Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia - Landscaping The Contemporary City

Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia: Landscaping the Contemporary City Author(s): Gordon MacLeod and Kevin Ward Source:
Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 84, No. 3/4, Special Issue: The Dialectics of Utopia and Dystopia (2002), pp. 153-170 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554313 . Accessed: 28/07/2011 14:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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 support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing 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
SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

by Gordon MacLeod and Kevin Ward
G. K. MacLeod andWard, 2002:Spacesof UtopiaandDystopia: the City. Geogr.Ann., 84 B (3-4): Landscaping Contemporary 153-170. ABSTRACT.Some of the most recentliterature withinurban studiesgives the distinctimpression the contemporary that city now constitutesan intenselyunevenpatchwork utopianand of all intentsandpurposes, spacesthatare,to dystopian physically but For estranged. instance,so-called proximate institutionally as 1991)havebeenheralded a new Edenfor edgecities(Garreau, the information Meanwhiletenderlymanicured urbanvilage. lages, gated estates and fashionablygentrifiedinner-cityenclaves are all being furiouslymarketed idyllic landscapes as to ensurea varietyof lifestylefantasies.Suchlifestylesareoffered additional sites in expressionbeyondthe home, as renaissance many downtowns afford city stakeholdersthe pleasurable freedomsone mightordinarily associatewith urbancivic life. are None-the-less,strictassurances given abouthow these privatizeddomiciliary commercialized and 'public'spacesaresuitably excludedfrom the real and imaginedthreatsof another environment there'.This is cap'out fiercelyhostile,dystopian of turedin a number (largelyUS) perspectives whichwarnof a 'fortified' or 'revanchist'urban landscape,characterized by social andpoliticalunrestandpockmarked with marmounting ginal interstices:derelict industrialsites, concentrated hyperghettos, and peripheral shanty towns where the poor and the homelessareincreasingly shunted. paperoffersa reviewof Our some key debatesin urbangeography, poliplanningandurban In tics in orderto examinethis patchwork-quilt urbanism, doing which so, it seeks to uncoversome of the key processesthrough of urban landscapes utopiaanddystopiacome to contemporary exist in the way they do.
eas and are restrictedto others.Affluentpeople who inhabitexclusive enclaves also feel restricted;their feelings of fear keep them away fromregionsandpeople thattheirmental mapsof the city identifyas dangerous. (Caldeira,1999, p. 135) The city of physical proximity and institutional estrangement In his rallying call to envision possibilities for a more equitable,just and ecologically sustainable urbanfuture,David Harveycontendsthatmost of whatpasses for city planninghas been inspiredby utopianmodes of thought(Harvey,2000). This is evident in projectsrangingfrom Plato's Republic to those of the twentiethcenturythatowe muchof their character to pioneering thinkers such as EbenezerHowardandLe Corbusier. Antagonistic to the extremesof wealthandpovertypunctuating the emerging metropolis, Howard(1902) envisaged an alternativegood life achievablethrough the formationof gardencities: small-scale communitiesembeddedin a decentralizedsociety, itFor self traceableto the anarchismof Kropotkin. Howard,the GardenCity offereda 'peacefulpath to real reform', supersedingthe ugly vagariesof of not capitalism1 least throughthe establishment services' (Fishman,2002). Utopi'pro-municipal an planningwas also to finda powerfulexpression in the modernistparadigm,most notablythrough Le Corbusier's RadiantCity andthe CIAMmovement (Sandercock, 1998). According to Teresa Caldeira(1999, p. 127-8), the motivationbehind this formof utopiawas clear:'theerasureof social differenceand creationof equalityin the rational arcity of the futuremasteredby the avant-garde chitect'. Howard and Le Corbusierthus offered truly comprehensiveprogrammes of radical reform, which, in alliance with ambitiousprojectsof poendeavoured to litical andeconomicrestructuring, promoteurbansettlementsfoundeduponthe prin153
Utopianthinking:the capacity to imagine a futurethatdepartssignificantlyfromwhatwe in knowto be a general-condition the present. ... In the peculiarform of dystopias,utopian thinkingmay alertus to certaintendenciesin the present,which, if allowedto continueunchecked and carried to a logical extreme, would resultin a worldwe would find abhorrent. 2000, p. 462) (Friedmann, groupshave a sense of exclusion and restriction. Forsome, the feeling of exclusionis obvious, as they are deniedaccess to variousarGeografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ? 3-4
[In today's cities] ... Residents from all social
GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD
ciples of social solidarityratherthan segregation 2002). Tobe sure,thepossibilitiesof in(Fishman, corporationinherent in such programmeswere never completelyfulfilled. Moreover,the 'streetsuch level' modernisminstitutedby practitioners as New York's Robert Moses soon encountered criticismfor imposinga 'functional homogeneity' which some contendhelpedto destroythe vitality of difference intrinsic to a healthy urbanity (Jacobs, 1961; Sandercock,1998). This said, the featured referential of modernist role sigplanning nificantly in the municipalprojects that rapidly diffused across the global urbanlandscapein the period following the Second WorldWar:public housing programmesand the New Town movement in Britain being lasting legacies (Stocks, 2002). and were Nevertheless,if Howard Le Corbusier in able to reviewmuchof the current literature urban studies,each woulddoubtlessbe imbuedwith a deep sense of depression.Forthe contemporary city - featuringthe escalatingextremesof wealth and povertyso lamentedby Howardbut coupled with an intensifiedfiscal austerityto meet the rigours of global competition- appearsto be maniof festing as an intensely unevenpatchwork utopian and dystopianspaces that are, to all intents and purposes, physically proximatebut institutionally estranged.Put anotherway, the densely settled