Métropoles különszám: alternatív városfejlesztési szakpolitikák

We are planning a special issue of Métropoles (a journal of urban studies which publishes articles written either in French or English) on alternative urban development policies. Abstracts should be sent by the 31st of March 2013. Please find below the complete call and feel free to circulate it widely!

Kind regards,

Max Rousseau

Many urban scholars have argued that the last three decades have been characterized by dynamics of homogenization and standardization of urban policies around entrepreneurial objectives (Harvey, 1989, Hall and Hubbard, 1996; Moulaert et al., 2005). These processes have been accompanied by the dissemination of “good practices” (Espaces et Sociétés, 2007) such as “cultural-led regeneration projects”, the construction of business districts, the creation of shopping centers, recreational facilities or new transport infrastructures, the policies of urban sustainability, the hosting of major sport events or the strategies to enhance image through urban marketing, etc. All these policies and urban projects seem to pursue the same objective: to (re)develop the city by making it more attractive to the post-Fordist firms and mobile social groups (high-skilled students, the "creative class", tourists ...) in order to strengthen its position in the new international division of production and consumption. This trend is the product of the interaction of several dynamics such as the introduction of neoliberal dogma in urban governance (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Béal and Rousseau, 2008), the acceleration of the flow of ideas and concepts among urban elites (McCann and Ward, 2011; Peck, 2011), the weakening of the link between local governments and urban societies (Pinson, 2009) or the rise of the financial sector in the production of urban spaces (Renard, 2008; Aalbers, 2012). Amid the ongoing destabilization of the economic base of many cities, these factors explain why key actors in urban governance rely increasingly on mainstream solutions whose effectiveness are only validated by the debatable success of highly specific – and arguably unrepeatable – models such as the widely publicized cases of Glasgow (culture), Hamburg (creative industries) or Barcelona (prestigious sporting events). Recent researches also demonstrate that this trend is not confined to the cities from the global North. The neoliberal "best practices" also spread in the global South, leading to the implementation of entrepreneurial urban development strategies in Africa (Murray, 2011; Myers, 2011), Latin America (Portes and Roberts, 2005) and Asia (Wu, 2003; Broudehoux, 2007; Dupont, 2011).

However, this generalization of mainstream strategies should not obscure the existence of alternative urban development policies. By "alternative", we mean the set of initiatives, projects or strategies supported by the local authorities and that seek to redirect urban development away from the entrepreneurial model. These alternative urban policies have three main characteristics:

1. They are not designed in a top-down perspective or by policy circles dominated by senior politicians, experts or businessmen. Alternative urban policies are elaborated in a bottom-up perspective in which urban society – including the most disadvantaged social or ethnic groups – is the driving force.
2. They are not only organized through market mechanisms. Alternative urban policies are not primarily intended to support pre-existing growth dynamics. Rather, they seek to establish political or "social" regulations in order to limit "uneven development" in contemporary cities.
3. They are not intended to rebuild the city for the more affluent social groups or for the "visitor class" (Eisinger, 2000), but above all for the people already present in the city. Alternative urban policies differ from neoliberal urban policies insofar they use public resources to address the situation of disadvantaged groups, without the intervention of the so-called "trickle-down effect".

Alternative urban development policies are heterogeneous in their objectives (redistribution, preservation, etc.) and in the nature of the municipal resources they use (planning decisions, financial support of local initiatives, transfers of expertise etc.). They may relate to various fields such as urbanism (de-growth strategies, land trusts, anti-gentrification or anti-speculation initiatives, etc..), local economy (alternative local currencies or local exchange systems, cooperative firms, etc..), finance (tontines, credit unions operating at the scale of the district or the city, etc..), environment ("transition town" movement, free public transport initiatives, etc..), food supply (urban agriculture, local food systems, etc..) or governance (participatory budgets, self-management, etc.).

