3554313

8/12/2019 3554313

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3554313 1/19

Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia: Landscaping the Contemporary City

Author(s): Gordon MacLeod and Kevin WardSource: Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 84, No. 3/4, Special Issue: TheDialectics of Utopia and Dystopia (2002), pp. 153-170Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554313 .

Accessed: 11/07/2013 03:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 123.49.60.210 on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 03:28:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=swedish

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554313?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554313?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=swedish

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

8/12/2019 3554313


SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA:

LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

by

Gordon MacLeod and Kevin Ward

MacLeodG. andWard,K.2002:Spacesof UtopiaandDystopia:LandscapingheContemporary ity. Geogr.Ann.,84 B (3-4):153-170.

ABSTRACT.Some of the most recent iteraturewithin urbanstudiesgives the distinct mpressionhat hecontemporaryitynow constitutes n intenselyunevenpatchwork f utopianand

dystopian paces hatare, o all intentsandpurposes, hysically

proximatebut

institutionally stranged.For

instance,o-called

edgecities(Garreau,991)havebeenheralded s a new Eden orthe information ge. Meanwhile enderlymanicured rbanvil-

lages, gated estates and fashionablygentrified nner-cityen-clavesareall beingfuriouslymarketed s idyllic landscapesoensurea varietyof lifestylefantasies.Such ifestylesareofferedadditional xpressionbeyondthehome,as renaissance ites in

many downtownsafford city stakeholders he pleasurablefreedomsone mightordinarily ssociatewith urbancivic life.

None-the-less, trictassurances regiven abouthow thesepri-vatizeddomiciliary ndcommercializedpublic' pacesaresuit-

ably excluded rom the real and imaginedthreatsof another

fiercelyhostile,dystopian nvironmentout there'.Thisis cap-tured n a number f (largelyUS) perspectiveswhich warnof a'fortified'or 'revanchist'urbanlandscape,characterized ymounting ocial andpoliticalunrestandpockmarked ith mar-ginal interstices:derelict industrial ites, concentrated yper-ghettos,andperipheral hantytowns where the poor and thehomelessare ncreasinglyhunted.Ourpaperoffers a reviewofsomekeydebates n urban eography, lanning ndurbanpoli-tics inorder oexamine hispatchwork-quiltrbanism,ndoingso, it seekstouncover ome of thekey processes hroughwhich

contemporaryrbanandscapes f utopiaanddystopia ometoexist in theway theydo.

Utopianthinking: he capacityto imagineafuture hatdeparts ignificantly romwhatwe

know to be a general-conditionn thepresent.... In thepeculiar ormof dystopias,utopianthinkingmay alertus to certain endencies nthepresent,which,if allowedto continueun-checked and carriedto a logical extreme,would result n a worldwe wouldfindabhor-rent.

(Friedmann,000,p. 462)

[In today's cities] ... Residents from all social

groupshave a sense of exclusion and restric-

tion.Forsome,thefeelingof exclusion s ob-vious,as theyare deniedaccess to variousar-

eas and are restricted o others.Affluentpeo-ple who inhabit exclusive enclaves also feel

restricted; heir feelings of fear keep them

awayfromregionsandpeoplethattheirmen-talmapsof thecity identifyas dangerous.

(Caldeira,1999,p. 135)

The city of physical proximity andinstitutionalestrangementIn his rallyingcall to envisionpossibilitiesfor amoreequitable, ust andecologically sustainableurban uture,DavidHarveycontends hatmostofwhatpassesforcityplanninghasbeeninspiredbyutopianmodes of thought Harvey,2000). This isevident in projectsranging romPlato'sRepublicto thoseof the twentiethcentury hatowe muchoftheir characterto pioneering thinkers such as

EbenezerHowardand Le Corbusier.Antagonisticto theextremesof wealthandpovertypunctuatingthe emerging metropolis,Howard(1902) envis-

aged an alternativegood life achievable hroughthe formationof gardencities: small-scalecom-munitiesembedded n a decentralized ociety,it-self traceable o the anarchismof Kropotkin.For

Howard, he GardenCityoffered a 'peacefulpathto real reform',superseding he ugly vagariesof

capitalism1not least through heestablishment f

'pro-municipalervices'(Fishman,2002). Utopi-an

planningwas also to finda

powerfulexpressionin the modernistparadigm,mostnotablythroughLe Corbusier'sRadiantCityandthe CIAMmove-ment (Sandercock, 1998). According to TeresaCaldeira 1999, p. 127-8), the motivationbehindthisformof utopiawas clear: theerasure f socialdifferenceandcreationof equality n therational

city of the futuremasteredby the avant-garde r-chitect'.

Howard and Le Corbusier hus offered trulycomprehensiveprogrammesof radical reform,which, in alliancewith ambitiousprojectsof po-

litical andeconomicrestructuring,ndeavouredopromoteurban ettlements oundedupontheprin-

Geografiska Annaler ?84 B (2002) ? 3-4 153





8/12/2019 3554313


GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

ciples of social solidarityrather hansegregation(Fishman, 002).Tobesure, hepossibilitiesof in-

corporation nherentin such programmeswerenevercompletelyfulfilled.Moreover, he 'street-level' modernismnstitutedby practitionersuch

as New York's RobertMoses soon encounteredcriticism orimposinga 'functionalhomogeneity'which somecontendhelpedto destroy hevitalityof difference intrinsic to a healthy urbanity(Jacobs,1961;Sandercock,1998).This said, thereferential oleof modernist lanningeatured ig-nificantlyin the municipalprojectsthat rapidlydiffusedacrossthe globalurban andscape n the

period following the Second WorldWar:publichousingprogrammesand the New Townmove-ment in Britainbeing lasting legacies (Stocks,2002).

Nevertheless, f Howard ndLeCorbusierwereable to review muchof thecurrent iteraturenur-banstudies,each woulddoubtlessbe imbuedwitha deepsenseof depression.For thecontemporarycity - featuring heescalatingextremesof wealthandpovertyso lamentedby Howardbutcoupledwithan intensified iscalausterity o meettherig-oursof globalcompetition appears o be mani-

festing as an intenselyunevenpatchwork f uto-

pian and dystopianspaces thatare, to all intentsand purposes,physicallyproximatebut institu-

tionally estranged.Put anotherway, the denselysettled andheterogeneous worlds' hatmakecit-ies such vibrantplaces appear o be premised n-

creasinglyupon 'indifferentworlds anddetached

lifestyles' (Allen, 1999,p. 91), all of which raises

perplexingquestionsfor those currently hargedwiththeplanningandpolitical governanceof cit-ies. Yet these questionsarehardlynovel;indeed,ten years ago the American architecturecriticMichael Sorkin (1992a, p. xiv) contendedhow

'cityplanninghaslargelyceased tshistoricrole asthe

integratorf communities n favorof

manag-ing selective developmentandenforcingdistinc-tion'.

Not thattheprinciplesof utopiahavevanishedfrom the lexicon of postmodernurbandevelop-ment. For example, so-called edge cities havebeen heraldedas a 'newEden'forthepost-indus-trialmetropolitanandscape Garreau,1991), al-

thoughsuchproclamations reconspicuouslysi-lent on thecornucopia f social andenvironmentalills oftenlying adjacento these hubsof the infor-mationalage.Likewise, enderlymanicured rban

villages, common interest developments,gatedestates and fashionably gentrified nner-cityen-

claves are all being marketed uriouslyas idylliclandscapesto ensure a varietyof lifestyle fanta-sies. Suchlifestylesare offeredadditional xpres-sion beyond the home as renaissancesites and

spacesof consumptionn manydowntowns fes-

tivalmarketplaces,pecializedmalls,restoredwa-terfronts, ndvivaciousculturaldistricts provid-ing city stakeholderswith muchof thepleasurablefreedomonemightordinarily ssociatewith urbancivic life.

None-the-less,andbuttressedirmlybyan unre-

lentingarsenalof humanandnon-human urveil-

lance, strictassurancesaregivenabouthow these

privatizeddomiciliaryand commercialized pub-lic' spacesaresuitablyexcludedfrom hereal and

perceived hreats f anotheriercelyhostile,dysto-pianenvironmentout here'.This s capturednthe

growingbodyof workwarning f a 'fortified', au-thoritarian'r 'revanchist' rban andscape,char-acterizedby mountingsocial andpoliticalunrestandpockmarkedwithmarginalnterstices:derelictindustrial ites, concentrated yperghettos ndpe-ripheral hanty ownswhere hepoor, he 'sociallyexcluded'and hehomelessareshuntedncreasing-ly so astofacilitate he newarchitecturesf renais-sance(see, e.g. Davis, 1992; Robins,1993;Chris-

topherson,1994; Wacquant,1994; Boyer, 1995;Smith,1998;Low,1999;Swyngedouw, 000;Ma-

cLeod,2002). InHarvey's 2000, p. 152)summa-tion, 'theeffectis to divideupthe urban ealm ntoa patchworkquiltof islandsof relativeaffluence

struggling o securethemselves n a sea of spread-ing decay'.

In contemporaryities, then,the social groupsconstitutinga sharply plintering lass society ap-pear o be negotiatingparticularime-geographies,snaking heirrespectivepaths along a strict com-

passof localizedand/ordistanciatedandscapes, ttimes givingrise to a tense,often anomicand al-

ienatingurbanfabric.Indeed these architectural

and political economic contours raise profoundquestionsabout'thecity' as an objectof analysisandalso about he future xpressionof citizenship,spatialjustice and urbanpolitics. Ourpaperre-views arangeofperspectiveshathighlight ome ofthe most glaring utopianand dystopianpatternscharacteristicf manycities in theglobalnorthandsouth2. ndoingso,we endeavourorevealsome ofthe more crucialeconomic andpolitical processesthroughwhich a varietyof utopiananddystopianspacesareserving o 'landscape'hecontemporarycity.

Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ? 3-4154





8/12/2019 3554313


SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

Spaces of utopia I: Producingand

consumingthe transformingurban

economy

The transformation of urbanpolitical priorities:

from municipal managerialismto

'developers'utopias

Throughouthe1970s and1980s,the eventual ro-sion of the Fordist boom'was to leavea particu-larlydevastatingmpactontheurbanandscapes fNorthAmericaand WesternEurope Brennerand

Theodore,2002). Rampantdeindustrializationl-lied to a steadydrift of high-income axpayers osuburban'bourgeois utopias' (Fishman, 2002)

placedenormous iscal stressat the front doorof

manycityhalls.Theseconditionswereexacerbated

by a relativedecline n national/federalupportor

provincialgovernment nd a festering deologicalaversion o an urban'way of life' on the partof

electorally ignificant roups Harvey, 000),allofwhichwas tocompelvirtually llcityregimes o re-consider their social bases of supportand theirmodes of regulation EsserandHirsch,1989). In

short,the Keynesian managerialist'ommitmentto providewelfare,publicservicesand collective

consumptiono local citizens via a healthylocalandnational axbase,whichhadpredominatedormuch of the postwarera, was severely compro-

misedas urban overnmentswereforced oengagein a demunicipalized nd more 'entrepreneurial'approach esignedprimarilyorevive hecompet-itive positionof their local economies(cf. Saun-

ders, 1986;Harvey,1989a).Inshort,cities,ormoreaccurately, ity authori-

ties, were impelled increasingly o competewitheachother ora wholerangeof investments. spartof this so-called'new urbanpolitics'(Cox, 1993),virtuallyall cities and towns have witnessedtheirambitiousmayorsandpoliticalelitesengage nthe

sycophantic ourtingof

privatenvestors.This has

helped omobilizeaplethora fpublic-privateart-nerships ndgrowth oalitions,which, nturn,have

pouredmassive amountsof publicmoney into a

rangeof speculativeendeavoursdesignedto im-

prove hephysicalandaestheticandscapes f theirdowntowns(Logan and Molotch. 1987; Zukin,1991, 1995;Shortet al. 1993;Fainstein,1994).Ona superficialevel there s littleto dispute he suc-cess of thisstrategy or urban enewal.For,thanksto theeffortsof suchcoalitionsand, n the USA theestablishment f BusinessImprovementDistricts,

numerousdeindustrializedyesoresand obsoletewaterfronts avebeenscrubbedlean,purified, nd

dramaticallyeinventedntheformof whatHarvey(2000)calls 'developers' topias".