and heterogeneous'worlds'thatmakecities such vibrantplaces appearto be premisedinworldsand detached creasinglyupon 'indifferent lifestyles' (Allen, 1999, p. 91), all of which raises perplexingquestions for those currentlycharged with the planningandpoliticalgovernanceof cities. Yet these questionsare hardlynovel; indeed, ten years ago the American architecturecritic Michael Sorkin (1992a, p. xiv) contended how 'city planninghas largelyceasedits historicroleas the integrator communitiesin favorof managof ing selective developmentand enforcingdistinction'. Not thatthe principlesof utopiahave vanished from the lexicon of postmodernurbandevelopment. For example, so-called edge cities have been heraldedas a 'new Eden'for the post-industrial metropolitan landscape(Garreau,1991), alare though such proclamations conspicuouslysilent on thecornucopia social andenvironmental of to ills often lying adjacent these hubsof the informationalage. Likewise,tenderlymanicured urban villages, common interest developments, gated estates and fashionablygentrifiedinner-cityen154
claves are all being marketedfuriously as idyllic landscapesto ensure a variety of lifestyle fantasies. Such lifestyles areofferedadditionalexpression beyond the home as renaissance sites and spaces of consumptionin manydowntowns- festivalmarketplaces, specializedmalls,restoredwaand terfronts, vivaciousculturaldistricts- providwithmuchof the pleasurable ing city stakeholders freedomone mightordinarily associatewithurban civic life. None-the-less,andbuttressed firmlyby an unrelenting arsenalof humanand non-humansurveillance, strictassurancesare given abouthow these privatizeddomiciliaryand commercialized'public' spaces are suitablyexcludedfromthe real and of perceivedthreats another fiercelyhostile, dystoin 'out pianenvironment there'.Thisis captured the of growingbodyof workwarning a 'fortified','auor thoritarian' 'revanchist' urbanlandscape,characterizedby mountingsocial and political unrest andpockmarked with marginal derelict interstices: and industrial sites, concentrated hyperghettos peshantytownswherethe poor,the 'socially ripheral excluded'andthehomelessareshunted increasingof ly so as to facilitatethe new architectures renaissance (see, e.g. Davis, 1992;Robins, 1993; Christopherson, 1994; Wacquant,1994; Boyer, 1995; Smith,1998;Low, 1999; Swyngedouw, 2000; MacLeod, 2002). In Harvey's(2000, p. 152) summation, 'theeffect is to divideup the urbanrealminto a patchworkquilt of islands of relative affluence strugglingto securethemselvesin a sea of spreading decay'. In contemporary cities, then, the social groups class society apconstitutinga sharplysplintering pearto be negotiating particular time-geographies, snakingtheirrespectivepaths along a strictcomat pass of localizedand/ordistanciated landscapes, times giving rise to a tense, often anomic and alienating urbanfabric. Indeed these architectural and political economic contours raise profound questionsabout 'the city' as an object of analysis andalso aboutthe futureexpressionof citizenship, spatialjustice and urbanpolitics. Our paper reviews a rangeof perspectives highlightsome of that the most glaring utopian and dystopian patterns of characteristic manycities in the globalnorthand south2. doingso, we endeavour revealsome of In to the morecrucialeconomic andpoliticalprocesses throughwhich a varietyof utopianand dystopian the spacesareservingto 'landscape' contemporary city.
Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ? 3-4
Spaces of utopia I: Producing and consuming the transforming urban economy

The transformation of urban political priorities: from municipal managerialism to 'developers' utopias
the Throughout 1970s and 1980s,the eventualerosion of the Fordist'boom' was to leave a particuof impacton theurban landscapes larlydevastating NorthAmericaand WesternEurope(Brennerand deindustrialization alTheodore,2002). Rampant lied to a steadydrift of high-incometaxpayersto suburban 'bourgeois utopias' (Fishman, 2002) placed enormousfiscal stress at the frontdoor of wereexacerbated manycityhalls.Theseconditions for a relativedeclinein national/federal by support and provincialgovernment a festeringideological aversionto an urban 'way of life' on the part of 2000), all of groups(Harvey, electorallysignificant whichwasto compelvirtually cityregimesto reall consider their social bases of supportand their modes of regulation(Esser and Hirsch, 1989). In commitment short,the Keynesian'managerialist' to providewelfare,public services and collective consumptionto local citizens via a healthy local andnationaltax base, whichhadpredominated for much of the postwar era, was severely comprowereforcedto engage misedas urban governments in a demunicipalized and more 'entrepreneurial' to approach designedprimarily revivethe competitive position of their local economies (cf. Saunders, 1986;Harvey,1989a). In short,cities, or moreaccurately, authoricity ties, were impelled increasinglyto compete with As eachotherfora wholerangeof investments. part of this so-called 'new urbanpolitics'(Cox, 1993), virtuallyall cities and towns have witnessedtheir ambitious mayorsandpoliticalelites engagein the This has sycophantic courtingof privateinvestors. of parthelpedto mobilizea plethora public-private and nerships growthcoalitions,which,in turn,have pouredmassive amountsof public money into a range of speculativeendeavoursdesigned to imof provethephysicalandaestheticlandscapes their downtowns (Logan and Molotch. 1987; Zukin, 1991, 1995;Shortet al. 1993;Fainstein,1994). On a superficial level thereis little to disputethe success of this strategyfor urbanrenewal.For,thanks to the effortsof suchcoalitionsand,in the USA the establishment Business Improvement of Districts, numerousdeindustrialized eyesores and obsolete and waterfronts beenscrubbed have clean,purified,