Are local government forced to design and implement neoliberal urban development policies? This special issue considers that the relative decline of the state in the regulation of the economy and society and the current economic crisis could open a space for the development of alternative urban strategies. If there is now a substantial literature on entrepreneurial urban strategies, academic work on alternative urban development policies is less developed. Despite some interesting case studies, there are only few systemic analyses which try to draw more general conclusion regarding the development of alternative urban policies.

The purpose of this special issue is to contribute to fill this gap. It seeks to bring together articles, covering cities from the global North as well as the global South, which meet at least one of the four following objectives:

1. Describing alternative urban development policies through case studies. What are the contents and objectives of these policies? How and why have they emerged? What kind of actors and groups are involved in these policies?
2. Contextualizing alternative urban development policies. We expect articles questioning the socio-political and economic conditions triggering the emergence, implementation and stabilization of these policies. Are they more likely to emerge in cities with specific characteristics? Does the presence or the absence of any peculiar actors play a role?
3. Evaluating alternative urban development policies. How does their content differ from mainstream urban development policies? Do these policies still fulfill their original objectives? What dangers lurk them, and ultimately, are they doomed to be institutionalized?
4. Developing conceptual or theoretical approaches for answering the question why and how alternative urban development policies could be developed and successfully implemented in particular urban settings. How to conceptualise the opportunities which allow local actors to find and to pursue their own development strategy in a world dominated by a small number of hegemonic neo-liberal ideas? Why do local actors still have choices?

Métropoles is an open access journal of urban studies which is indexed by the French agency for the evaluation of research in Geography and Town Planning, Sociology and Political Science. http://metropoles.revues.org

Abstracts should be sent by the 31st of March 2013. They can be either written in French or English. They should be directly sent to the managing editor of Métropoles, Deborah Galimberti (deborah.galimberti[at]gmail.com). A copy should also be sent to the two coordinators of this special issue: Vincent Béal (vbeal[at]unistra.fr) and Max Rousseau (max.rousseau[at]cirad.fr).

Authors will be notified of the acceptance of their abstract by the 15th of April 2013, at the latest.

The definitive manuscripts should be submitted to the journal by the 16th of September 2013. They can be either written in English, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or German. The definitive version of the articles accepted for publication should however be written in English or French. The charge of the translation is the author’s responsibility.

The articles should comprise between 8.000 and 10.000 words (including references).

Presentation standards and information for the authors can be found on the website of the journal: http://metropoles.revues.org

Second World Urbanity: Between Capitalist and Communist Utopias

Call for Papers

June 21-23, 2013

Location: The Centre for the History and Culture of East Central Europe, Leipzig, Germany

In 1967 the architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable published a long piece in the New York Times on Soviet advances in urban planning and construction. Surprisingly for the Cold War era, the author openly praised the Soviets for creating a country-wide system of mass production of standardised prefabricated cheap housing, ‘an architectural sputnik’ in her own words. She claimed with great enthusiasm, ‘In size, scope and boldness, in spite of crudities, failure and sometimes ludicrous imperfections it is a singularly important undertaking of the 20th century.’ Moreover, she noted, ‘the latest product is acceptable as architecture.’ Describing new residential neighborhoods mushrooming all across the Soviet Union, she wrote: ‘There is no scale, no variety, no surprise. It is monotony with light, air, sun, and greenery in season, and on sum, that effect is no worse and sometimes a good deal better than a lot of construction on the outskirts of large American cities.’ Admitting all the flaws of current Soviet construction she urged her readers to pay closer attention to this ‘special brand of modern architecture [that] is reshaping the Soviet World.’