Examples nclude mixed-usebusiness,housingand eisurespacessuchasCanaryWharf n Londonand Edinburgh'sFinancial Exchange; 'festival

marketplaces'uchas FaneuilHallin Boston;wa-terfrontpleasuredomes in rustbeltcities such as

Baltimore,Maryland ndNewcastle,UK;'Disney-fled' leisure zones such as TimesSquare n Mid-townManhattan;ndupmarkethoppingdistrictssuch as CoventGardenn Londonand the ItalianCentrein Glasgow (Crilley,1993; Zukin, 1995;

Harvey,2000; Merrifield, 000). JonGoss (1996)also instructsus about how the 'festival market-

places'thathavemushroomed cross he US urban

landscapeoffer a 'regionallysensitiveadaptationof an"idealmarketorm"',which,by mixingout-

door and indoorspaces, offers an ambiencepur-portedoencourageocial nteractionnd here-in-

tegrationof the city and market Goss, 1996, p.221).ForGoss,courtesyof its restored hysical o-

cation,architecture,nteriordesign,andretailcon-

cepts,the festivalmarketplaceontrives o recoveranostalgicsenseof historyandof a lostcivic urbanideal.By deploying his'mythical piritof the mar-

ketplace',developers whooften assume he man-tle of 'popular isionaries' are:

reshapinghe innercity as a stageandstagingurbanlife as a dramaof conspicuouscon-

sumption. ... The festival marketplace [being]a phantasmagoriaf capitalistproductionhatmarks hethreshold o a dreamworldof utopi-animagesand maginingsof a mythicalnatu-ral urbanism3.

(Goss, 1996,pp.235, 240)

Furthermore, long the increasingly abyrinthinenecklaceof globalizingcities, a moregeneralized

post-Fordistattention to urban

'lifestyle'has

helpedto precipitate rangeof alluring onsump-tion spaces - nouvelle cuisine restaurants, bou-

tiquesandartgalleries alongsidenstantly ecog-nizablecoffeebars(Starbucks eingemblematic).For Pine and Gilmore(1999) thesetrendsare in-dicativeof anemerging experience conomy',allof whichhashelped o 'aestheticize'he visualcon-

sumptionof publicspace, although ronically hishasbeenaccompanied y anescalatingprivate ec-tor controlover these very spaces (Zukin,1995,1998).

MovingawayfromdowntownMecca,the tradi-tionalout-of-townor suburbanhoppingmallhas

Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ? 3-4 155





8/12/2019 3554313



itselfundergone conversion.Crawford1992)of-fers anevocativeaccountof howmanymega-mallsendeavour o represent publiclife in a pleasuredome'. Indeed n theirmostrecent manifestationsuburbanhoppingcentreshave become'heterog-

enousconsumption paces'(Zukin,1998,p. 830),where heincorporationf 'themeparks, ides andamusements nd multi-screen rmultiplexmovietheatres'has led to a diversificationn, and inten-sificationof, theconsumption xperience.Moreo-verwheredevelopersntroduce loballycelebrated

iconography suchasthatassociatedwiththe Dis-

ney Corporation theutopianmoment s accom-

plished: or'Disneylands theHolySee of creative

geography,heplacewhere heephemeral ealityofthe cinema s concretized ntothestuffof thecity'(Sorkin,1992b,p. 349).ForBoyer,however, hese

centresof spectaclehave thepowerfulcapacity oerase he distinctions etween hecarefullyorches-tratedspectacleand the emergingdystopiancity-scape 'outside':

The awareness of highways in disrepair,charred and abandoned tenements, the

scourgeof drugs, hewandering omeless,de-

terioratingransport etworks all are erasedandignored n the idealizedcity tableauxset

upbefore hespectator's yesandpresented s

anentertaininghow.(Boyer,1992,p. 191)

Consumptionndentertainmentre herebyolded

together.And while suchthemed pacesareownedand controlledby an institutional oweroftenor-

chestrating tightlyregulated efinition, ppropri-ationand controlof territoryGoss, 1993;Hanni-

gan,2002),theyalso offer a 'setof living,embod-iedgeographieswhichprovidea new sourceof val-ue throughtheir performativepush' (Amin and

Thrift,2002, p. 125)4.Thediffusionof these 'ca-

thedrals f consumption'Ritzer,1999)acrossthe

metropolitanityscaperaisesa whole host ofques-tionsforscholarsof planning,architecture,ocio-

logy,politicalscienceandgeography.Certainly,twouldseem to be thecase thatmuchof theircom-mercial uccess s down o thewayinwhichthe actof buyingconnects o the 'pleasure f thespectaclein securedspaces,safe fromviolence or politicalagitation' Harvey,1989b,p. 271).But f, as Chris-

topherson 1994) and Bauman(2000) argue,the

very 'practiceof citizenship' s now interwoven

moredeeply nto thehabitsandpracticesof priva-tized consumer behaviourenclosed within such

utopianpalaces5, henwe have a responsibilityoexamine he extentto whichthisis leadingto new

sociologies andgeographiesof exclusion. We re-turn o this below.

Edge City: A 'new Eden'for economic

development?

The suburbanization f America was commonlyreasoned o bearesidential ndretailphenomenon:a combination f low-densityhousingandregionalshoppingmallstransformingwhat hadpreviouslybeen agricultural r undeveloped and (Jackson,1985; Crawford,1992).While not necessarilyre-

peatedto the sameextent across the globalnorth,suburbanormspunctuatedhemetropolitanand-

scapesof mostnations hroughouthepost-warpe-riod.Inthe USAhowever,hisgrowthwas to beun-settledquitedramaticallyuringhe1980sas anewwave of property development saw massiveamounts f officespacecampingout nthesuburbs.The pre-eminent hinkeron this urban/suburban/ex-urban orm s Joel Garreau1991), who, in his

introductoryremarks to Edge City: Life on theNew

Frontierwent so far as to argue hat:

We Americans are going throughthe mostradicalchangein a century n how we build

ourworld,and most of us don'teven knowit.From coast to coast, everymetropolis hat is

growing s doingso by sprouting trangenewkinds of places: Edge Cities. ... Most of us

nowspendourentire ives in and around hese

EdgeCities,yet we barelyrecognizethemforwhattheyare. That'sbecausetheylook noth-

ingliketheolddowntowns;heymeet noneofourpreconceptions f what constitutesa city.Our new EdgeCities are tied togethernotbylocomotives and subways,but by freeways,

jetways,and

oggingpaths.Theircharacteris-

tic monument s not a horse-mounted erointhe square,but an atriumshieldingtreesper-petually n leaf at the cores of ourcorporateheadquarters,itness centres, and shoppingplazas.Ournewurbancentresaremarkednot

by thepenthousesof the old urban ich,orthetenementsof the old urbanpoor, but by thecelebrated ingle-familyhome with grass allaround.Forthe rise of the Edge Cityreflectsus movingourjobs - our means of creatingwealth, heveryessenceof oururbanism out

to where we've been living andshopping ortwo generations.The wonder is that these

Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) * 3-4156





8/12/2019 3554313



places, these curiousnew urbancores, were

villagesorcornstubble ust thirtyyears ago.

Perhapshekeyaxiomhere s that heedge city rep-resents a self-containedemployment, shopping,

andentertainmentodepermittingmillionsof con-temporary mericans o live,workandconsume nthe sameplace:a conceptthatunequivocallydif-ferentiatest fromthe traditional uburb ndwhichrenders t at least unctionallya city (Beauregard,1995). Garreau 1991, pp. 6-7) establishesquiteexactingcriteria ortheedgecity:(1) at east5 mil-lionsquareeetof leasableofficespace the work-

place of the informationage; (2) 600,000 squarefeet ormoreof leasableretailspace;(3) more obsthanbedrooms; 4) its identificationas a 'place';and(5) that t was nothing ike a 'city'as recentlyas thirtyyears ago.With around200 in theUSA -morethanfour times the numberof comparablysized old downtowns edge cities now containtwo-thirds fAmerica'sofficespace.Classicexam-

ples includesunlitregionssuch as OrangeCounty,south of Los Angeles and Boston's Route 128,

though heycan also befound ncreasinglynfrost-beltmetropoles uchas Pittsburgh ndCleveland.

Inharmonywiththe US Constitution nd- per-hapsmorepertinentlyts selectivetranslationnto1980s Reaganomics 'individualism' nd 'free-

dom'aretheshibbolethsof theedge city,notleastin that,free fromthegrimeand thesocial andpo-litical inertias associated with past investments,

they possess a 'clean slate'permitting ouseholdsand nvestorso explorenovelmodesof livingand

working(Beauregard, 995).And, drawing iber-

allyon thefrontiermetaphor ndadiscourseof en-

trepreneurship, arreau1991, pp. 13, 8) himselfdescribes dgecitiesas a release from he shacklesof thenineteenth-centuryity'andthe 'crucibleofAmerica's uture'.Healso contends hat ncontrastto thetraditional

uburb,he

edge city permitshe

'empowermentf women',particularlyn relationtothe balancebetweenworkandhome,while theirdiffusionacrossmetropolitan mericaalsoappearsto be runningconcurrentwith the rise of a blacksuburbanmiddleclass.

Incontrasto the nner ity,thehomelessare'notfoundsleepingoutside the centresof commerce'Garreau1991,p. 52),while thepoor,unemployedandpoorer ectionsof the racialminorities recon-

venientlyshieldedfromview. Moreover,physicaldeterioration s rare, the tax base is growing,schools aredecentandcrimenormally mall-scale.It s withallthesephysicalandsocialforces nmind

thatGarreau1991,pp. 14-15) heralds dgecitiesas 'the most purposefulattemptAmericanshavemade since thedaysof theFoundingFathers o tryto createsomething ike a new Eden' and that it

squarelyaddresses 'the searchfor Utopia at the

Centreof the AmericanDream'.And yet edge cities are not entirelydevoid of

problems. Traffic congestion hinders mobility,housing s expensive, ow-wageworkers rehard o

find,andpoliticalbodies lag behind n providingpublic infrastructure nd services (Beauregard,1995),not least in thatthey rarelymatchpoliticalgeographical oundaries ndarebereftof acharis-maticmayoror politically ed growthmachine o

presstheir case.6 Garreau oo acknowledgeshow

edge cities often lack soul and a senseof commu-

nity and history;their 'livability'being compro-misedby the lack of 'highculture',street ife andsocialdiversityonecustomarily ssociateswith ur-ban civil society(cf. Sennett,1990).In fact 'abouttheclosestthingyoufind oapublicspace where

justaboutanybody ango- is theparkingot'(Gar-reau, 1991,p. 52). Criticsalso claimthat the fewAfrican-AmericansrLatinoswhoresidein edgecity neighbourhoodsresegregated yraceand n-comewhile,notsurprisingly,heseemergent x-ur-banspacesarepunctuatedwithgatedhigh-securitycommunities,shadow governmentsand restric-

tionsdesignedto enhanceproperty alues(Beau-regard,1995).All of thisquiteconvenientlyakesus on-to thesubjectof howcertainclasses areen-

deavouringo set uphomein theemergingpatch-workurbanandscape.