in reinvented theformof whatHarvey dramatically (2000) calls 'developers' utopias". Examplesincludemixed-usebusiness,housing Wharf London in andleisurespacessuchas Canary and Edinburgh'sFinancial Exchange; 'festival such as FaneuilHall in Boston;wamarketplaces' terfrontpleasuredomes in rustbeltcities such as and Baltimore, Maryland Newcastle,UK; 'Disneyfled' leisure zones such as Times Squarein Midand town Manhattan; upmarket shoppingdistricts such as CoventGardenin Londonand the Italian Centre in Glasgow (Crilley, 1993; Zukin, 1995; 2000). Jon Goss (1996) Harvey,2000; Merrifield, also instructsus about how the 'festival marketacrossthe US urban places'thathavemushroomed landscapeoffer a 'regionallysensitive adaptation of an "idealmarket form"',which,by mixing outdoor and indoor spaces, offers an ambiencepurand socialinteraction there-into ported encourage of the city and market(Goss, 1996, p. tegration 221). ForGoss, courtesyof its restored physicallointerior cation,architecture, design,andretailconcontrivesto recover cepts, the festivalmarketplace a nostalgicsenseof historyandof a lost civic urban ideal.By deployingthis 'mythicalspiritof the marketplace',developers who oftenassumethe manvisionaries' are: tle of 'popular the reshaping innercity as a stage andstaging urban life as a drama of conspicuous conthat a phantasmagoria capitalistproduction of to marksthe threshold a dreamworldof utopian images andimaginingsof a mythicalnatural urbanism3. (Goss, 1996, pp. 235, 240) Furthermore, along the increasinglylabyrinthine necklaceof globalizingcities, a more generalized post-Fordist attention to urban 'lifestyle' has a helpedto precipitate rangeof alluringconsumpsumption. ... The festival marketplace [being]
tion spaces - nouvelle cuisine restaurants, bou-
recogtiquesandartgalleries- alongsideinstantly nizablecoffee bars(Starbucks being emblematic). For Pine and Gilmore(1999) these trendsare indicativeof an emerging'experienceeconomy', all the of whichhashelpedto 'aestheticize' visualconsumptionof public space, althoughironicallythis sechasbeen accompanied anescalating private by tor control over these very spaces (Zukin, 1995, 1998). Mecca,the tradiMovingawayfromdowntown tional out-of-townor suburban shoppingmall has
155
The suburbanization America was commonly of reasoned be a residential retailphenomenon: to and of a combination low-densityhousingandregional what had previously shoppingmalls transforming been agricultural undevelopedland (Jackson, or 1985; Crawford,1992). While not necessarilyrepeatedto the same extent across the global north, formspunctuated metropolitan the landsuburban the scapesof mostnationsthroughout post-war period.IntheUSA however, growthwas to be unthis settledquitedramatically the during 1980sas a new wave of property development saw massive amounts officespacecampingoutin thesuburbs. of The pre-eminentthinkeron this urban/suburban/ The awareness of highways in disrepair, ex-urbanformis Joel Garreau (1991), who, in his charred and abandoned tenements, the introductory remarks to Edge City: Life on the New homeless,de- Frontierwent so far as to arguethat: scourgeof drugs,the wandering networks- all are erased teriorating transport and ignoredin the idealizedcity tableauxset We Americans are going through the most as radicalchange in a centuryin how we build up beforethe spectator's eyes andpresented an entertaining show. our world,and most of us don't even know it. From coast to coast, every metropolisthat is (Boyer, 1992, p. 191) growingis doing so by sproutingstrangenew and are folded kinds of places: Edge Cities. ... Most of us Consumption entertainment thereby Andwhile suchthemedspacesareowned now spendourentirelives in andaround these together. and controlledby an institutional poweroften orEdge Cities, yet we barelyrecognizethemfor a whatthey are.That'sbecause they look nothdefinition, chestrating tightlyregulated appropriation and controlof territory (Goss, 1993; Hannithey meet none of ing like the old downtowns; of our preconceptions what constitutesa city. gan, 2002), they also offer a 'set of living, embodied geographies whichprovidea new sourceof valOurnew Edge Cities are tied togethernot by ue throughtheir performative locomotives and subways, but by freeways, push' (Amin and Thrift,2002, p. 125)4.The diffusionof these 'cajetways, andjogging paths.Theircharacteristhedralsof consumption' tic monumentis not a horse-mounted hero in (Ritzer,1999) acrossthe the square,but an atriumshieldingtrees permetropolitan cityscaperaisesa wholehostof questions for scholarsof planning,architecture, sociopetuallyin leaf at the cores of our corporate it fitness centres, and shopping logy, politicalscience andgeography. Certainly, headquarters, wouldseem to be the case thatmuchof theircomplazas.Ournew urbancentresaremarkednot mercialsuccessis downto the way in whichthe act by the penthousesof the old urbanrich,or the of buyingconnectsto the 'pleasure the spectacle of tenementsof the old urbanpoor, but by the in securedspaces, safe from violence or political celebratedsingle-familyhome with grass all around.For the rise of the Edge City reflects agitation' (Harvey,1989b,p. 271). Butif, as Chrisus moving our jobs - our means of creating topherson(1994) and Bauman(2000) argue, the wealth,the veryessence of oururbanism out very 'practiceof citizenship'is now interwoven moredeeplyinto the habitsandpracticesof privato where we've been living and shoppingfor tized consumer behaviourenclosed within such two generations.The wonder is that these 156
Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) * 3-4
itself undergone conversion. a Crawford (1992) offers anevocativeaccountof how manymega-malls endeavourto represent'public life in a pleasure dome'. Indeedin their most recentmanifestation suburban shoppingcentreshavebecome 'heterogenous consumption spaces'(Zukin,1998, p. 830), of wherethe incorporation 'themeparks,ridesand amusements multi-screen multiplexmovie and or theatres'has led to a diversification and intenin, sificationof, the consumption experience.Moreoverwheredevelopers introduce globallycelebrated withtheDisiconography suchas thatassociated ney Corporation the utopianmomentis accomis plished:for 'Disneyland theHoly See of creative the geography, placewheretheephemeral realityof the cinemais concretized into the stuffof the city' (Sorkin,1992b,p. 349). ForBoyer,however,these centresof spectaclehave the powerfulcapacityto erasethedistinctions betweenthecarefullyorchestratedspectacleand the emergingdystopiancityscape 'outside':
utopianpalaces5,then we have a responsibilityto examinethe extentto which this is leadingto new sociologies and geographiesof exclusion. We returnto this below.
Edge City: A 'new Eden 'for economic development?