Second World Urbanity: Between Capitalist and Communist Utopias seeks to investigate the history of the radical reshaping of the Soviet World (in our words – the Second World), that Ada Louise Huxtable reported on in the late 1960s. This project aims to bring together scholarly contributions on the various endeavors in the Second World to conceive, build, and inhabit a socialist cityscape that was an alternative to the segregated spaces of capitalist cities and the atomized world of suburbia. Imagining and designing urban space were undeniably powerful instruments of forging socialist modernity. Second World Urbanity pays close attention to the tensions between global challenges and locally driven agendas that made architects, planners, and ordinary dwellers alter socialist modernity according to more particular interests. What were the visions and meanings that architects and urban planners sought to communicate through their work? What pre-existing styles did they draw on, reject, and appropriate, and was there a Second World postmodernism? To what degree was the socialist cityscape a product of negotiation between its dwellers and its designers? Where did other local players–such as major industries and local party bosses–fit in such negotiations over the design and construction of the socialist city?

As a venue for opening a conversation about the new approaches to urbanity and planning, this project goes beyond the geographic boundaries of the Eastern Bloc and seeks transnational, comparative, and global approaches to the study of the socialist city. We propose to think of socialist urban planning from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union to China and Cuba as a distinct and multifaceted division of global urban planning trends. Just as the geographic scope is broad so, too, is our chronological reach, which will span the early post-World War II period through the collapse of state socialism and beyond to the present day. Was there a common denominator to the variety of projects and planning efforts implemented from Cuba to China, from the Urals to Belgrade? Was it socialist in form and national in content as the common formula of Socialist Realism suggested? Or was it modern in form and undefined in content, to paraphrase the formula Kevin Plath and Benjamin Nathans recently coined for describing the nature of late-Soviet culture? In exploring such questions, what do we – urban historians and historians of architecture – have new to say on the history of the Second World? What are the new research questions that our subfield has generated in recent years?

The present stage in our project is a conference that will be hosted at the The Center for the History and Culture of East Central Europe, in Leipzig, Germany, June 21-23, 2013. Paper proposals are solicited for this conference and an edited volume of selected papers on a wide range of topics from (but not limited to) the history of professional networks and institutional organization, monumental projects, mass housing schemes, transfers of technologies and styles, the organization of public and private spaces, the political engagement of urban planning professionals, the treatment of gender, ethnic, and class differences in the socialist cityscape, the role of the state, the ideological premises of urban schemes and visionary projects, everyday life, urban residents’ (mis)uses of planned urban spaces. Papers from all disciplines in the social sciences and humanities will be considered.

Critical information:

Please send paper proposals (a 300-500 word abstract and a 1-page cv) to swurbanity[at]gmail[dot]com by February 1, 2013. Paper proposals will be reviewed by the project’s organizers and program committee. We will announce the papers that have been accepted on March 1, 2013.

If your paper is accepted for the conference, the deadline for submitting your paper will be May 20, 2013. Papers should be no longer than 5,000 words including footnotes or endnotes. Papers will be distributed to conference participants ahead of the conference via our project’s blog.

The project is presently soliciting funds to cover some of the transportation and/or housing costs of participants. We will know whether such funds are available only in Spring 2013. Therefore, interested participants should plan for covering costs through their home institutions. The conference will not have a conference fee.

Program committee: Andres Kurg, Brigitte Le Normand, Daria Bocharnikova, Kimberly Elman Zarecor, Marie Alice L’Heureux, Steven Harris, Vladimir Kulic

Lázadó közterek és gerilla urbanizmus

A Routledge 2010-ben dobott ki egy nagyszerű kötetet (amazon) a "lázadó" közterekről és a "gerilla urbanizmusról", Jeffrey Hou szerkesztésében. A Progressive Geographies blog írta, hogy most megjelent erről egy ingyenesen elérhető recenzió az EaP:D-ben Ioannis Chorianopoulustól, amit érdemes elolvasni, ha valakit érdekel a téma vagy maga a könyv. Milyen veszélyeket rejt magában a "nyitottság" és "nyilvánosság" eszméjével körülpalástolt köztér vagy közösségi területek a gyakorlatban? Vajon a "köz" mindössze retorika egy fokozottan irányított térbeliséggel szemben? A látszólag a "köz" térbeli megnyilvánulásának, játékterének számító városi tereket ugyanis különböző irányítási formák korlátozzák, határozzák meg és írják újra, így például a kommodifikáció, a privatizáció (a köztér újfajta tulajdonviszonyai), a felügyelet és megfigyelés rendszere vagy a jogi szabályozás új formái, amelyek révén a köztér különböző ideológiák küzdelmes ütközőterületévé vált. Vajon ezek mennyiben fenyegetik a város demokratikus működésének alapjait, és mit jelentene egyáltalán egy igazságosabb városi környezet kialakítása? A kötetben számtalan esettanulmány van ezekről az alapvető kérdésekről, olvassátok csak a recenziót.