Spaces of utopia II: Living the urbanrenaissance

As alluded o above, hesuburb aslongbeenpro-claimedas the foremostexpressionof a 'bourgeois

utopia'(Fishman,2002).The late nineteenthand

twentieth enturywasto witnessa stampede f the

upperandmiddleclasses to suburbia, iewed asan'aestheticmarriage f town andcountry' mbody-ing a new ideal of family life that rendered hehome amoresacred efuge hananypublicplaceof

worship.Oneby-product f thiswasthat suburbiasoonbecamepremisedon certainprinciplesof ex-clusion: work fromresidence,middle-classvillasand semis fromthe massdwellingsof theworkingclass,womenfromdowntown ndhencetheworldofpower,allreflecting thealienation f the middle

classes fromtheurban-industrial orld heythem-selves were creating'(Fishman,2002, p. 22). In






8/12/2019 3554313



more recent imes,though,a rangeof domiciliaryspaceswould appear o be challenging he tradi-tional suburb s thearchetypal topia.In this sec-

tion,wefocuson threenotable rends ndeavouringforan idealexistenceandwhichreplicate helogic

(if notnecessarily hespecificgeographies)of ex-clusion nherentn suburbia.

Gentrification: A 'blueprint'for city living?

Largelyabandonedo theworkingclass amid

postwarsuburban xpansion,relinquishedothe poorandunemployedas reservationsorracialandethnicminorities, he terrain f theinner city is suddenlyvaluableagain, per-verselyprofitable.

(Smith,1996,p. 6)

SinceRuthGlass'(1964) seminaltext,gentrifica-tionhaslongfascinated he minds of urban chol-ars.It refers o a process bywhichpoorandwork-

ing-classneighborhoodsnthe innercityarerefur-bishedby an influxof privatecapitalandmiddle-classhomebuyers ndrenters'Smith,1996,p.32).While thephysicalandsocial impactsof gentrifi-cation are most unashamedly xhibited n globalcities, it hasnow touchedmost urbanareas n de-

velopedcountries,particularly s theyhaveexpe-

rienceda displacementof manufacturingobs bythosein producer ervices andthe cultural ndus-tries. Alongside this empirical significance,though,Hamnett1991) sees valid theoretical ea-sons to take gentrificationeriously.For it chal-

lengestraditionalheoriesof urban ociology,notleast the ChicagoSchool, which explicitly fore-closedthepossibilityof a 'returno thecity'. Ithasalso become a key theoreticalbattlegroundbe-tween thoseunderscoringhifts in the structure fsocialproductionSmith,1979)and hosewho em-

phasizeagency,cultureand the

pioneeringole of

the 'newmiddleclasses'(Ley,1997).None-the-less, ollowingZukin's 1989)magis-

terial ead nunravellingherise of gentrificationn

SoHo,Manhattan,whichcarefullyconsidered he

pointat whichcapitalandculture ntersect, ecentaccountsacknowledgehow economicandculturalfactorsaremutually onstitutiven shaping he so-

ciologies andgeographiesof gentrificationLees,1994; Smith, 1996; Robson and Butler, 2003).Scholarsarealsoidentifyingherespective oles of

gender,race and sexualityin shapinggentrifica-

tion's locally specific weaves (Jacobs, 1996;Knopp,1998;Bondi,1999).As partof thisfruitful

integrationf economyandculture, oncernsaboutarchitecturalestoration ecome intertwinedwiththose about he transformativeole of innerurbanresidents and 'celebrities'vis-a-vis their cultural

habits, astesandaesthetics. ndeed,Zukin(1998)

talks of a critical infrastructureof consumption, in-dicatinghow key cultural ntermediariesncreas-

inglydefineacceptable odesof conductand'goodtaste' in a varietyof contextsincludingTV pro-grammeson food and home improvements,Sun-

daysupplements ndvarious ifestyle magazines.7Andwhilesuchfragrantmediadoalltheycan toin-vite theopportunityf massgentrification,manyofthoseinvestigatinghepossibilityof life in there-vivedinnercitycantestifyto the limitedavailabil-

ity of such opportunity.Class differenceand thestenchof moneypowerpermeate veryporeof the

newpoliticaleconomy.Gentrificationas also assumeda politicalsali-

ence. Forexample, n theUK, the widespread a-chet now associatedwith 'urban iving' aligns it

verymuch withthepoliticsof 'Blairism';particu-larlywhenone recalls how the imageryandelec-toralappealofThatcherismwas so deeply mplant-ed in theleafyEnglishshires.Moresignificantlythas permeated he sphereof urbanpolicy. Lees

(2000) has identifiedhow two important eportsthat span the Atlantic - Towards an Urban Renais-

sance (DETR, 1999) commissionedby the UKgovernment'sUrbanTaskForce,andThe Stateofthe Cities(HUD, 1998)by the US Department f

Housingand UrbanDevelopment's have each

sought to interweave urbanregenerationpolicywithgentrificationndenvironmentalenewal.As-

suming heidentityof urbanivability/sustainabil-ity, gentrifications prescribedas the 'medicine'fortheills of urbanBritainandAmerica. neffect,we arewitnessingvisionsforafutureurbanutopia:a blueprintorthe creationof an environmentallysustainableand

culturally nrichingexperiencen

thecity.SuchtrendspromptSawyer 1999,p. 307)toclaimthat theonlywaycities cancompetewithsuburbianowadays s to turnthemselves nto thesameexperience'.

All of this raises interestingquestions about

how,at a time when national tatesarefurtherdis-

avowing hemselves rom heresponsibility fpub-lichousing, heyare ooking o fosterapartnership-ledprocessof gentrificationomagicanurban en-aissance.Certainlyf anyone odaywere to repeatDaniel Defoe'sjourneyacrossBritain,as theyen-

teredeachcity space- fromIslington o Inverness- they wouldhit uponendless signifiersproudly






8/12/2019 3554313



displaying hebenefitsassociatedwith 'life in theheartof thecity'. A recentvisit to Leedsrevealedlocal developers o proclaimhow 'loft living hascome to town'. Indeedas Neil Smithhasrecentlycontended, nvelopedn thesugar-coatedanguage

of 'regeneration', entrifications uncriticallybe-ingrecastas apositiveandnecessary nvironmen-talstrategy:

Not only does 'urban egeneration'epresentthe next wave of gentrification,lannedand i-nancedonanunprecedentedcale,butthevic-

toryof thislanguage n anesthetizing ur crit-ical understandingf gentrificationn Europerepresentsa considerabledeological victoryforneoliberalvisionsof thecity.

(Smith,2002, p. 446)

Celebrating a new urbanism

Now fully formalizedthrougha Charter(Kel-baugh,2002), the new urbanismwas bornin theUSA amidescalatingconcernoverthe ecologicalimpactandpurportedlyoullessnature f suburban

sprawlandedgecities vis-ai-visraffic ongestion,commuting ime-geographies,hecommercializa-tion of public spaceand the lack of a communityspirit.New urbanistarchitectsandplanners laim

tocounterhis,reasserting neotraditionalense ofplaceandcommunity hrough he construction fnew urbanvillages and small towns. McCann

(1995)identifies wo schools of planninghathavebeen incorporated electivelyinto such neotradi-tionaldevelopments:urbanaesthetics,whose ad-vocatesview certainurbanorms ofacilitate ociallife morereadily hanothers,andthe socialutopi-anismof thelate nineteenth enturywhoseprotag-onists,likeHoward, ndeavouredo construct to-

piasbefitting he industrial ge. Interestingly,woof new urbanism's

eadingaficionados,Duanyand

Plater-Zyberk,re keen to portrayneotraditional

developments s sanctuariesromthealienation f

(sub)urbanife andas 'utopias orthepost-indus-trialage' (McCann,1995,p. 218).

In certainrespects, hen,new urbanism ffersacriticalutopianedge, not least in that ts protago-nistsrebuffpostmodernragmentationopursuean

organic,holistic dealfor the futureof cities andre-

gions. Two of the most notableconcreteexpres-sions are located n Florida:Seaside andCelebra-tion. In describing he latter,Leonie Sandercock

contends hat:

For increasingnumbersof home-seekers nthe UnitedStatesthis is the new Utopia- an

escapefromwhatare seenastheuglyrealitiesof urban ife into the civic-mindedcommuni-ties of frontporchesand safe, shadystreets,

and a return o 1950s-style 'familyvalues',atime of innocence n which,according o the

promotionalvideo, the biggest decision iswhetheroplaykick the can orkingof the hill.... Those who arecurrentlymovingin fullyexpect that othernew residentswill have asimilaroutlookon life. 'Itseemsto me that twill attractpeople with the same values' (inKatz, 1997).And if it does not, thereare no

shortageof rules to ensureconformity.(Sandercock,1998,p. 194)

Invokingthe notion of a 'village', it is claimed,

bringswith it a senseof communityanda feelingof security.Furthermore,hieldedfromthe disor-

derlyusersof thecity,residentsbecome activepar-ticipants n thecivilisingof urban/suburbanpace(see Burs, et al. 2002).However, t is these insti-tutional ormsthatraise alarmbells amongcritics.McCann 1995) informsus hownew urbanists re

happy odraw electivelyon Howard's topiande-als without verconsidering isfundamentaleliefin the social ownershipof land.He makesthe re-

latedclaimthat he rhetorical ppeal ocommunityis aimedat 'certain ectionsof themiddleclasswhoseekexclusivity ntheirhousingdevelopments ndarewilling to pay for it' (McCann,1995,p. 226).

Sociologically, hen,the new urbanmovementap-pearsto lackanyreflexiveanalysisof its own as-

sumptions bout lass,genderandracewhileitalso

appearsto run counter to much contemporarythought n urbanplanningwhichadvocatesa fos-

teringof liberaltolerance hroughsocial mixture

(Young,1990;Sandercock,1998).And in itsprac-tical

materialization,t would seemto be

premisedupon herhetoric fplace-based ivicpride or a se-lect few whileabandoningherestto their'under-class'fate(Harvey, 000).

'Voluntary ghettoization': gated communities and

privatopias

It seemsindisputablyhe case thatmanyeffortstocontriveurbanutopiasareprompted y an intensi-

fyingconcernon thepartof individualsandfami-lies to insulate hemselves rom he threats ophys-ical, financialand emotional ecurityoften associ-ated with contemporary ity life. While this de-

Geografiska Annaler ?84 B (2002) ?3-4 159





8/12/2019 3554313



fence of lifestyle and privilegeis evidentin the

gentrifying nnercity and in urbanvillages, it ismost palpable n the CommonInterestDevelop-ments that increasinglyadornthe landscapesofvastmetropolitanegionssuchas LosAngeles,Sao

Paulo,Johannesburgnd KualaLumpur Davis,1990; Caldeira,1999; Webster,1999; Hook and

Vrdoljak, 002).Typically hese areadvertised sa 'community'whereresidentsownorcontrolcer-taincommonareasandshared acilitiesandamen-itieswhilesimultaneouslyaving reciprocal ightsand obligations'enforcedby a privategoverningbodyor 'community rganization'Soja,2000).