places, these curious new urbancores, were villages or corn stubblejust thirtyyears ago. the Perhaps key axiomhereis thattheedge city represents a self-containedemployment, shopping, andentertainment permitting node millionsof conAmericans live, workandconsumein to temporary the same place: a concept that unequivocallydifferentiates fromthe traditional it suburb which and rendersit at leastfunctionallya city (Beauregard, 1995). Garreau(1991, pp. 6-7) establishesquite for exactingcriteria theedge city: (1) atleast5 million square of leasableoffice space- the workfeet place of the informationage; (2) 600,000 square feet or moreof leasableretailspace;(3) morejobs thanbedrooms;(4) its identificationas a 'place'; and (5) thatit was nothinglike a 'city' as recently as thirtyyearsago. Witharound200 in the USA more than four times the numberof comparably sized old downtowns- edge cities now contain of two-thirds America'soffice space.Classicexamples includesunlitregionssuch as OrangeCounty, south of Los Angeles and Boston's Route 128, in thoughtheycanalso be foundincreasingly frostbelt metropolessuch as Pittsburgh Cleveland. and In harmony with the US Constitution - perand its into haps morepertinently selective translation 1980s Reaganomics- 'individualism' and 'freedom' arethe shibbolethsof the edge city, not least in that,free fromthe grime and the social andpolitical inertias associated with past investments, households they possess a 'clean slate' permitting andinvestors explorenovel modesof living and to 1995). And, drawingliberworking(Beauregard, and ally on the frontier metaphor a discourseof enGarreau (1991, pp. 13, 8) himself trepreneurship, describesedgecities as a release'fromthe shackles of the nineteenth-century andthe 'crucibleof city' America's future'.He also contendsthatin contrast to the traditional the suburb, edge city permitsthe of in 'empowerment women', particularly relation to thebalancebetweenworkandhome,while their diffusionacrossmetropolitan Americaalso appears to be runningconcurrent with the rise of a black suburban middleclass. Incontrast theinnercity,thehomelessare'not to found sleeping outside the centresof commerce' Garreau (1991, p. 52), while the poor,unemployed andpoorersectionsof theracialminorities conare venientlyshieldedfrom view. Moreover, physical deteriorationis rare, the tax base is growing, schoolsaredecentandcrimenormallysmall-scale. Itis withall thesephysicalandsocialforcesin mind
thatGarreau (1991, pp. 14-15) heraldsedge cities as 'the most purposefulattemptAmericanshave madesince the days of the Founding Fathers try to to create somethinglike a new Eden' and that it squarelyaddresses 'the search for Utopia at the Centreof the AmericanDream'. And yet edge cities are not entirelydevoid of problems. Traffic congestion hinders mobility, are housingis expensive,low-wageworkers hardto find, and political bodies lag behindin providing and services (Beauregard, public infrastructure 1995), not least in thatthey rarelymatchpolitical boundaries arebereftof a charisand geographical matic mayoror politicallyled growthmachineto too press their case.6 Garreau acknowledgeshow edge cities often lack soul and a sense of community and history;their 'livability'being compromised by the lack of 'high culture',streetlife and social diversityone customarily associateswithurban civil society (cf. Sennett,1990). In fact 'about the closest thingyou findto a publicspace- where lot' just aboutanybodycango - is theparking (Garreau, 1991, p. 52). Criticsalso claim that the few or African-Americans Latinoswho reside in edge are city neighbourhoods segregated raceandinby come while,notsurprisingly, theseemergent ex-urbanspacesarepunctuated gatedhigh-security with communities, shadow governmentsand restrictions designedto enhanceproperty values (Beauregard,1995). All of this quite convenientlytakes us on-to the subjectof how certainclasses areento deavouring set up home in the emergingpatchworkurbanlandscape. Spaces of utopia II: Living the urban renaissance As alludedto above,the suburb long been prohas claimedas the foremostexpressionof a 'bourgeois utopia'(Fishman,2002). The late nineteenthand twentiethcenturywas to witnessa stampede the of viewed as an upperandmiddleclasses to suburbia, 'aestheticmarriage town andcountry'embodyof ing a new ideal of family life that renderedthe homea moresacredrefugethananypublicplaceof of worship.One by-product this was thatsuburbia soon becamepremisedon certainprinciplesof exclusion: work from residence,middle-classvillas and semis fromthe mass dwellingsof the working and class, womenfromdowntown hencethe world of power,all reflecting'thealienation themiddle of classes fromthe urban-industrial worldtheythemselves were creating'(Fishman,2002, p. 22). In
157
morerecenttimes, though,a rangeof domiciliary spaces would appearto be challengingthe traditionalsuburb the archetypal as utopia.In this section,we focuson threenotabletrends endeavouring for an idealexistenceandwhichreplicatethe logic (if not necessarilythe specificgeographies)of exclusioninherentin suburbia.
Gentrification: A 'blueprint'for city living?
of concernsabout integration economyandculture, with restoration become intertwined architectural role those aboutthe transformative of innerurban residents and 'celebrities'vis-a-vis their cultural habits,tastes and aesthetics.Indeed,Zukin(1998) increasdicatinghow key culturalintermediaries codes of conductand 'good ingly defineacceptable taste' in a variety of contexts includingTV proSungrammeson food and home improvements, and day supplements variouslifestyle magazines.7 mediado all theycanto inAndwhile suchfragrant of vite theopportunity massgentrification, manyof the those investigating possibilityof life in the revived innercity can testify to the limitedavailabilClass differenceand the ity of such opportunity. stenchof moneypowerpermeate everyporeof the new politicaleconomy. has Gentrification also assumeda politicalsalicaence. For example,in the UK, the widespread chet now associatedwith 'urbanliving' aligns it very muchwith the politics of 'Blairism';particularly when one recalls how the imageryand elecwas toralappealof Thatcherism so deeplyimplantit ed in the leafy Englishshires.Moresignificantly has permeatedthe sphere of urbanpolicy. Lees (2000) has identifiedhow two importantreports
talks of a critical infrastructureof consumption, in-
to Largelyabandoned the workingclass amid expansion,relinquishedto postwarsuburban for the poor and unemployedas reservations racialand ethnicminorities,the terrainof the inner city is suddenly valuable again, perverselyprofitable. (Smith, 1996, p. 6) Since RuthGlass' (1964) seminaltext, gentrification has long fascinatedthe mindsof urbanscholars.It refersto a process'by whichpoorandworkin ing-classneighborhoods the innercity arerefurbishedby an influx of privatecapitaland middleclass homebuyers renters' and (Smith,1996,p. 32). While the physicaland social impactsof gentrifiexhibitedin global cation are most unashamedly cities, it has now touchedmost urbanareasin deas velopedcountries,particularly they have experienceda displacementof manufacturing by jobs those in producerservices and the culturalindustries. Alongside this empirical significance, (1991) sees validtheoreticalreathough,Hamnett sons to take gentrification seriously.For it chaltheoriesof urbansociology, not lenges traditional least the Chicago School, which explicitly foreclosed the possibilityof a 'return the city'. It has to bealso become a key theoreticalbattleground shifts in the structure of tween those underscoring socialproduction (Smith,1979)andthosewho emphasizeagency,cultureand the pioneeringrole of the 'new middleclasses' (Ley, 1997). None-the-less,followingZukin's(1989) magisin terialleadin unravelling riseof gentrification the which carefullyconsideredthe SoHo, Manhattan, pointat which capitalandcultureintersect,recent how economicandcultural accountsacknowledge in factorsaremutuallyconstitutive shapingthe so(Lees, ciologies and geographiesof gentrification 1994; Smith, 1996; Robson and Butler, 2003). roles of Scholarsarealso identifyingtherespective gender,race and sexuality in shapinggentrification's locally specific weaves (Jacobs, 1996; Knopp,1998;Bondi, 1999).As partof this fruitful 158