Introduction
1. (Not) Your Everyday Public Space Jeffrey Hou

Part 1: Appropriating
2. Dancing in the Streets of Beijing: Improvised Uses within the Urban System Caroline Chen
3. Latino Urbanism in Los Angeles: A Model for Urban Improvisation and Reinvention James Rojas
4. Taking Place: Rebar’s Absurd Tactics in Generous Urbanism Blaine Merker for Rebar

Part 2: Reclaiming
5. eXperimentcity: Culturing + Publicizing Sustainable Development of Berlin’s Freiräume Michael A. LaFond
6. Re-City, Tokyo: Putting "Publicness" into the Urban Building Stocks Shin Aiba and Osamu Nishida
7. Claiming Residual Spaces in the Heterogeneous City Erick Villagomez

Part 3: Pluralizing
8. Claiming Latino Space: Building Cultural Capacity in the Public Realm Michael Rios
9. ‘ Night Market’ in Seattle: Community Eventscape and the Remaking of Public SpaceJeffrey Hou
10. Making Places of Fusion and Resistance: the Experiences of Immigrant Women in Taiwanese Townships Hung-Ying Chen and Jia-He Lin
11. How Outsiders Find Home in the City: Chung Shan in Taipei Pina Wu

Part 4: Transgressing
12. Machizukuri House and Its Expanding Networks: Making New Public Realm in Private Homes Yasuyoshi Hayashi
13. Niwaroju: Private Gardens Serving the Public Realm Isami Kinoshita
14. Farmhouses as Urban/Rural Public Space Sawako Ono, Ryoko Sato, and Mima Nishiyama

Part 5: Uncovering
15. Urban Archives: Public Memories of Everyday Places Irina Gendelman, Tom Dobrowolsky, and Giorgia Aiello
16. Funny…It Doesn’t Look Like Insurgent Space: the San Francisco Bureau of Urban Secrets and the Practice of History as a Public Art Jeannene Przyblyski
17. Mapping the Space of Desire: Brothel as a City Landmark Yung-Teen Annie Chiu
18. Spatial Limbo: Re-inscribing Landscapes in Temporal Suspension Min Jay Kang

Part 6: Contesting
19. Public Space Activism, Toronto and Vancouver: Using the Banner of Public Space to Build Capacity and Activate Change Andrew Pask
20. Urban Agriculture in the Making of Insurgent Spaces in Los Angeles and Seattle Teresa M. Mares and Devon G. Peña
21. When Overwhelming Needs Meets Underwhelming Prospects: Sustaining Community Open Space Activism in East St. Louis Laura Lawson and Janni Sorensen

A Nyugaton túli urbanizáció: posztszocialista városkutatási konferencia

Lesz egy városkutatási konferencia a kelet-(közép-)európai térségről és a posztszocialista város kérdéséről.