The endeavouro fully 'enclose'such commu-nitiesfrom he sullied'cityoutside'reaches ts ze-nith ntheso-calledGatedCommunity.8woof its

leadingacademic authorities dentify three vari-

ants:(1) LifestyleCommunities,oftengearedto-wards etirees r enthusiasts f specific eisurepur-suitssuchasgolf;(2)PrestigeCommunities,whichare argely orthe richand amous;and 3)SecurityZoneCommunities9,ess exclusivelythepreserveof the wealthy,andvariously ocatedin the outerand innercity andbuiltprimarilyoutof a fearofcrime and 'outsiders' BlakelyandSnyder,1997).Invariably uch 'communities' but particularlythosein wealthierneighbourhoods aregated n adoublesense:physically n theformof highwalls,

fences, moats,guarded atesandsecurity ameras,and on occasion via the boast of an 'armedre-

sponse'(Davis, 1990);andinstitutionally hroughtightregulatory ractices,whereresidents'associ-ationsoftendictate heage rangeofresidents, oursandfrequency f visitors,housedecor,size of petsandnumber f children Judd,1995).Davis'highlyevocativeaccountof LosAngelesinformsus how:

traditionaluxuryenclaves such as BeverlyHills andSanMarinoare ncreasingly estrict-

ing publicaccess to their

publicfacilities,us-

ing baroque ayersof regulations o buildin-visible walls. ... Residential areas with

enoughclout are thus able to privatize ocal

publicspace,partitioninghemselvesoff fromthe rest of the metropolis,even imposingavariant f neighborhood passport ontrol'onoutsiders.

(Davis, 1990,pp.244-6)

Within uch'privatopias'MacKenzie,1994;Dear,2000) securityhas becomea 'positionalgood'of-

tenrelating o theprotection f equity,not leastinthat 'gatedness'can dramatically levate the ex-

changevalueof homes(Davis,1990).Theveryaes-theticsof securityhave also assumedan immense

significance:gatedestatesofferingnot only new

technologiesof securitybutalsoof image,withTu-

dor, Mediterranean,Medieval and Moder styles

frequently oexisting'in a mishmashof collidingarchitecturalenres, such thatstyle becomes thevehicle fordenyingthe violent context of the city(HookandVrdoljak,2002, p. 201). Relatedly, headvertisementsor such gated enclaves are une-

quivocal in presenting isolation - or what

McLaughlin ndMuncie(1999,p. 117)term 'vol-

untaryghettoization ndself-segregation' as of-

feringa utopianworldof absolutionandsecurity,clearlydistinguishablerom hehostilityofcitylife

beyondtheperimeterence (Caldeira,1999).Somegated developmentsn theUSA haveac-

tuallyattainedhestatusof independentownships.California's 71 municipalitiesnclude hreegatedcities, and othersenjoythe rightto levy for civic

services, ncludingpolicingandcommunal ervic-es such as schools (Platt,2001). And although t

mayhaveproperly ick-startedndreally akenoffin theUSA, gatednesss alsoto be found n liberalcities suchasVancouver,ertainmainlandEurope-an metropolesand picturesque raditionalcitiessuchas Lancaster,England Webster t al. 2002).Indeed nBritain,developers reunable o keepup

withdemand or bothsuburbanndcitycentregat-ed estates(Platt,2001;Webster,2001). This rushtowards security-obsessedortressmentalitysnodoubtbeingprecipitatedythe factthatsuch 'com-munities'becomeapowerful ymbol orbeingpro-tectedandbuttressedwithinan dyllic, high-qualityenvironmentwhile 'beingoutside'evokesa dysto-pian world characterizedby exposure,isolationandvulnerabilityJudd,1995).

Spaces of dystopia:from malignneglect to a revanchisturbanism?

In thepunitivecity, the post modemcity, therevanchistcity, diversity s no longer main-tainedby protectingandstruggling o expandthe rightsof the most disadvantaged, ut bypushing hedisadvantagedut,making tclear

that,as broken windows rather hanpeople,they simplyhave no rightto thecity.

(Mitchell,2001, p. 71)

As suggestedn thequotation boveand nthecon-

cludingsentence o theprevious ection,onenota-blethread unning hroughhe recentcriticalurban

Geografiska Annaler * 84 B (2002) ? 3-4160





8/12/2019 3554313


SPACESOF UTOPIAAND DYSTOPIA: ANDSCAPING HECONTEMPORARYITY

studies iteratures thecontention hatthevarious

attemptso contriveurbanutopiasaregeneratingflipside: thespacesthatremainuntouched y suchendeavours regradually ssumingdystopian har-acteristics.Examples ould nclude he'hyperghet-

to' thathasimpactedon US cities since the 1980sand rumpshe 1950sghetto noffering anextraor-

dinaryprevalenceof physicaldangerandan acutesenseof insecurity' Wacquant, 994,p. 276), andthemultiplydeprived peripheral' ousingestates- the naming can hardly be incidental - that sit un-

comfortably djacentobourgeois uburbantopi-as in manyEuropeanities(KeilandRonneberger,1997;MooneyandDanson,1997).Drawingon a

varietyof cases, thefollowingsub-sectionsaimtounravelhe socialrelations, ecurrentractices, ndarchitectural and institutional infrastructures

aroundandthroughwhich these two purportedlybipolarworldsassume heirrespective eographiesanduneasilymanoeuvreheirwaysof life.

Los Angeles' fortified urbanism

Mike Davis' writings(1990, 1992, 1998) offer a

bracing image of Los Angeles as an archetypalpostmoder dystopia cf. Dear,2002).Hehas littledoubt hatthe rushby thecity's bourgeoisie o in-sulate itself behind gated communitiesand en-

closedoffice,shoppingand eisurequartersepre-sentsa spatialogic of thegrowing ocialpolariza-tion thatprevailedhroughouthe 1980s.And nhis

essay, 'FortressLA'(1992),Davisdramaticallyl-luminatesa contrastbetweenspaces such as theluxurious California Plaza frequentedby officeworkersandaffluent ouristsand Fifth Streetonlyafew blocksaway,where, hrough self-professed'containment'trategy,hecity authorities re en-

gaged na merciless truggleomakepublicspacesas 'unlivable' s possiblefor thehomeless andthe

poor.Theoutcomeof this s that he

neighbourhoodaroundFifth Street is being systematicallyrans-formed nto an outdoorpoorhouse.

Indeed,beyondLA'saffluent ortified nclaves,thetendencyhasbeen tointegrate rbandesign,ar-chitectureand the police apparatusnto a 'singlecomprehensive ecurityeffort'(Davis, 1992).Pri-

mary eatures nclude'bumproof' us benchesde-

signedto denythehomelessthetacticof sleeping,overheadsprinkler ystems in public parks pro-grammed o drenchunsuspecting leepersduringthenight,andthe closureof manyoutdoorpublictoilets.10Moreover,Los Angeles Police Depart-ment- lobbiedby downtowndevelopers ndcom-

mercial nterests has obliterated veryeffortbythe homelessand heirsupporterso create afeen-

campments,eadingto a situationwherehomeless

peoplefugitivelywander he streetsdevoid of anypossessions.Meanwhile, heredevelopmentf the

downtown Bunker Hill area - which houses anumber f billion-dollarmegastructuresncludingthe BonaventureHotelcomplex- hasseveredvir-

tuallyall traditional edestrianarteries o the citycentre.This was to appease hecity'smajordevel-

operswho wereconcerned bout hedevaluationf

propertyviewed to be a consequenceof BunkerHill'sproximityopublictransport,ndespeciallyitsheavyuseby theblackandMexicanpoor.Bun-ker Hill has subsequentlybeen largelyde-linkedfromthe streetsoutsideandinsulated romexpo-sureto thecity's workingclasses.

ForDavis,far frombeingan isolatedcase, such

design features are proliferatingacross urbanAmerica(andwe would arguebeyond):partand

parcelof a hegemonicsocio-spatial trategyof lo-cal stateofficials ntheir ncessant upportorcap-italist nterests Smith,1998;Harvey, 000;Mitch-

ell, 2001;Brenner ndTheodore, 002).Thenetef-fect of this is thatAmericansnowincreasinglyivein 'fortress ities':brutallydivided,oftenonracial

grounds, etweenprivatopianells of affluence nd

dystopian pacesof terrorwherepublicandprivate

policeforcesbattle hecriminalizedpoorfor terri-torialrights.Judd 1995) refersto this as an esca-

lating 'spatialapartheid'.And as more and moreUS citizenspull up theirprivate drawbridge'ndthe nation's andscapeassumes hishostilemilieu,

city streetsarebecomingmoredesolate,publiclyfunded acilities ikelibraries rebeingeroded,andleisurespacessuch as beachesarebecomingmore

acutelysegregated.All of this leads Davis to con-clude hat apublicspace n theformofpublic and-

scapesandparksactingaskeysocialsafetyvalvesarenow as obsoleteas

Keynesianprinciplesof full

employment'(Davis, 1992). One illustrationofhow thisprocessoperatesbeyondUS shoresrelatesto thewaythata seriesof formerpublicbuildingsin London suchas theRoyalNorthernHospitaln

Islington haverecentlybeen convertednto lux-

ury apartmentsencedoff from thepublic(Arnot,2002).

Purified Places/'interdictory spaces'

Howcouldwebegin oexplain hescenariopaintedaboveto urbanplanners uchas Le Corbusier ndHowardwho, albeit via alternative outes,envis-






8/12/2019 3554313



agedthe desirabilityandnecessityof social soli-

darity n enacting hespatialityof thecity?As we

know,one theme thatappears onsistently n con-

temporary rbanism elates o 'security' whether

emotional,physicaloreconomic andhow,in ne-

gotiating he contemporaryity, there s a funda-mental mperativeo establishandpreserve t. Theworkof StevenFlusty 1998,2001)is most nstruc-tive nexplainingboth herationale nd hepracticeof this security-obsessed rbanvernacular. lusty(2001,p. 659) introducesheconceptof 'interdic-

tory space', which is designedto 'systematicallyexcludethoseadjudgedo be unsuitableandeven

threatening ... [or] people whose class and cultural

positionsdiverge rom hedevelopers nd heir ar-

get markets'.