sance (DETR, 1999) commissioned by the UK UrbanTaskForce, andThe State of government's of the Cities (HUD, 1998) by the US Department Housing and Urban Development's- have each sought to interweaveurban regenerationpolicy Asand renewal. withgentrification environmental sumingthe identityof urbanlivability/sustainabilis ity, gentrification prescribedas the 'medicine' for the ills of urbanBritainandAmerica.In effect, we arewitnessingvisionsfor a futureurban utopia: a blueprintfor the creationof an environmentally sustainableand culturallyenrichingexperiencein the city.SuchtrendspromptSawyer(1999, p. 307) to claimthat'the only way cities can competewith suburbia nowadaysis to turnthemselvesinto the same experience'. All of this raises interestingquestions about dishow, at a time when nationalstatesarefurther of avowingthemselvesfromtheresponsibility public housing,theyarelookingto fostera partnershiprenled processof gentrification magican urban to aissance.Certainlyif anyonetoday were to repeat Daniel Defoe's journeyacrossBritain,as they enteredeach city space- fromIslingtonto Inverness - they would hit upon endless signifiersproudly
that span the Atlantic - Towards an Urban Renais-
displayingthe benefitsassociatedwith 'life in the heartof the city'. A recentvisit to Leeds revealed local developersto proclaimhow 'loft living has come to town'. Indeedas Neil Smithhas recently contended, envelopedin the sugar-coated language is of 'regeneration', begentrification uncritically ing recastas a positiveandnecessaryenvironmental strategy: Not only does 'urbanregeneration' represent the nextwave of gentrification, plannedandfinancedon an unprecedented scale,butthe vicour tory of this languagein anesthetizing critin of ical understanding gentrification Europe representsa considerableideological victory for neoliberalvisions of the city. (Smith,2002, p. 446)
Celebrating a new urbanism
For increasingnumbersof home-seekersin the United Statesthis is the new Utopia - an escapefromwhatareseen as the ugly realities of urbanlife into the civic-mindedcommunities of front porches and safe, shady streets, and a returnto 1950s-style 'family values', a time of innocencein which, accordingto the promotionalvideo, the biggest decision is whetherto play kickthe can or king of the hill. ... Those who are currentlymoving in fully expect that other new residents will have a similaroutlookon life. 'It seems to me thatit will attractpeople with the same values' (in Katz, 1997). And if it does not, there are no shortageof rulesto ensureconformity. (Sandercock,1998, p. 194) Invokingthe notion of a 'village', it is claimed, bringswith it a sense of communityand a feeling of security.Furthermore, shieldedfrom the disorderlyusersof thecity,residentsbecomeactiveparspace ticipantsin the civilising of urban/suburban (see Burs, et al. 2002). However,it is these institutionalformsthatraisealarmbells amongcritics. are McCann(1995) informsus how new urbanists happyto drawselectivelyon Howard's utopianidehis belief als withouteverconsidering fundamental in the social ownershipof land. He makesthe relatedclaimthattherhetorical appealto community is aimedat 'certain sectionsof themiddleclass who and seek exclusivityin theirhousingdevelopments are willing to pay for it' (McCann,1995, p. 226). Sociologically,then,the new urbanmovementappearsto lack any reflexiveanalysisof its own asaboutclass, genderandracewhile it also sumptions appears to run counter to much contemporary thoughtin urbanplanningwhich advocatesa fostering of liberaltolerancethroughsocial mixture (Young,1990;Sandercock,1998).And in its pracit tical materialization, would seem to be premised of civic pridefora seupontherhetoric place-based the lect few while abandoning rest to their 'underclass' fate (Harvey, 2000).
'Voluntary ghettoization': gated communities and privatopias
Now fully formalized through a Charter(Kelbaugh, 2002), the new urbanismwas born in the USA amidescalatingconcernover the ecological soullessnature suburban of impactandpurportedly trafficcongestion, sprawland edge cities vis-ai-vis the commutingtime-geographies, commercialization of public space and the lack of a community spirit.New urbanistarchitectsand plannersclaim to counter a senseof this,reasserting neotraditional of place and communitythroughthe construction new urban villages and small towns. McCann (1995) identifiestwo schoolsof planningthathave been incorporated selectively into such neotraditional developments: urbanaesthetics,whose adformsto facilitatesocial vocatesview certainurban life morereadilythanothers,andthe social utopianismof the late nineteenth centurywhose protagto utoonists,like Howard,endeavoured construct two pias befittingthe industrial age. Interestingly, of new urbanism's leadingaficionados, Duanyand are Plater-Zyberk, keen to portrayneotraditional as fromthe alienation of developments sanctuaries life (sub)urban and as 'utopiasfor the post-industrialage' (McCann,1995, p. 218). In certainrespects,then,new urbanism offers a criticalutopianedge, not least in thatits protagonistsrebuffpostmodern to fragmentation pursuean organic,holisticidealforthefutureof cities andregions. Two of the most notableconcreteexpressions are locatedin Florida:Seaside and Celebration. In describingthe latter,Leonie Sandercock contendsthat:
the It seems indisputably case thatmanyeffortsto contriveurbanutopiasareprompted an intensiby fying concernon the partof individualsand families to insulatethemselvesfromthe threats physto ical, financialandemotionalsecurityoften associated with contemporary city life. While this de159
fence of lifestyle and privilege is evident in the gentrifyinginner city and in urbanvillages, it is most palpablein the CommonInterestDevelopments that increasinglyadorn the landscapesof vastmetropolitan regionssuchas LosAngeles,Sao and Paulo, Johannesburg Kuala Lumpur(Davis, 1990; Caldeira,1999; Webster,1999; Hook and as Vrdoljak,2002). Typicallythese are advertised a 'community' whereresidentsown or controlcertaincommonareasandsharedfacilitiesandamenities whilesimultaneously having'reciprocal rights and obligations'enforcedby a privategoverning body or 'community (Soja,2000). organization' The endeavour fully 'enclose' such commuto nities fromthe sullied 'city outside'reachesits zenithin the so-calledGatedCommunity.8 of its Two leading academic authoritiesidentify three variants: (1) Lifestyle Communities,often gearedtoof wardsretirees enthusiasts specificleisurepuror which suitssuchas golf; (2) PrestigeCommunities, arelargelyfortherichandfamous;and(3) Security Zone Communities9, exclusivelythe preserve less of the wealthy,and variouslylocated in the outer and innercity and built primarilyout of a fear of crimeand 'outsiders' (Blakelyand Snyder,1997). such 'communities'- but particularly Invariably those in wealthierneighbourhoods aregatedin a doublesense:physicallyin the formof high walls, fences,moats,guarded gatesandsecuritycameras, and on occasion via the boast of an 'armedrethrough sponse'(Davis, 1990); and institutionally practices,whereresidents'associtightregulatory hours ationsoftendictatetheage rangeof residents, of andfrequency visitors,house decor,size of pets andnumber children(Judd,1995).Davis'highly of evocativeaccountof Los Angeles informsus how:
traditionalluxury enclaves such as Beverly Hills andSanMarinoareincreasingly restricting publicaccess to theirpublic facilities,us- Spaces of dystopia: from malign ing baroquelayers of regulationsto build in- neglect to a revanchist urbanism? In the punitivecity, the post modem city, the visible walls. ... Residential areas with revanchistcity, diversityis no longer mainenough clout are thus able to privatizelocal tainedby protectingand strugglingto expand themselvesoff from publicspace,partitioning but the rights of the most disadvantaged, by the rest of the metropolis,even imposing a control'on of variant neighborhood out, 'passport pushingthe disadvantaged makingit clear outsiders. that, as brokenwindows ratherthan people, (Davis, 1990, pp. 244-6) they simplyhave no rightto the city. (Mitchell,2001, p. 71) Withinsuch 'privatopias' (MacKenzie,1994;Dear, aboveandin the con2000) securityhas become a 'positionalgood' of- As suggestedin the quotation of ten relatingto the protection equity,not least in cludingsentenceto the previoussection,one notathe elevate the ex- ble thread that 'gatedness'can dramatically running through recentcriticalurban
160
Geografiska Annaler * 84 B (2002) ? 3-4
changevalueof homes(Davis, 1990).Theveryaestheticsof securityhave also assumedan immense significance:gated estates offering not only new technologiesof securitybutalso of image,withTuMedievaland Moder styles dor, Mediterranean, frequentlycoexisting 'in a mishmashof colliding architectural genres, such that style becomes the vehicle for denyingthe violent context of the city (Hook andVrdoljak,2002, p. 201). Relatedly,the for advertisements such gated enclaves are unequivocal in presenting isolation - or what and McLaughlin Muncie(1999, p. 117) term 'voland untaryghettoization self-segregation' as offering a utopianworldof absolutionand security, fromthehostilityof city life clearlydistinguishable fence (Caldeira,1999). beyondthe perimeter in Some gateddevelopments the USA have acthe townships. tuallyattained statusof independent 471 includethreegated California's municipalities cities, and othersenjoy the right to levy for civic services,includingpolicingandcommunalservices such as schools (Platt,2001). And althoughit and kick-started reallytakenoff mayhaveproperly in the USA, gatednessis also to be foundin liberal certainmainland cities suchas Vancouver, European metropoles and picturesquetraditionalcities such as Lancaster, England(Websteret al. 2002). Indeedin Britain,developersareunableto keepup and withdemandfor bothsuburban city centregated estates (Platt,2001; Webster,2001). This rush is fortress towards security-obsessed a mentality no doubtbeingprecipitated thefactthatsuch 'comby munities' becomea powerfulsymbolforbeingprowithinanidyllic,high-quality tectedandbuttressed environment while 'beingoutside'evokes a dystopian world characterized exposure, isolation by andvulnerability (Judd,1995).
THECONTEMPORARY LANDSCAPING CITY SPACESOF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA:
to comfortably adjacent bourgeoissuburban utopias in manyEuropean cities (KeilandRonneberger, 1997; Mooney and Danson, 1997). Drawingon a varietyof cases, the followingsub-sectionsaim to the unravel socialrelations, recurrent and practices, architectural and institutional infrastructures aroundand throughwhich these two purportedly bipolarworldsassumetheirrespective geographies theirways of life. anduneasilymanoeuvre
Los Angeles' fortified urbanism
- the naming can hardly be incidental - that sit un-
studiesliterature the contentionthatthe various is to a attempts contriveurbanutopiasaregenerating flip side:the spacesthatremainuntouched such by are charendeavours gradually assuming dystopian acteristics. Examplescouldincludethe 'hyperghetto' thathas impactedon US cities since the 1980s andtrumps 1950sghettoin offering'anextraorthe dinaryprevalenceof physicaldangerand an acute sense of insecurity'(Wacquant, 1994, p. 276), and the multiplydeprived'peripheral' housingestates
Mike Davis' writings (1990, 1992, 1998) offer a bracing image of Los Angeles as an archetypal postmoder dystopia(cf. Dear,2002). He has little doubtthatthe rushby the city's bourgeoisieto insulate itself behind gated communitiesand enclosed office, shoppingandleisurequarters representsa spatiallogic of the growingsocial polarizationthatprevailed the throughout 1980s.Andin his LA' ilessay, 'Fortress (1992), Davis dramatically luminatesa contrastbetween spaces such as the luxurious CaliforniaPlaza frequentedby office workersand affluenttouristsand Fifth Streetonly a few blocksaway,where,through self-professed a 'containment' the are strategy, city authorities ento gagedin a mercilessstruggle makepublicspaces as 'unlivable' possible for the homeless andthe as poor.Theoutcomeof thisis thattheneighbourhood aroundFifth Street is being systematicallytransformedinto an outdoorpoorhouse. Indeed,beyondLA's affluentfortifiedenclaves, thetendencyhasbeento integrate urban design,architectureand the police apparatus into a 'single comprehensive securityeffort'(Davis, 1992). Pribus maryfeaturesinclude 'bumproof' benchesdesignedto denythe homelessthe tacticof sleeping, overheadsprinklersystems in public parks programmedto drenchunsuspectingsleepersduring the night, and the closureof manyoutdoorpublic toilets.10Moreover,Los Angeles Police Department- lobbiedby downtowndevelopersandcomGeografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ? 3-4
mercialinterests- has obliterated every effortby thehomelessandtheirsupporters createsafe ento leadingto a situationwherehomeless campments, people fugitivelywanderthe streetsdevoidof any of possessions.Meanwhile,the redevelopment the downtown Bunker Hill area - which houses a numberof billion-dollar including megastructures the Bonaventure Hotel complex- has severedvirtually all traditional pedestrianarteriesto the city centre.This was to appeasethe city's majordevelof aboutthedevaluation operswho wereconcerned propertyviewed to be a consequenceof Bunker Hill's proximityto publictransport, especially and its heavyuse by the blackandMexicanpoor.Bunker Hill has subsequentlybeen largely de-linked from the streetsoutside and insulatedfrom exposureto the city's workingclasses. ForDavis, farfrombeing an isolatedcase, such design features are proliferating across urban America(and we would arguebeyond):partand parcelof a hegemonicsocio-spatialstrategyof local stateofficialsin theirincessantsupport capfor italistinterests 2000; Mitch(Smith,1998;Harvey, and ell, 2001;Brenner Theodore, 2002). Theneteflive fect of this is thatAmericansnow increasingly in 'fortress cities': brutallydivided,often on racial and betweenprivatopian of affluence cells grounds, wherepublicandprivate dystopian spacesof terror police forcesbattlethe criminalized poorfor territorialrights.Judd(1995) refersto this as an escaAnd as more and more lating 'spatialapartheid'. and US citizens pull up theirprivate'drawbridge' the nation'slandscapeassumesthis hostile milieu, city streetsare becoming more desolate,publicly are fundedfacilitieslike libraries beingeroded,and leisurespaces such as beachesarebecomingmore All acutelysegregated. of this leads Davis to concludethat'apublicspacein theformof publiclandscapesandparksactingas key social safetyvalves arenow as obsoleteas Keynesianprinciplesof full employment'(Davis, 1992). One illustrationof howthisprocessoperates beyondUS shoresrelates to the way thata series of formerpublicbuildings in London- suchas theRoyalNorthern Hospitalin Islington- have recentlybeen convertedinto luxfenced off fromthe public (Arnot, ury apartments 2002).