Dear colleagues,

We invite abstracts for our stream at the RC21 conference ‘Resourceful Cities’ to be held in Berlin, 29-31 August 2013:

Urbanism beyond the West: Comparing Accelerated Urban Change in Eastern Europe and the Global South

Convenors: Monika Grubbauer (Darmstadt University of Technology) and Joanna Kusiak (University of Warsaw)

In the search for new models of urbanism, attention is now being shifted towards non‐Western cities. Yet the urban dynamics of post‐socialist Eastern Europe are largely disregarded in the recent literature on global urbanism with its focus on the North‐South axis. Although the cities of Eastern Europe and the Global South have been theorized as radically different, the former being described as “under‐urbanized” and the latter as “over‐urbanized”, we propose to include Eastern Europe in what Ananya Roy calls “new geographies of theory”. In cities of both regions the intense socio‐material transformations of recent years have been highly uneven, normatively guided by foreign aid programs and neoliberal policy agendas. In both cases we can also observe new forms of “insurgent” or “messy” urbanism emerging in reaction to new inequalities and arbitrary politics. Despite substantial (i.e. infrastructural) differences, we claim that comparing cities of Eastern Europe and the Global South may both re‐open the regionally biased debate on the “post‐socialist city” and contribute to the broader discussion on global and comparative urbanism. This session invites contributions comparing major phenomena of urban change in both regions as well as papers theorizing the post‐socialist city in global terms. Following the question of how patterns emerging from accelerated urban change can be treated as resources for new models of urbanism, we suggest the following topics:

• new inequalities and new solidarities
• accelerated socio‐material change as a challenge for sustainable urban policy
• reshaping relations of property and new property forms
• changing urban form and infrastructures of daily life
• foreign policy aid and its discontents
• urban informality and marginality
• ethnographies of urban society between neoliberal dreams and dystopian reality
• the notion of “chaos” and its use in the global urbanism debate

The deadline for submission of abstracts is 31 January 2013. Please send your abstracts (300-500 words) to abstracts[at]rc21[dot]org and the session organizers Monika Grubbauer (grubbauer[at]stadtforschung[dot]tu-darmstadt[dot]de) and Joanna Kusiak (jkkusiak[at]gmail[dot]com).

Please contact us for any questions. More information on the conference and the submission of abstracts can be found on www.rc21.org/conferences/berlin2013.

Berry vs. Harvey

Brian Berry éles kritikája David Harvey-ról:

"It soon became clear that my path was not that of the discipline, however. The Comparative Metropolitan Analysis Project landed like a dull thud. By decade’s end I was forced to conclude in my presidential address to the AAG that we had “succumbed to a new tribalism” (Berry, 1980). If the 1960s had been a decade when progress was marked by a paradigm gained, the 1970s was one in which the central paradigm was lost and urban geography began to diverge along a variety of incommensurate paths.

Both external and internal forces worked to produce this change. The antiwar movement was reaching a crescendo, and the graduate schools were crowded with students using doctoral programs to extend their draft deferments. As universities experienced rapid growth, numerous new young faculty were hired who identified with the values of their students, clashing with older faculty who tended to be institutionally oriented. Leftwing activists were quick to turn antiwar sentiment into anti-American anticapitalist radicalism. There was a pliable group that, increasingly predisposed to left-wing ideas, welcomed David Harvey’s introduction of Marxist dialectics in Social Justice and the City in 1973. Harvey had done what his dialectics demanded and made a 180° turn from Explanation in Geography. In the Chicagoan view, urban problems were a consequence of urban processes. Harvey saw urban problems to be expressions of larger societal inequalities and cities to be an inconvenience. If the Chicago School believed that their contribution to solving urban problems was in use-inspired basic research tested by empirical study, Harvey’s approach was that of the armchair intellectual contrarian. People ask why I butted heads with him instead of welcoming his viewpoint. To me, David came to exemplify the tenured radical who lives comfortably on the rewards provided by the society that is the object of his disdain. This triggered earlier experiences. I had been a preuniversity student of Cambridge-educated Marxists and had developed a profound disdain for their Orwellian view that they were the pigs who were more equal than the others. In contrast, I was exceedingly grateful for the many opportunities that the United States had provided to me, a kid from an English working-class background. It should be no surprise that I was unsympathetic with Harvey’s turn, not only for the ideology he espoused, but for the left-wing ideologue he became, one who eschewed U.S. citizenship even while his advocacy of oppositional views enabled him to live very comfortably off his contrarian rents. Peter Goheen is correct. There could be no meeting of the minds, no common ground. David disavowed our fumbling attempts to build a social science, positioning his agenda squarely within the realm of politics and imprinting in the minds of young geographers the idea that science is merely one political viewpoint among many." (p. 443)

Brian J. L. Berry (2002) Paradigm Lost. Urban Geography, 23(5), pp. 441–445.