Interdictorypaceis therebyselectivelyexclu-

sionary paceand s exemplifiednthe architectur-al and institutional rganization f gatedcommu-

nities,corporate lazasandmanydowntown hop-ping malls. Malls are often physicallyenclosed,

turningheirbackson the streetsoutside,althoughironicallymanyarealsobeingauthorizedo re-cre-ate 'the street' and some organiccivic milieux

(Goss, 1993). None-the-less,their 'publicness' s

alwaysshapedby intensifyingpressures o maxi-mize theprofitability f retailspace,oftenleadingto apenalexclusionof streetpeople,politicalcam-

paigners, ndependentartists and buskers,all ofwhommaybedeemed ocompromisehestrict th-ics of 'consumerist itizenship'. In termsof the

phenomenologyof practice,then, while perhapsofferinga design-specifichaven for some, the in-

terdictory hoppingmall is very ikelytobe a trulydystopian lacefor otherswhoarephysicallyorin-

stitutionallyexcluded or indeed those who feel

marginalizedromthebriskrhythms f consumer-ism.12

Now well established as a vital strategy tomaintain he valueof erstwhilederelictzones thathavebeen 'purified' Doron,2000), Flustyarguesthatthediscourseandpracticeof interdictionhasbeen recentlymodified.The early 1990s saw in-

terdictory pacesto be simultaneouslya regretta-ble necessityforcountering rime and a potentialthreat o civil liberties(FyfeandBannister,1998;

Soja,2000). Now, however, heyhaveassumeda

'banality', acitlyregarded samainstayof theur-ban environmentand 'quaintified'as a positiveculturalpresence,perhaps vena sourceof fun(atleastforthosewhocorrespondo thesegmentsof

the populationbeing profitablycateredfor). ForFlusty:

Inflated ears of the public sphere,even themost local, impel the naturalization f inter-

dictoryspaceand thecomplementary uainti-ficationof its material. n theprocess, spatialinterdictionomes to entailmorethan ustthe

exclusion of multiplepopulationsanda widerangeof associated ocialpractices.The natu-ralizationand quaintification f interdictionentails taking such exclusions for granted.Andas a further esult,questionsof interdic-

tory space'ssociospatialnjusticesand result-antsocialdysfunctions repushedeverfurtherintotherealmof the inconceivable.

(Flusty,2001, p. 661)

As the followingsub-sectiondemonstrates, rbanandsuburbannterdictorypacesarebeing supple-mented ncreasinglywith authoritarianegalmeas-ures andpolicingtacticsdesignedto regulate he

very spatialpracticesof thedisplacedurbanpoor.

Re-regulating thepoor: towards a revanchist city

Neil Smith's excavationof New York'schangingpolitical economyhas led himto define it as a re-vanchist ity13. mith's 1996)arguments riginatefromhis rousingaccountof thebourgeoiscrusadeto stretch hegentrificationrontier f Manhattan's

LowerEastSide andtherepressive tate acticsde-ployed o 'winback'Tompkins quarePark: pub-lic spacereasoned o havebeen stolen fromgentri-fiersand thepublic'bythehomelessandothervic-tims of real estate displacement.Smithsees thisevent as signifyingtheonset of a ster anti-home-less andanti-squatter ovementhatexpressed heethos of a revanchist ity.Attackson New York'shomelesspeoplerapidlygatheredmomentumustas shanty ownsgrewup in railwaystations.Andmostshockingly,n theearly1990s the 'Mole Peo-

ple'werediscovered:wholecommunities f home-

less previously'unknown', ncludingseveralen-

campmentsunder bridges and in undergroundtransportationndutilitytunnels.

Thepresenceof these 'dystopian' paceswas of

great concern to the incoming mayor, RudolphGiuliani.Butfollowinghis 1994 electionand acedwith a ?3.1 billionbudgetdeficit,Giuliani evealedhisbonafide concern thepurificationf thecity'simageand hemaintenancef itsincreasingly rag-ile bourgeois conomy whenhe chose to cutpub-lic serviceswith theexplicit ntentionof encourag-

ingthepoorestof thecity's populationo moveoutof the city (Smith, 1996).Moreover,amid his un-

Geografiska Annaler ?84 B (2002) ? 3-4162





8/12/2019 3554313



swerving preoccupationo tame 'disorder n the

public spacesof thecity', GiulianiorderedNYPDofficers opursuewithZeroTolerance hosegroupsviewedto be a genuine hreat o the 'qualityof ur-ban life'. Withgentrification ontinuingapaceand

thecity bereftof a planforrelocatingts evictees,'minorities,heunemployed ndthepoorestof the

working lassaredestined orlarge-scaledisplace-ment. Once isolatedin centralcity enclaves,theyare ncreasingly erdedoreservationsntheurban

edge' (Smith,1996,p. 27).Harvey(2000) uncovers similarprocesses in

Baltimore,where in its effortto colonize the citycentre,aDowntownPrivate-Publicartnershipas

implementedproposals or a ghettoized'campusfor the homeless' suitablyhidden from the city'sfrontal egions.Mitchell 1997)too informsus how

anti-homeless policies have multiplied acrossAmerica's urban landscape in an attempt to'cleanse'publicspacesof homelesspeoplebyban-

ishing them to the interstitialmargins.But therevanchist thos also encompassesa whole raftofstatepoliciesthat areweddedto a neoliberalanti-welfare deologyand,amid heheightenednsecu-rities of the neweconomyandrisksociety,a pur-ported compassionatigue'on thepartof themid-dle class vis-a-vis the plightof the dispossessed(Mitchell,2001).Exploiting his,Giuliani ndeav-

ouredto cut welfare,to discontinue he construc-tion of publichousing,to augmentanti-immigra-tionlegislation,and to wageanideologicalandfi-nancialattackonthepublicuniversity ystem.Itisin thesesenses thatrevanchism:

blendsrevengewith reaction.It representsareactionagainst he basicassumption f liber-alurbanpolicy, namely hatgovernment earssomeresponsibilityorensuringa decentmin-imum evelof daily ife foreveryone.Thatpo-

liticalassumptions nowlargelyreplacedby avendetta gainst he mostoppressed workersand 'welfaremothers', mmigrants ndgays,people of color and homelesspeople, squat-ters, anyone who demonstrates in public. ...

Blamingthe victim has been raised from acommonpoliticaltacticto a matterof estab-lished policy. ... This visceral revanchism is

no automaticresponseto economicups anddownsbut is fosteredby the same economic

uncertainties,hifts,and insecurities hatper-mittedthe more structured ndsurgicalabdi-

cationof the statefrommanytasks of socialreproduction.Revanchisms in everyrespect

theuglyculturalpoliticsof neoliberalglobali-zation. At differentscales it representsa re-

sponse spearheaded rom the standpointofwhite and middle-class nterestsagainst hose

people who, they feel, stole theirworld(and

theirpower) rom them.(Smith,1998,pp. 1, 10)

All in all, thispunitiveurbanvernacularignalsanotablestepbeyond he 'malignneglect'thatchar-acterized heliberalera owards nactivecriminal-izationof urbanpovertyanda waragainstwelfare

(cf.WolchandDear,1993;Mitchell,2001).More-

over,when blendedwiththerapiddiffusionof 'in-

terdictory'privatopiasand fortifiedcathedralsof

consumption,hisassaultonthepoorer ectionsofcities would seem to heraldanexclusionary14er-

sion of citizenshipandan erosionof spatial ustice(HolstonandAppadurai, 999;Flusty,2001).

Representing, practising, and transgressingurban 'dead zones': unsettling utopia/dystopia

Throughnumericaldominance,hrough treet

police and private guards,throughthe veryconfidencewith which [Anhanganbau'susi-ness andprofessionalclasses] walk, 'theyat-

temptto erase the tracesof others';but the

other storiesstill live on, to emergein otherplaces,atother imes.

(Massey,1999,p. 160)

Scholars uchasDavis,Flusty,SmithandMitchell

undoubtedly ffervaluableand extensiveinsightsinto thechangingurban opography nd of theun-even impactof contemporary oliticaleconomic

restructuringn thecityscape.So farin thispaper,however,we have indicatedhow theirreadingsof

socio-spatial estructuringeraldahorribly egres-

sive futurewhere the

impoverishedand

dispos-sessed arepassive victims of the fortified/revan-chistcity.Agencywouldappearo be thepreserveof developers,politicalelites,well-heeledconsum-

ers,or thoseretiring o theself-servinggatedcom-

munity.Wesurmise,however, hat it may well bethe writingsof these said scholars hatAmin andThrift 2002,p. 128)are argetingntheirclaimthat

'[C]ertaindoomsayingacademicshavemadepes-simism nto a highartform'.InAmin and Thrift's

estimation, he imageryand the prose being de-

ployed nmuchcontemporarycholarship reeach

sohighlyevocative hat heycoulddenyus thepos-sibilityto locate'countervailingendencies'andto






8/12/2019 3554313



identifyhowsomegroupscontriveandpractice f-fective 'spacesof escape'(see alsoKeil, 1999;So-

ja, 2000).Gil Doron (2000) raises analogousthemes in

contendinghat hediscourseandpracticeof plan-

ninghas ongbeenpreoccupiedodefine,nameandrepresent ertain paces n the urbanbuiltenviron-ment as 'wastelands', 'derelict areas', 'dead

zones', and 'urban oids'. Theseareneither lumswith impoverishedbut defined communitiesnor

open publicspacesbutrefer to areas suchas dis-used harboursand trainyards, closed industrial

yards,or empty spacesandemptylots. From the

perspective f those nterest roupseager ofurther

commodifyurban anduse, suchspacesmay rep-resent dead zones.However,as Doronpointsout,

they arecertainlynot deadfrom the phenomeno-logical perspectiveof the urbanwildlife, social

groupsandartistic ommunitieswhooccupysuch

spaces.Inotherwords, or somegroupsnotincor-

poratedas partof the contemporaryimageablecity', the urbanspaces popularlyrepresentedas

dystopiasmayactuallybepractisedasessentialha-

vens, transgressiveivedspacesof escape, refuge,employment ndentertainment. hus:

Planners and architects ... puritanically blind

themselves from seeing that the prostitutes,

homeless,streetactorsorstreetsellers are theones who transform he street from trafficchannels (humanor vehicles) to a living-working pace,to a spaceof performancend

festivity,to a place to be in and not only tomovethrough, nd24 hoursa day.

(Doron,2000,p. 254)

Such acts of transgression whereby he use valueof publicorprivate pacesis transformedhroughrecurrentpracticeor design modifications are

classicallydeployedn the act of

squattingChat-terton,2002).AndNeil Smith 1992)is notentirelysilent on suchspacesof escape.Forhis analysisoftheso-calledHomelessVehicleoffersan ntriguingexample of the subversivenessof mobility de-

ployedbyhomelesspeopleto contest he effortsofNewYork's rowth egime o sanction heirerasurefromthecity's public spaces.Lees (1998) too hasexaminedhowby sleepingin certainstrategicallysignificantspaces,Vancouver's GranvilleStreetkids' dramatize herightof thepoornotto be iso-latedandexcluded.And while such acts of trans-

gressionandstrategiesof visibilitydo not neces-sarilyoverwhelm heeconomic,politicalandmoral

doctrines mbodied n revanchist egimes, heydooffer llustrations f thestrugglesandsocio-spatialdialecticsthroughwhich contemporary paces of

utopiaanddystopiaarepractisedand enacted.Doron'sworkalsodoes much odemonstratehe

hermeneuticand material force of language in'naming' pace.Moreover,t serves ohighlight he

problematicrelationshipbetween representationandpracticeat the heartof recentwork n thede-

velopmentanddeploymentof non-representationtheory Thrift,2000; Lees, 2001;Amin andThrift,2002).Similarly,heuse of language uchas 'dep-rivation' o describe he conditionsof 'peripheral'housingestates can lead academics and govern-mentalprofessionals owardsa processof 'other-

ing' whereby they become partiallyblinded to

manyof the lived social andeconomicrelations

that form the heartbeatof such neighbourhoods.Forexample,MooneyandDanson's(1997) workrevealshowincontrast o theirpopulardepictionasisolated andscapesof despair,Glasgow's'periph-eral' housingestatesgenerateconsiderablecom-

munity participationwith large numbers of the

population n regularformal employment,theircontributiono Glasgow'seconomythusbeingfarfrom 'peripheral'.All of this leadsus to argue orthe need to examinecity restructuringmoreear-

nestlyat the (street) evel of dynamicsocial rela-

tions(see alsoNewman,2000).