Purified Places/'interdictory spaces'
Howcouldwe beginto explainthe scenario painted and aboveto urbanplannerssuch as Le Corbusier Howardwho, albeit via alternative routes, envis161
aged the desirabilityand necessity of social solidarityin enactingthe spatialityof the city? As we know,one theme thatappearsconsistentlyin conrelatesto 'security' whether urbanism temporary emotional,physicalor economic- andhow, in necity, thereis a fundagotiatingthe contemporary to mentalimperative establishandpreserveit. The workof StevenFlusty(1998,2001) is mostinstructivein explaining boththerationale thepractice and urbanvernacular. of this security-obsessed Flusty the (2001, p. 659) introduces conceptof 'interdictory space', which is designed to 'systematically excludethose adjudgedto be unsuitableand even and positionsdivergefromthe developers theirtarget markets'. space is therebyselectively excluInterdictory in sionaryspaceandis exemplified the architecturof al and institutional organization gated communities,corporate plazasandmanydowntownshopping malls. Malls are often physically enclosed, theirbackson the streetsoutside,although turning to ironicallymanyarealso beingauthorized re-create 'the street' and some organic civic milieux (Goss, 1993). None-the-less,their 'publicness'is always shapedby intensifyingpressuresto maxiof mize the profitability retailspace, often leading to a penalexclusionof streetpeople,politicalcampaigners,independentartists and buskers,all of the whommaybe deemedto compromise strictethics of 'consumerist citizenship'. l In termsof the phenomenologyof practice,then, while perhaps offeringa design-specifichavenfor some, the interdictory shoppingmall is verylikely to be a truly dystopian placeforotherswho arephysicallyor institutionallyexcluded or indeed those who feel fromthe briskrhythms consumerof marginalized ism.12 Now well established as a vital strategy to maintainthe value of erstwhilederelictzones that have been 'purified'(Doron,2000), Flusty argues has thatthe discourseand practiceof interdiction been recently modified.The early 1990s saw interdictoryspaces to be simultaneouslya regrettable necessity for counteringcrime and a potential threatto civil liberties(Fyfe and Bannister,1998; Soja, 2000). Now, however,they have assumeda as 'banality',tacitlyregarded a mainstayof the urban environmentand 'quaintified'as a positive culturalpresence,perhapseven a sourceof fun (at to least for those who correspond the segmentsof the populationbeing profitablycateredfor). For Flusty: 162
threatening ... [or] people whose class and cultural
Inflatedfears of the public sphere, even the of most local, impel the naturalization interquaintidictoryspace andthe complementary ficationof its material.In the process, spatial comes to entailmorethanjust the interdiction exclusion of multiplepopulationsand a wide rangeof associatedsocial practices.The natuof ralizationand quaintification interdiction entails taking such exclusions for granted. And as a furtherresult,questionsof interdictory space's sociospatialinjusticesandresultare antsocialdysfunctions pushedeverfurther into the realmof the inconceivable. (Flusty,2001, p. 661) urban As the following sub-sectiondemonstrates, andsuburban spacesarebeing suppleinterdictory withauthoritarian measmentedincreasingly legal ures and policing tactics designed to regulatethe very spatialpracticesof the displacedurbanpoor.
