôt négligé de la diversité des centres‐villes: alors qu'il existe une littérature relativement élaborée sur la place contestée des groupes à faibles revenus, des minorités raciales et des sans‐abri dans les initiatives de réaménagement urbain, la jeunesse a été largement ignorée.

With 78 specially commissioned entries written by a diverse range of contributors, this essential reference book covers the breadth and depth of human geography to provide a lively and accessible state of the art of the discipline for students, instructors and researchers.

It is now over 50 years since the term 'gentrification' was first coined by the British urbanist Ruth Glass in 1964, in which time gentrification studies has become a subject in its own right. This Handbook, the first ever in gentrification studies, is a critical and authoritative assessment of the field. Although the Handbook does not seek to rehearse the classic literature on gentrification from the 1970s to the 1990s in detail, it is referred to in the new assessments of the field gathered in this volume. The original chapters offer an important dialogue between existing theory and new conceptualisations of gentrification for new times and new places, in many cases offering novel empirical evidence. Scholarly contributions are drawn from both established and up and coming experts in gentrification studies world-wide, and a deliberate attempt has been made to broaden the geographical scope of study. As such, the Handbook covers processes of gentrification in the global north and the global south. It also looks at different mutations of gentrification and pays proper attention to both resistance to gentrification and the importance of thinking about alternatives. The Handbook challenges readers to look at both the future of gentrification studies as well as the actual process of gentrification itself. Gentrification studies is interdisciplinary and this Handbook will be especially useful to scholars in many fields including geography, sociology, anthropology, planning, law, urban studies, policy studies, rural studies, development studies, and cultural studies. It will also be of value to those activists fighting gentrification worldwide

"How is London responding to social and economic crises, and to the challenges of sustaining its population, economy and global status? Sustainable development discourse has come to permeate different policy fields, including transport, housing, property development and education. In this exciting book, authors highlight the uneven impacts and effects of these policies in London, including the creation of new social and economic inequalities. The contributors seek to move sustainable city debates and policies in London towards a progressive, socially just future that advances the public good. The book is essential reading for urban practitioners and policy makers, and students in social, urban and environmental geography, sociology and urban studies."--

In this paper, we investigate the ethnic politics of commercial gentrification. We discuss how ethnicity is conceived of, managed by, and integrated into urban policy; and how the changing ethnic composition of the neighborhood is perceived and lived by entrepreneurs with different ethnic and class backgrounds. We employ the notion of "mixed embeddedness," coined by Kloosterman et al., to understand the changes gentrification brings about for ethnic minority entrepreneurs and to explain their responses to these changes. Using the case study of a gentrifying street in Amsterdam, namely, Javastraat in Indische Buurt, we draw on an analysis of ethnic packaging at the policy level as well as in depth interviews with ethnically Dutch and ethnic minority entrepreneurs. Our findings shed light on how ethnic minorities survive and manage commercial gentrification on their doorsteps as well as the complexity of social mixedness in gentrifying neighborhoods.

Displacement is central to the process of gentrification, but the importance of law in both enacting and resisting such displacement is often overlooked. Noting the tensions between existential, embodied meanings of displacement (i.e. being removed from a place called home), and the formal legal definitions of displacement (i.e. the removal of the right to a property), this paper explores how the law is implicated in the struggle for London's remaining council estates, with processes of expropriation providing councils a means of displacing residents from these estates to allow for (private) redevelopment but also an opportunity for residents to assert their 'right to community'. Here, we focus on the implications of the UK Secretary of State's decision not to overturn the Planning Inspectorate's (2016) recommendation that Southwark Council should not be allowed to compulsory purchase those homes on the Aylesbury Estate which residents had not already vacated via negotiation. This decision was reached on the basis that while tenants would be compensated financially for the loss of property, they would not be adequately compensated for losing their home. This is suggestive of an expanded notion of housing rights that encompasses a right to community - something that raises the possibility of the law actually aligning with the interests of council residents rather than supporting the politics of gentrification.