Approachingutopia, dystopiaand a

patchworkurbanism

A crucial question ... is how to include the

ethnographic resent n planning, hatis, the

possibilitiesfor changeencounteredn exist-

ing social conditions.

(Holston,1999,p. 166)

Inour ntroductiono thispaper,

wesuggested

hatthe contemporary ity mightbe assumingan in-

creasingly ragmented eography haracterizedya patchworkquilt of spaces that are physicallyproximatebut institutionally stranged.It would

certainlyseem to be a near-dominantortrayalnmuch criticalurban tudies,andfor the mostpartone with which we would concur.None-the-lessthenatureof thisfragmenting ollageand disinte-

gratingurban society' mmediately aisesa funda-mentalquestion:how can we effectivelydescribe,

mapand heorize hecontemporaryity?Inaquiteheroicendeavour,EdSoja(2000)proffers he con-ceptof the 'postmetropolis'. ojasees the modem

Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) * 3-4164





8/12/2019 3554313



metropolisas characterized y a distinctiveurbancentre urroundedyasprawlinguburbaneriph-ery.Incontrast,heemergingurban-regionaland-

scape- pockmarkedwith green-fieldedge cities,traditionaluburbs, atedestates, evitalized own-

towns andgentrified nclaves is thuspunctuatedbyarangeof spatialitieshataredecentringhecity,forminganincreasingly omplexurbangeometry.Indeedsucha decentredandscape ontainsmuchthatdisturbshe 'densityof settlement'we ordinar-

ily associatewithcities (cf. Pile, 1999).Moreover,andborrowingromtheregulation pproach, ojacontendsthat this new regimeof urbanizations

coupledwith a new mode of social andspatialreg-ulationenacted n part hrough:

the intensificationof social and spatial control

brought boutbynewdevelopmentsn thepri-vatization,policing,surveillance, overnance,anddesignof thebuiltenvironment nd hepo-liticalgeographyof cityspace.Respondingowhat Mike Davis ... has described as an en-

demic ecology of fear, the postmetropolitanlandscapehas become filled withmanydiffer-ent kindsof protected nd fortified paces, s-landsof enclosureand anticipated rotectionagainst he realand magineddangersof dailylife.BorrowingromFoucault,hepostmetrop-

olis is represented s a collectionof carceralcities, an archipelagoof 'normalized nclo-sures'and ortified paces hatbothvoluntarilyand involuntarilybarricade ndividualsandcommunitiesn visible and not-so-visibleur-banislands,overseenby restructuredormsof

publicandprivatepowerandauthority.(Soja,2000, p. 299;emphases n original)

At a varietyof spatialscales,then,thissplinteringurbanismees aninstitutionaleinforcement f theboundaries etween

cityand

suburb,ichand

poor,northandsouth,all accompanied y new formsofelitismand intolerance.Tobe sure,there s muchendeavouro constructurbanandpost-urban to-

pias.But the self-enclosedand ndeedself-exilingutopiascurrently nder onstruction rewhatHar-

vey (followingthe ideas of Marin(1984)) terms

'degenerateutopias':degeneratenot least in that

theyoffer nocritiqueof theexistingstateof affairson theoutside(Harvey, 000, p. 164).

Andthisgetsusright othenubof Utopia: or as

Harvey ibid.)asks: 'cananyutopianism f spatialform thatgetsmaterialized e anythingother han"degenerate"n the sense thatMarinhasinmind?'

It s interesting ndundoubtedly uitesignificantonotehowsomanyappeals orutopianurbanordersareontologically ixedat a relativelysmall scale:fromPlato's 'democratic'Athensof 5 000 inhabit-

ants,Howard'sgardencities housing25000, the

gated communities on the perimeter of USmetropoles, o the new urbanvillages being con-structednthe centreof UKcities.All of thismightimplythatwe maywish to consign utopian hink-

ing to the historybooks. However, n a stem de-fenceof utopian hinking,JohnFriedmann ebuffssuch negativeassertion.Accordingto Friedmann

(2000),if we beginwith inherent imitationsaboutthe possibilitiesof purposiveaction rather thanwith magesof desirableutures, henwe denyour-selvestheutopianmaginationshatmightgeneratethepassionnecessary or a socialmovement o en-

actthosevery maginings.He thenofferssome stir-

ringimaginings or the 'goodcity' vis-a-vis theo-reticalconsiderations,ights,civility,socialprovi-sion andgood governance.

Leonie Sandercock 1998) stretches urther nhersearch or a postmoder utopia:a cosmopoliswhere thereis genuineconnectionwith, and re-

spectandspacefor,the cultural other'.Inorder oenvision this 'construction ite of the mind', shecallsforcontemporary lanning heory ourgentlydisavow modernism o as to confront he shifting

spatialitiesoutlinedabove and to appreciatehowthesearemutually onstitutedwithaseriesof inter-

connecting ocialforcesassociatedwithglobaliza-tion,especially heriseof mass inter-urbanmigra-tion of economies,ideas andpeople.For Sander-

cock, these complexhumanmigrationsare inter-twined with strugglesover space, particularlyntermsof whobelongswhereandwithwhatcitizen-

shiprights.Hereshe drawson Holston'swork on:

Thespacesof insurgent itizenship that]con-stitute new

metropolitanorms of the social

notyet liquidatedby or absorbed ntotheold.As such they embody alternative utures....

Theyare sites of insurgencebecausethey in-troduce nto the city new identitiesandprac-tices thatdisturb stablishedhistories'.

(Holston,1999,pp. 158, 167)

According o Sandercock,planningprofessionalshaveyetto confront heseshifting ocio-spatialitiesandhave, neffect,becomepreoccupiedwith 'con-

trolling'the citizenry.To this extent,the noir of

planninghas become reactionaryand complicitwith the dominant ulture:






8/12/2019 3554313



All too often, 'we' - plannersresponding o

politicians areengaged n anongoingbattleto keep 'them'['others']outof our communi-ties. And we createanduse planning egisla-tion for this very purpose. .. Suchis our fear

of the Other a fearof thosewhoarecultural-ly differentandof peoplewhosesymbolicandrealpresencespeaksof economic nstabilitythatwe tryto makethem nvisible,by remov-

ing them - legally, of course ... - from our

neighbourhoods, ur communities,our partsof thecity.And whatwe can't do collectively,we tryto makeup for by individual ecuritysystems, patrolled neighbourhoods,gatedcommunities.

(Sandercock, 998,p. 21).

The contentandnature f thishighlystirringquotelead us to say somethingaboutdystopia.Thepor-trayalof dystopianmages,as Friedmann2000,p.462) indicates,alertsus to processes hat, f disre-

garded,wouldlead to an urban uture 'we wouldfindabhorrent'.However,and in a similarvein toAminandThrift's wipeat 'doomsaying' cadem-

ics, Merrifield 2000, p. 474) has intonedhow so

many critical urban scholars seem utterlycom-

pelledtowards he veryfeatures hey/wehateandarebattlingo stampout,suchashomelessness.He

cites Mike Davis' work as anexemplarwherethemore DavisrecountsLosAngeles' 'carceral ity',themorewe aredrawn owards tsgeographies nd'mesmerized ndfascinatedbyitsdynamics,byits

perversityand absurdity'(Merrifield,2000, p.473).HereMerrifields acknowledging owthere-

pulsiveandeven thegarishncitylifemay actuallybequite itillating, imultaneouslyhrillingandap-palling,while in theprocesswe all hateourselvesfor being thrilled Interestingly,Merrifield hen

suggestshow:

[Peoplemay]onlyinventutopiasandnotreal-

ly want to live in them.[For]Livingin themmeans he end of novelty, antasyand curiosi-

ty; everythingwould become routine,never

adventure,he death-knello the human pirit.(Merrifield, 000, p. 479)

The courageousand variedarguments fferedbyFriedmann, andercock ndMerrifieldaiseahostofquestions bout heways nwhichwemightseekto imagine,campaignon behalfof, plan,research,

transform,ive in, depart rom,love and hate ourcontemporaryities. While furtherdiscussionon

these themesstretchesbeyond hescopeof thispa-per,we do wish to conclude with two issues weconsidervital in definingand envisioninga pro-gressiveurban olitics.Thefirstconcernsarelative

ignoranceof the state in much of criticalurban

studies.We are aware hatmanygatedhousingde-velopments reatea privateworldthatshares ittlewith its neighboursor the largerpolitical systemleadingto a fragmentationhat 'undermines he

very concept of civitas - organized communitylife' (Blakely,1997;cited nPlatt,2001,p. 22).Wealso know thatcertainneighbourhoods nd eco-nomicregionsdiscussedabove are bereftof a ma-turedemocraticpoliticalmilieu.As Michael Dear

(2000)warns, hishaspermitted formof 'shadow

government'hat can tax andlegislate for issuessuch as policing. But it is rarely accountable

through democraticmandate nd s oftenrespon-sive largely to the whims of globally orientedwealthcreation.Now while it maybe tempting o

interpret his as indicative of some 'end of the

state', he state s far romabsent n all this: tsideo-

logicalarmorchestratinghelegislationgoverningprivate roperty topiasustas itsrepressive rm i-

multaneouslypolices the dystopianspacesof therevanchist ity. Similarly, heplethoraof edge cit-

ies, interdictoryeisurezones andfortifiedprivato-piasareallgenerating ewphysicaland nstitution-

al scales of enclosure,new zones of governance(Baeten, hisissue).None-the-lessourpoliticalge-ographicalappreciation f this emerging patch-workof the urbanandscape emains eeble andde-

mandingof urgent cholarlyattention.A second issue concernsthe tendencyto elide

citizenshipwithparticularerritorialorms,most

notablythe nation-state.Caldeira(1999, p. 137;

emphasesadded)offers somerethinking bout he

parametersof citizenshipin cities and suggeststhatthe 'criterion orparticipationn politicallifecould be local residence rather than national citi-

zenship'. She then adds that this more locallyforgedmodeofpolitical dentitycouldprovide he

opportunityorimmigrant opulations o become

engagedmoreactively n progressively eshapingtheir everyday lives. A more radical approachwould be to decouplecitizenshipfrom any one

particular erritoriality.t is here that Holston's

(1999) anthropologicalworkon thewideninggulfbetween ormalandsubstantiveitizenshipprovesmost instructive see alsoYuval-Davis, 1999; cf.

Marshall,1950).Hepointsto onepossible wayof

seeing a new avenuefor urbanplanningthrough'multiplecitizenshipsbased on thelocal, regional

Geografiska Annaler ?84 B (2002) ?3-4166





8/12/2019 3554313



and transnationalaffiliations that aggregate in

contemporary rbanexperience'(Holston, 1999,

p. 169).Here,there s no intentionof necessarilyprivileging'the local' in the formationof a pro-gressivepolitics.Rather, t is aboutsteppingout-

side of the state's legal and political frameworkanddaring ocontemplate ightsdifferently,nthecontextof the 'social dramas f thenew collectiveand personal spaces of the city' (ibid, see also

Amin,etal. 2000).To thisend,then,while retain-

ing some methodologicaland theoreticalgriponthe state,we mustsimultaneously eimaginenewlines of politicalengagementbeyond ts verycon-tours.Not to do so would be to foreclose futurediscussions on the definition of citizenshipand

denyus theopportunityo engage n aprogressiveremakingof the urbanquilt.