Szocialista és poszt-szocialista urbanizáció AAG szekció

Nos, találtam egy másik nagyon érdekes AAG szekciót is, amely a szocialista és poszt-szocialista urbanizáció kérdésével foglalkozik, és ahogyan olvashatjátok az összefoglalóban: úgy általában. Tehát mind a jelenlegi "szocialista" rendszerek városaival, mind a múltbeli "szocialista" rendszerek, kormányok városfejlesztésével, a 20. századi urbanizációs ideológiák hagyatékával is foglalkozni akarnak, és eleve a "szocializmus" jelentését átfogóan a szociáldemokráciától az államszocializmusig értelmezik. A felhívás azért is különösen izgalmas - azon túl, hogy a térségünk ebben a kérdésben közvetlenül érintett -, mert azt írja, hogy a neoliberalizmus válságára adott válaszként újabb alternatívákat kell keresnünk, ennek érdekében pedig a szocialista modellek hagyatékának kritika újraértékelése szükséges. Szerintem ez egy elég problematikus vállalkozás, talán jól mutatja a "nyugati" akadémiai baloldaliság ellentmondásos viszonyulását az ún. "szocialista modellekhez", tehát hogy meg akarnak belőle tartani valamit, mégis tudják, hogy nem szabad átállni a sötét oldalra (hiszen "történtek csúnya dolgok" stb.). A valós probléma inkább az, hogy a (mondjuk weimari) szociáldemokráciának már nagyon kevés köze volt a (mondjuk bolsevik/szovjet) államszocializmushoz, még ha a 20. század modernizmusában részben átfedésben is vannak, amely a szerzők figyelmének középpontjában van.

Call for Papers

Association of American Geographers

Los Angeles 9 -- 13 April 2013

"Socialist and post-Socialist Urbanisms: Critical Reflections; Comparative

Perspectives"

Douglas Young, York University, Toronto

Lisa Drummond, York University, Toronto

Urban life in the 21st century has been shaped in quite significant ways by the thoughts, practices, ideologies and social organization of the 20th century. We seek papers that focus on the urban legacies of 20th century socialism and explore their impact on urban policy, spatial form and everyday life in the 21st. With the neoliberal model of city-building appearing to be in crisis mode and new approaches to urban issues urgently needed, we consider the possibility that a critical reassessment of the legacies of socialist models could provide valuable lessons for urban policy makers and citizens alike.

Actually existing socialism has taken many forms ranging from social democracy to repressive state socialism. The common thread of the 'social' that runs through them all is a commitment to the modernist idea of universal progress, a desire to create a socially de-differentiated society, and a heightened degree of state intervention in processes of city-building and urban governance. We seek papers that explore urban areas representing some of those variations of socialisms as well as variations in their fates. These could be cities that are socialist today, cities in countries that are transitioning to market socialism, post-socialist cities, and cities in neo-liberalizing former social democracies.

We particularly welcome papers that will contribute to the development of comparative perspectives (for example, Asia and Europe) if not within individual papers then from the sum of papers on the panel as a whole.

Papers could explore a wide range of topics including urban planning, housing, social policy, community development, local politics, economic restructuring and political ecology.

Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words to Douglas Young (dogoyo[at]yorku[dot]ca) and Lisa Drummond (drummond[at]yorku[dot]ca) by 8 October.