AcknowledgementsTheauthors regrateful o GuyBaeten,EricClarkand woanonymous eferees orhelpfulcommentson an earlier version of this paper. GordonMacLeodgratefullyacknowledges he supportofThe LeverhulmeTrustfor fundingthe research

project Public Space in Urban Britain (Ref RG/8/

2000/0372).Theusualdisclaimersapply.

Notes1. Although,ronically,mostof his supportersawit as a way

inwhichcapitalism ouldbe preservedFishman, 002).2. A greatdeal of the most influential andprovocative

scholarship asemerged romcitiesin theUSA,particularlyNew York andLos Angeles.And in a paperof thisnature,thereareobviousdangers f assuming enericchange romsuch'paradigmatic'ases(Thrift,1997).We arethus sensi-tiveto AminandThrift's 2002,p. 5) charge hat evocationcannotalwaysbe a substituteorsystematic nalysis'. nor-derto illustratehe nature f contemporarytopiasanddys-topiaswe do drawoncertainhigh-profile, ymptomaticas-

es, butwherepossiblewe alsoillustratewith additional as-

es and, whereappropriate,eek to drawout the practicesandprocessesof socio-spatialityhathelpto fashionutopi-as/dystopias.

3. Festival marketplaces re profoundlyambivalentplaces,which,for Goss (1996, p. 221) in theirrhetorical ommit-ment to utopianvalues of urbanism penup opportunitiesfor urban olitics hatcritiques gnore.Thusevenif contem-

poraryworkingandmarginal lassesareconspicuously b-sentfrom thespectacleof consumption,he labourof theirhistorical ounterpartss aestheticizedn preservedmaterial

culture, magesof theworkingwaterfront ndemploymentof 'streetartists' theoriginal streetpeople'.

4. In analyzingcontemporary onsumption paces,thereareobviousdangersof reproducinghe excesses of Adorno's

critiqueof ideology and popularculture.However, andwhile not wishingto detract rom theirideologicalinflu-

ence,shoppingmallsdon'tsimply'bludgeon.. consumers

into unconsciousness'.Instead,and acknowledgingherethe practicesand performances f agents,we need to beawareof how 'consumersof the goods and servicestheyareaffordedby suchspaces, .. activelyperformheirpres-ence in specificmotilemilieus'(AminandThrift,2002, p.124).

5. On this theme,Goss (1993) points to the ways in which

planned etail pace s increasingly olonizingotherprivate-ly ownedpublicspacessuch as hotels,railway tations,air-

ports,office buildingsandhospitals,as shoppingbecomesthedominantxpression f contemporaryublic ife.

6. In his commentary n Garreau'sdeas,Beauregard1995)has also pointedout how Garreaus relatively ilentabout

politics,except o pointoutthatedgecities oftenspanpolit-icaljurisdictions ndarethusgovernedby multiplebodiesor exist in unincorporatedreas.

7. Newspapers nd 'lifestyle' magazinesregularlyglamorizethe ifestyleof people iving n eitherbrownstoneownhous-es with theiroriginalpanellingandwood-burningireplac-es, orin large actory ofts(Zukin,1998).This is classicallyillustratedn JeremyGates'(2002a,b, c) regulareaturesn

Hello Magazine.8. Intheearly1960s therewerefewerthan1000 Common n-

terestDevelopments.Butbythe mid-1980s hereweremorethan80000, andabouteightoutof everytenurbanprojectsintheUSA are'gated' BlakelyandSnyder,1997).

9. HookandVrdoljak2002)haverecently ndicatedhow theSouthAfricanversionof thegatedcommunitys referredoastheSecurityPark.

10. While a 'fortifiedurbanism' robably eaches ts zenith ncitiessuchas LAandSaoPaolo,recentdevelopmentsn thecentreof ManchesterndotherUK citiesconfirmhow simi-lararchitecturesunthrough he veins of Britain'scurrent'urban enaissance'.

11. Leasingagentsevenplanthe mix of tenantsand their oca-

tions withinthe mall,usuallyexcludingrepair hops, aun-dromats nd thriftstores,each of whichmight'remind heconsumerof the materiality f the commodityand attractthosewhosepresencemightchallenge henormality f con-

sumption'Goss, 1993).12. Recent slow food' campaigns onstitute n(albeit imited)

attempto counter hepaceof existenceforceduponthose

negotiatinghe consumeristity.13. 'Revanche's theFrenchword orrevenge,andSmith'sref-

erent here is the 'revanchist'politicalmovementwhich,

throughouthelast threedecadesof theninteteenthentury,reactedviolentlyagainst he relative iberalismof the Sec-ondEmpire nd he socialismof the ParisCommune.

14. The regularitywith whichwe have thus far deployedthe

terms inclusion'and'exclusion'prompts s to pausebrief-ly forreflection.As with all suchbinaryoppositions nddi-chotomousmodesof thought Lees, 1998), there are dan-

gersof presenting blanket eadingwherebyall exclusionsarebad andall inclusionsaregood. However,as Iveson's

(2002) studyof the exclusionof menfromMclvers adies'baths n Coogee, a suburbof Sydney,indicates, nclusionandexclusion needto be interrogated ithrespect o proc-esses throughwhichtheyarepolitically ustified, hus ena-

blingcritical heorists o distinguish etweendifferentkindsof exclusion'.

GordonMacLeod, Department of Geography, Uni-

versity of Durham, Durham, DHI 3LE, 44(0)191-

374-7065E-mail:[email protected]






8/12/2019 3554313


GORDONMacLEODAND KEVINWARD

Kevin Ward,School of Geography, University ofManchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, 44(0)161-275-7877

E-mail:[email protected]

References

ALLEN,J. (1999):Worldswithincities,in MASSEY,D., AL-

LEN,J. andPILE,S. (eds):CityWorlds.Routledge,London,

pp. 55-97.

AMIN, A. and THRIFT, N. (2002): Cities: Reimagining the Ur-

ban.Polity,Cambridge.AMIN,A., MASSEY,D. andTHRIFT,N. (2000):Citiesor the

Many not the Few. Policy Press, Bristol.

ARNOT, C. (2002): The great escape. The Guardian, Society, 30

January:-3.

BAUMAN,Z. (2000):LiquidModernity. olity,Cambridge.BEAUREGARD, .(1995):EdgeCities:peripheralizinghecen-

tre,UrbanGeography, 6: 708-721.

BLAKELY, .andSNYDER,M.(1997):FortressAmerica:Gat-ed Communitiesn the UnitedStates.BrookingsInstitute

Press,Washington,DC.

BONDI,L. (1999):Gender, lass, andgentrification:nrichingthedebate,EnvironmentndPlanningD: SocietyandSpace,17: 261-282.

BOYER,C. (1992): Cities for sale: merchandising istoryatSouthStreetSeaport,n SORKIN,M. (ed.):Variations naThemePark: TheNewAmericanCityandthe Endof Public

Space.Hill andWang,New York.

BOYER,C.(1995):Thegreat rame-up:antastic ppearancesn

contemporarypatialpolitics, nLIGGETT,H. andPERRY,D. (eds):SpatialPractices:CriticalExplorationsn Social/

spatialTheory, age,ThousandOaks,CA.

BRENNER,N. and

THEODORE,.(eds) (2002):SpacesofNe-oliberalism:UrbanRestructuringn WesternEuropeand

North America. Blackwell, Oxford.

BURNS,C., CAMPBELL,R., DUANY,A., KAYDEN,J. and

KRIEGER, . (2002):Urbanor suburban?nFAINSTEIN,S and CAMPBELL, S (eds): Readings in Urban Theory.

Blackwell,Oxford.

CALDEIRA, . (1999):Fortified nclaves: henew urbanegre-gation, in HOLSTON J. (ed.): Cities and Citizenship. Duke

Press,Durham,NC.

CHATTERTON,.(2002):Squattingsstill egaland ree:abriefinterventionn thecorporateity,Antipode, 4: 1-7.

CHRISTOPHERSON,. (1994): The fortresscity: privatizedspaces,consumer itizenship,nAMIN,A. (ed.):Post-Ford-ism:A Reader.Blackwell,Oxford,pp.409-427.

COX,K. R. (1993):The local and theglobal n the New UrbanPolitics,EnvironmentndPlanningD:Society ndSpace,11:433-448.

CRAWFORD,M.(1992):Theworld n ashoppingmall, nSOR-

KIN,M. (ed.):Variations na ThemePark:TheNewAmer-icanCityand the Endof PublicSpace.HillandWang,NewYork.

CRILLEY, . (1993):Megastructuresndurban hange: esthet-

ics, ideologyanddesign, nKNOX,P.(ed.):TheRestlessUr-banLandscape. renticeHall,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ.

DAVIS,M.(1990):CityofQuartz:ExcavatingheFuture n Los

Angeles.Verso,London.

DAVIS,M.(1992):Fortress osAngeles: hemilitarizationf ur-ban space, in SORKIN, M. (ed.): Variationson a Theme Park:

TheNewAmericanCityandtheEndofPublicSpace.Hill andWang,New York.

DAVIS,M.(1998):EcologyofFear: LosAngelesand theImag-inationof Disaster.MetropolitanBooks-Henryholt, NewYork.

DEAR, M. (2000): The Postmodern Urban Condition. Oxford,

Blackwell.

DEAR,M. (ed.)(2002):FromChicago o LA:MakingSenseofUrban Theory. Sage, London.

DETR 1999):Towardsnurban enaissance:haring hevision.Departmentf theEnvironment, ransportnd theRegions(http:www.regeneration.detr.gov.uk/urbanren/l.html)

DORON,G.(2000):TheDeadZoneand he architecturef trans-

gression,City,4: 247-63.

ESSER, .andHIRSCH,.(1989):ThecrisisofFordism nd hedi-mensions f a 'postFordist'egional ndurbantructure,nter-national ournal fUrban ndRegionalResearch, 3:417-37.

FAINSTEIN, . (1994):TheCityBuilders:Property ndPlan-

ningin London nd NewYork,Blackwell,Oxford.

FISHMAN,R.(1996):UrbanUtopias:EbenezerHoward ndLe

Corbusier,n CAMPBELL, . and FAINSTEIN,S. (eds):Readings nPlanningTheory,Blackwell,Oxford.

FISHMAN,R.(2002):Bourgeoisutopias: isionsof suburbia,n

FAINSTEIN, . andCAMPBELL, . (eds):Readingsn Ur-banTheory,Blackwell,Oxford.

FLUSTY,S. (1998):Buildingparanoia,n ELLIN,N. (ed.):Ar-chitecture fFear. PrincetonUniversityPress,NT.

FLUSTY,S. (2001):Thebanalityof interdiction:urveillance,controland hedisplacementf diversity,nternationalour-nalof UrbanandRegionalResearch, 5: 658-664.

FRIEDMANN,. (2000):The GoodCity: n defenseof Utopianthinking, nternationalournalof UrbanandRegionalRe-

search, 24: 460-72.

FYFE,N. andBANNISTER,.(1998):Theeyes upon hestreet:closedcircuit elevision urveillance nd hecity, nFYFE,N.

(ed.):Imagesof the Street:Planning, dentity ndControlnPublic Space. Routledge, London.

GARREAU, J. (1991): Edge City: Lifeon the New Frontier. Dou-bleday,New York.

GATES,J. (2002a):Penthouse reams: rbanhigh-fliers re it-

erallyskybound,Hello ,711: S10-11, (April).GATES,J.(2002b):Watersideiving:canal-side ropertiesffer

chic urbaniving,Hello 712: S10-11 (May).GATES,J. (2002c):Hit the town:the traditionalown houseis

back n style,Hello ,715: S10-11 (May).GOSS,J.(1993):The'magicof themall':ananalysis f theform,

function,andmeaningn thecontemporaryetailbuilt envi-

ronment,Annalsof the Associationof AmericanGeogra-phers, 83: 18-47.

GOSS,J.(1996):Disquieton thewaterfront: eflections n nos-

talgiaafldUtopia n the urban rchetypes f festivalmarket-

places,Urban

Geography,17: 221-47.

HAMNETT,C. (1991):The blindmen andtheelephant:heex-

planation of gentrification, Transactions of the Institute ofBritishGeographers, 6:173-89.

HANNIGAN, J. (1998): The Postmodern Metropolis. Routledge,NewYork.

HARVEY,D. (1989a):Frommanagerialismo entrepreneurial-ism:thetransformationf urban overnancen LateCapital-ism,Geografiska nnaler,71B:3-17.

HARVEY,D. (1989b):TheUrbanExperience.Blackwell,Ox-ford.

HARVEY,D. (2000):Spacesof Hope.EdinburghUniversity,Press,Edinburgh.

HOLSTON,. (1999):Spacesof insurgent itizenship',n HOL-

STON, J. (ed.): Cities and Citizenship. Duke Press, Durham

NC,pp. 157-73.

HOLSTON,. andAPPADURAI,A. (1999):Introduction: ities






8/12/2019 3554313



andcitizenship,n HOLSTON, . (ed.):Citiesand Citizen-

ship.DukePress,Durham,NC.

HOOK,D. andVRDOLJAK,M.(2002):Gated ommunities,et-

erotopia nd he'rights f privilege: 'heterotopology'f theSouthAfrican ecurity-park, eoforum, 3: 195-219.

HOWARD,E. (1902): GardenCitiesof Tomorrow2nd ed.).SwanSonnenschein, ondon.

IVESON,K.(2002):Justifying xclusion:CriticalReflectionsntheDisputeoverMclversLadies'Baths.PublicSphereNet-

work,WorkingPaper1,Departmentf Geography,Univer-

sityof Durham,England.JACOBS, .(1961):TheDeathandLifeofGreatAmerican ities.

RandomHouse,New York.

JACOBS, .M.(1996):EdgeofEmpire: ostcolonialismndthe

City.Routledge,London.

JONAS,A. andWILSON,D. (eds) (1999):The UrbanGrowthMachine:CriticalPerspectivesTwoDecadesLater.SUNY,New York.

JUDD,D. (1995):The rise of the New WalledCities,in LIG-

GETT,H. andPERRY,D. (eds):SpatialPractices:Critical

ExplorationsnSocial/SpatialTheory. age,ThousandOaks,

CA.KEIL,R. (1999):LosAngeles:Globalization,Urbanizationnd

SocialStruggles.Wiley,Chichester.

KELBAUGH, . (2002):Thenewurbanism,nFAINSTEIN, .andCAMPBELL,.(eds):Readngs nUrbanTheory. lack-

well,Oxford.

KNOPP,L. (1998):Sexualityandurban pace:gaymale dentitypoliticsn theUS,theUK,andAustralia,nFINCHER, . and

JACOBS, . (eds):Citiesof Difference,GuilfordPress,NewYork.

LAURIA,M. (ed.)(1997):Reconstructing egimeTheory:Reg-ulatingUrbanPolitics in a GlobalEconomy, age,London.

LEADBEATER, . (2000):Livingon ThinAir:TheNewEcon-

omy.Penguin,London.

LEES,L.(1994):Rethinking entrification:eyond hepositionsof economicsorculture,Progress nHumanGeography, 8:137-50.

LEES,L.(1998):Urban enaissance nd hestreet:pacesofcon-trolandcontestation,nFYFE,N. (ed.): magesof theStreet:

Planning, dentity nd Control n PublicSpace.Routledge,London.

LEES,L. (2000):Areappraisalf gentrification:owards 'geo-graphy fgentrification',rogress n HumanGeography,4:389-408.

LEES,L. (2001):Towardsa criticalgeography f architecture:thecaseof an ersatzColosseum,Ecumene, : 51-86.

LEY,D. (1997):TheNewMiddleClasses andtheRemaking fCentralCities.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.

LOGAN.J,and

MOLOTCH,H.

(1987):UrbanFortunes:The

PoliticalEconomy fPlace.University f California, erke-

ley.LOW,S. (1999):Introduction:heorizinghecity, in LOW,L.

(ed.): Theorizing he City.RutgersUniversityPress,New

Brunswick, -33.

McCANN,E.(1995):Neotraditionalevelopments:heanatomyof a newurbanorm,UrbanGeography, 6:210-233.

MacKENZIE, . (1994):Privatopia:HomeownerAssociationsand the Riseof ResidentialPrivateGovernment. ale Uni-

versityPress,New Haven,CT

McLAUGHLIN,. andMUNCIE, . (1999):Walledcities,sur-

veillance, egulationnd egregation,nPILE,S.,BROOK,C.andMOONEY,G. (eds):UnrulyCities?Routledge,London.

MacLEODG.(2002):Fromurban ntrepreneurialismoarevan-

chistcity?Onthespatial njustices f Glasgow's enaissance,Antipode, 4: 602-24.

MARSHALL, .H. [1950](1977):Class,CitizenshipndSocial

Development. hicagoUniversityPress,Chicago, L.

MASSEY,D. (1999):Onspaceand hecity, nMASSEY,D.,AL-

LEN,J. andPILE,S. (eds):CityWorldsRoutledge,London,

pp. 157-175.

MERRIFIELD, . (2000):The dialecticsof dystopia:disorderandzero olerancen thecity,Internationalournal f Urban

andRegionalResearch, 4:473-489.MITCHELL, . (1995):The end of public pace?People'sPark,

definitions f thepublic,anddemocracy,Annalsof theAsso-ciationofAmericanGeographers, 5: 108-133.

MITCHELL,D. (1997):The annihilation f space by law: therootsandimplications f anti-homelessaws in the United

States,Antipode, 9: 303-335.

MITCHELL, . (2001):Postmoder geographical raxis?Post-modem mpulseand the waragainsthomelesspeoplein the'Post-Justice'ity', in MINCA,C. (ed.):PostmodernGeog-raphy:Theory ndPraxis.Blackwell,Oxford,pp.57-92.

NEWMAN, K. (2000): No Shame in myGame: TheWorkingPoor

in the Inner City. Vintage, New York.

PILE,S. (1999):What s acity?InMASSEY,D., ALLEN, . and

PILE,S. (eds):CityWorlds.Routledge,London,pp.3-52.PINE,B. J. andGILMORE,.(1999):TheExperienceEconomy:

Work s Theater ndEveryBusinessa Stage.Harvard usi-nessPress,Cambridge,MAL.

PLATT,E.(200 ): Insearch f thecomfort one,FinancialTimes

(Weekend), 3October: 9-22.

RITZER,G.(1999):Enchanting DisenchantedWorld:Revolu-

tionizing heMeansof Consumption.ineForgePress,Lon-don.

ROBINS,K.(1993):Prisoners f thecity:whateverouldapost-modem city be? in CARTER,E., DONALD, J. and

SQUIRES, .(eds):SpaceandPlace: Theories f Identity ndLocation.Lawrence ndWishart,London.

SANDERCOCK,.(1998):TowardsCosmopolis.Wiley,Chich-

ester.SAUNDERS,P.(1980):UrbanPolitics:ASociological nterpre-

tation.Penguin,Harmondsworth.

SAWYER,M. (1999):ParkandRide:Adventuresn Suburbia.

Little,Brown&Co,London.

SENNETT, R. (1990): TheConscience of the Eye: the Design and

Social Life of Cities. Alfred Knopf, New York.

SHORT,J.,BENTON,L., LUCE,W. andWALTON, .(1993):Reconstructingheimageof theindustriality,Annalsof theAssociationofAmericanGeographers, 3: 207-224.

SIBLEY,D. (1996):Geographies fExclusion.Routledge,Lon-don.

SMITH,N. (1992):Contours f a spatialized olitics:homelessvehiclesand heproductionfgeographicalcale,SocialText,33: 54-81.

SMITH,N. (1996):TheNew UrbanFrontier:GentrificationndtheRevanchistCity.Routledge,London.

SMITH,N (1998):Giuliani ime:the revanchist1990s,Social

Text,57: 1-20.

SMITH,N. (2002):Newglobalism,newurbanism:entrificationas globalurban trategy,Antipode, 4:427-450.

SOJA,E. (2000):Postmetropolis:CriticalStudiesof Citiesand

Regions.Blackwell,Oxford.

SORKIN,M. (1992a): ntroduction,n SORKIN,M. (ed.):Vari-ationson a ThemePark:TheNewAmericanCityand theEnd

of PublicSpace.Hill andWang,New York.

SORKIN,M. (1992b):See you in Disneyland,n SORKIN,M.

(ed.):Variations n a ThemePark:TheNew AmericanCityand theEndofPublicSpace.Hill andWang,New York.

STOCKS,C.(2002):GardenCities:an deal or iving,HighLife:British Airways, August: 63-8.

Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ?3-4 169





8/12/2019 3554313



SWYNGEDOUW, E. (2000): Authoritariangovernance, power,and the politics of rescaling, Environment and Planning D:

Society and Space, 18: 63-76.

THRIFT, N. (1997): Cities without modernity, cities with magic,Scottish Geographical Magazine, 113: 138-149.

THRIFT, N. (2000): Steps to an ecology of place, in MASSEY,

D., ALLEN, J. and SARRE, P. (eds): Human Geography To-

day. Polity Press, Cambridge.

WACQUANT, L. (1994): The new urban color line: the state and

the fate of the ghetto in post-Fordist America, in AGNEW, J.

(ed.): Political Geography: A Reader, Arnold, New York, pp.269-287.

WEBSTER, C. (2001): Gated cities of tomorrow,TownPlanningReview, 72: 149-170.

WEBSTER, C., GLASZE, G. andFRANTZ, K. (2002): Guest ed-

itorial: The global spreadof gated communities, Environment

and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29: 315-320.

WOLCH, J. and DEAR, M. (1993): Malign Neglect: Homeless-

ness in an American City. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

YUVAL-DAVIS, N. (1999): The 'multi-layered citizen', Inter-

national Feminist Journal of Politics, 1: 19-36.

ZUKIN, S. (1991): Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to DisneyWorld. University of California Press, Berkeley.

ZUKIN, S. (1995): The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell, Oxford.

ZUKIN, S. (1998): Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisa-

tion in space of consumption, Urban Studies, 35: 825-839.

Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ?3-4170

Documents

3554313