Városfejlesztési, szakpolitikai minták és modellek mobilitása: új kutatói honlap

Van egy honlap, amely a különböző városfejlesztési szakpolitikákkal (ezen túl/belül pedig a drogpolitikával, hajléktalanokkal, prostitúcióval), de kifejezetten a szakpolitikák mobilitásával (policy mobilities), terjedésével és adaptálásával foglalkozik (kik mozgatják ezeket?). Társadalomföldrajzosok csinálják: Kevin Ward, Ian Cook, Eugene McCann, Cristina Temenos, Tom Baker. A honlapon a szerzők által a témában írt cikkek is letölthetők!

Eugene McCanntól van erről egy bemutatkozó cikk. Ebben kifejti az "agendát":
 

"My conceptual startingpoint is to take seriously the fixity-mobility dialectic in order to understand policy transfer not in terms of the voluntaristic acts of unconstrained, rational transfer agents freely ‘scanning’ the world for objectively ‘best’ practices and not by focusing on and fetishizing policies as naturally mobile objects. Rather, the circulation of policy knowledge is paradoxically structured by embedded institutional legacies and imperatives (e.g., by longstanding policy paradigms, pathdependencies, ideologies, and frames of reference and/or by external forces, like politicaleconomic restructuring, which often necessitate the easiest, fastest, and most politically feasible transfers). These contexts condition the field of policy transfer as social, relational, and powerladen (Peck and Theodore, 2008)."
 

Ez a cikk egyébként Fort Worth (USA, TX) esetével foglalkozik, ahol a városfejlesztési politikát Vancouverről mintázták. Kifejezetten a belvárosi lakóövezet kompakt tervezésétől lett világhírű a vancouveri modell várostervezői körökben, hiszen ez az egyik legsűrűbben lakott belvárosi térséget hozott létre, egyben az egyik legmagasabb lakásárakkal, miközben sétálóutcákkal és biciklivonalakkal, vízközpontúsággal, vegyes használatú zónák kialakításával egy "élhető" és "fenntartható" (ergo sikeres) város arculatát kölcsönözte. Hogy hogyan is ment végbe ennek a modellnek az adaptációja Fort Worthben, hogy hogyan alakultak ki a kapcsolatok, és hogyan kell elképzelni az átvétel folyamatát, arra választ kaptok a cikkben.

Non-liberal Answers to Authoritarian Capitalism: Perspectives from Belgrade and Madrid

Lesz egy ilyen jó kis városkutatós esemény a Frisco-ban, TEK-esekkel:

Non-liberal Answers to Authoritarian Capitalism: Perspectives from Belgrade and Madrid

Natalia Buier (CEU) and Frederick Schulze (CEU) discuss their ongoing PhD work in Madrid and Belgrade respectively; they focus on efforts to battle capitalism that take routes other than those offered by the liberal democratic or reactionary nationalist traditions. This discussion will be largely centered around the tactics of the CNT in Madrid and the Coordinating Committee for Worker's Organization in Serbia based in Zrenjanin and Belgrade. The goal of this discussion is to foster a critical appraisal of the potential for such actions in other socio-political systems, including, hopefully, Hungary.

Gyertek el!

INURA konferencia Talinnban: városi aktivizmus

Lesz egy INURA konferencia 2012 június 17-24. között (17-20. a tulajdonképpeni konferencia, 21-24. a lazább programidőszak) Talinnban, 2012 május 1-ig lehet rá regisztrálni. A téma az "aktív urbanizmus", azaz az aktivizmus lehetőségeiről lesz szó a városi térben, és lehetőséget nyújt az aktivisták és kutatók közötti párbeszédnek, illetve a kutatók politikai részvételének kérdései is előkerülnek majd.

Az INURA (International Network for Urban Research and Action) egy olyan hálózat, amely többek között környezetvédő csoportok, egyetemek és helyi adminisztratív szervek kutatóiból és aktivistáiból áll. A vizsgált témák közé tartoznak a városi megújulási projektek, a városi periféria kérdése, a közösségvezérelt környezetvédő tervezetek, a városi forgalom és közlekedés, a belvárosi munkaerőpiac, a "csináld-magad" (do-it-yourself) kultúra és a szociális lakásellátás problémája. Korábban 2009-ben Isztambulban, 2010-ben Zürichben, 2011-ben pedig Mexikóvárosban rendeztek konferenciát.

Részvételi díjak:

Konferencia és pihenőidőszak (jún. 17-24.)	Csak konferencia (jún. 17-20.)	Napi belépő
Intézményi 550€ Normál 400€	Intézményi 350€ Normál 240€	Napi 50€

Az INURA különböző kiadványait is érdemes megnézni, tele vannak szuper tanulmányokkal:

THE CONTESTED METROPOLIS

INURA (eds.): The Contested Metropolis. Six Cities at the Beginning of the 21st Century, 
2004. 304 pages with 400 b/w illustrations.  23.5 x 28.0 cm. Softcover. ISBN 3-7643-0086-8 English

POSSIBLE URBAN WORLDS

INURA (eds.): Possible Urban Worlds. Urban Strategies at the End of the 20th Century, Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel/Boston/Berlin. 1999 corrected reprint Illustrated,  23,5x28cm, 268 pages. ISBN: 3-7643-5986-2

CAPITALES FATALES 

H.R. Hitz, R. Keil, U. Lehrer,  K. Ronneberger, Ch. Schmid,  R. Wolff (Hrsg.): Urbanisierung und Politik in den Finanzmetropolen Frankfurt und Zürich. Ein INURA Buch. Rotpunkt Verlag Zürich 1995 400 S., Schwarzw. Fotos Deutsch / German ISBN 3-85869-093-7

 

Megjelent a Fordulat 13. száma: Város/kritika - Migráns tőke

Kritikai városkutatás: már a boltokban a Fordulat 13. száma, többek között Neil Smith és Loic Wacquant cikkeivel! 

"Míg száz évvel ezelőtt a világ lakosságának nagyjából négy százaléka, napjainkban már több mint fele él városi környezetben. A jelenleg zajló, eddig példátlan mértékű urbanizációs folyamatok ugyanakkor – hasonlóan az egy-két évszázaddal ezelőtti első modern európai metropoliszok kialakulásának történetéhez – elválaszthatatlanok az aktuális gazdasági berendezkedés mechanizmusaitól. Napjaink neoliberális kapitalizmusát számos folyamattal jellemezhetjük – financializáció, dereguláció, informalizáció –, de e komplex folyamatok összessége legkönnyebben a globalizáció fogalmával írható le."

Fordulat 13., 2011/1

Térkép e táj? - bevezető a Fordulat 13. számához [pdf]

❚ Város/Kritika

Loïc Wacquant
Lakóhely szerinti megbélyegzés a fejlett marginalitás korában

Neil Smith
Új globalizmus, új urbanizmus: a dzsentrifikáció mint globális városi stratégia

Tom Slater
A kritikai perspektívák kilakoltatása a dzsentrifikációkutatásból

❚ Migráns tőke

Michael Samers
Bevándorlás és a globálisváros-elmélet: egy alternatív kutatási program felé

Cheryl McEwan, Jane Pollard és Nick Henry
A "globális" a városi gazdaságban: multikulturális gazdasági fejlődés Birminghamben

Ninna Nyberg Sørensen
A migránsok hazautalásainak gazdaságfejlesztési dimenziója

Lukovics André
Migráns vállalkozások "kevert beágyazottsága" a posztindusztriális társadalmakban
(R. Kloosterman és J. Rath (szerk.): Immigrant Entrepreneurs)

❚ Kritikai recenziók

Balázs Ádám
A nemzeti idő ábrázolásai
(Zombory M.: Az emlékezés térképei, Magyarország és a nemzeti azonosság 1989 után)