Re-regulating the poor: towards a revanchist city
Neil Smith's excavationof New York'schanging politicaleconomyhas led him to defineit as a revanchist Smith's(1996) arguments originate city13. fromhis rousingaccountof the bourgeoiscrusade of frontier Manhattan's to stretchthe gentrification statetacticsdeLowerEastSide andthe repressive a SquarePark: pubployedto 'winback'Tompkins lic spacereasonedto havebeen stolenfromgentrifiersand'thepublic'by thehomelessandothervictims of real estate displacement.Smith sees this event as signifyingthe onset of a ster anti-homethat less andanti-squatter movement expressedthe ethos of a revanchist city. Attackson New York's homelesspeople rapidlygatheredmomentum just as shantytowns grew up in railwaystations.And most shockingly,in the early 1990sthe 'Mole Peowholecommunities homeof ple' werediscovered: less previously 'unknown',including several encampments under bridges and in underground and transportation utilitytunnels. The presenceof these 'dystopian' spaceswas of great concern to the incoming mayor, Rudolph Giuliani.Butfollowinghis 1994electionandfaced witha ?3.1 billionbudgetdeficit,Giulianirevealed hisbonafideconcern- the purification the city's of of imageandthemaintenance its increasingly fragile bourgeoiseconomy- whenhe chose to cutpublic serviceswiththe explicitintentionof encouragto ing the poorestof the city's population move out of the city (Smith, 1996). Moreover,amidhis unGeografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) ? 3-4
to swerving preoccupation tame 'disorderin the NYPD of the city', Giulianiordered publicspaces officersto pursuewithZeroTolerance thosegroups viewed to be a genuinethreatto the 'qualityof urbanlife'. Withgentrification continuingapaceand the city bereftof a plan for relocatingits evictees, the and 'minorities, unemployed the poorestof the class aredestinedfor large-scale working displacement. Once isolated in centralcity enclaves,they to on areincreasingly herded reservations theurban (Smith,1996, p. 27). edge' Harvey (2000) uncovers similar processes in Baltimore,where in its effortto colonize the city has centre,a DowntownPrivate-Public Partnership implementedproposalsfor a ghettoized 'campus for the homeless' suitablyhiddenfrom the city's frontal regions.Mitchell(1997) too informsus how anti-homeless policies have multiplied across America's urban landscape in an attempt to 'cleanse'publicspacesof homelesspeopleby banishing them to the interstitialmargins. But the revanchist ethos also encompassesa whole raftof statepolicies thatare weddedto a neoliberalantiinsecuwelfareideology and,amidthe heightened rities of the new economy and risk society, a purfatigue'on the partof the midported'compassion dle class vis-a-vis the plight of the dispossessed (Mitchell,2001). Exploitingthis, Giulianiendeavouredto cut welfare,to discontinuethe construction of public housing, to augmentanti-immigration legislation,andto wage an ideologicalandfinancialattackon the publicuniversity system.It is in these senses thatrevanchism: blends revenge with reaction.It representsa of reactionagainstthe basic assumption liberbears al urban policy,namelythatgovernment for some responsibility ensuringa decentminimumlevel of dailylife for everyone.Thatpois liticalassumption now largelyreplacedby a the mostoppressed workers vendetta against and and 'welfaremothers',immigrants gays, people of color and homeless people, squatters, anyone who demonstrates in public. ...
the ugly cultural politicsof neoliberalglobalization. At differentscales it representsa response spearheadedfrom the standpointof white andmiddle-classinterestsagainstthose people who, they feel, stole their world (and theirpower)fromthem. (Smith, 1998, pp. 1, 10) All in all, this punitiveurbanvernacular signals a notablestepbeyondthe 'malignneglect'thatcharan acterized liberaleratowards activecriminalthe izationof urbanpovertyanda war againstwelfare (cf. WolchandDear,1993;Mitchell,2001). Moreover,whenblendedwith the rapiddiffusionof 'interdictory'privatopiasand fortifiedcathedralsof this consumption, assaulton the poorersectionsof vercities would seem to heraldan exclusionary14 sion of citizenshipandan erosionof spatialjustice 1999;Flusty,2001). (HolstonandAppadurai,
Representing, practising, and transgressing urban 'dead zones': unsettling utopia/dystopia
numerical dominance, throughstreet Through police and privateguards, throughthe very busiconfidencewith which [Anhanganbau's ness and professionalclasses] walk, 'they attempt to erase the traces of others'; but the other stories still live on, to emerge in other places, at othertimes. (Massey, 1999, p. 160) Scholarssuchas Davis, Flusty,SmithandMitchell offer valuableand extensive insights undoubtedly and into the changingurbantopography of the uneven impact of contemporary political economic on restructuring the cityscape.So far in this paper, however,we have indicatedhow theirreadingsof heralda horribly regresrestructuring socio-spatial sive future where the impoverishedand dispossessed are passive victims of the fortified/revanto chist city.Agency would appear be the preserve of developers, politicalelites, well-heeledconsumers, or thoseretiringto the self-servinggatedcommunity.We surmise,however,that it may well be the writingsof these said scholarsthatAmin and in Thrift(2002, p. 128)aretargeting theirclaimthat '[C]ertain doomsayingacademicshave madepessimisminto a high artform'. In Amin andThrift's estimation,the imagery and the prose being deare scholarship each ployedin muchcontemporary so highlyevocativethattheycoulddenyus thepostendencies'andto sibilityto locate 'countervailing 163
Blaming the victim has been raised from a commonpolitical tactic to a matterof established policy. ... This visceral revanchism is
no automaticresponse to economic ups and downs but is fosteredby the same economic shifts, and insecuritiesthatperuncertainties, and mittedthe more structured surgicalabdication of the state from many tasks of social Revanchismis in every respect reproduction.
doctrinesembodiedin revanchist regimes,they do offerillustrations the strugglesandsocio-spatial of dialecticsthroughwhich contemporary spaces of utopiaanddystopiaarepractisedandenacted. the Doron'sworkalso does muchto demonstrate hermeneuticand material force of language in it 'naming' space.Moreover, servesto highlightthe problematicrelationshipbetween representation and practiceat the heartof recentworkin the developmentand deploymentof non-representation theory(Thrift,2000; Lees, 2001;Amin andThrift, the 2002). Similarly, use of languagesuch as 'deprivation'to describethe conditionsof 'peripheral' housing estates can lead academics and governmentalprofessionalstowardsa process of 'othering' whereby they become partially blinded to many of the lived social and economic relations that form the heartbeatof such neighbourhoods. For example,Mooney and Danson's (1997) work revealshow in contrast theirpopular to depictionas isolatedlandscapesof despair,Glasgow's 'peripheral' housing estates generateconsiderablecommunity participationwith large numbers of the populationin regularformal employment,their contribution Glasgow'seconomythusbeing far to All from 'peripheral'. of this leads us to arguefor more earPlanners and architects ... puritanically blind the need to examine city restructuring themselves from seeing that the prostitutes, nestly at the (street)level of dynamicsocial relahomeless,streetactorsor streetsellers arethe tions (see also Newman,2000). ones who transformthe street from traffic channels (human or vehicles) to a livingand Approaching utopia, dystopia and a workingspace,to a space of performance festivity,to a place to be in and not only to patchwork urbanism A crucial question ... is how to include the move through, 24 hoursa day. and (Doron,2000, p. 254) ethnographic presentin planning,that is, the in possibilitiesfor change encountered existSuch actsof transgression wherebythe use value ing social conditions. of publicor privatespaces is transformed (Holston, 1999, p. 166) through recurrent practice or design modifications- are to classicallydeployedin the act of squatting(Chat- In ourintroduction this paper,we suggestedthat terton,2002).AndNeil Smith(1992) is notentirely the contemporary city might be assuming an incharacterized silenton such spacesof escape.Forhis analysisof creasinglyfragmented by geography the so-calledHomelessVehicleoffersanintriguing a patchworkquilt of spaces that are physically example of the subversivenessof mobility de- proximatebut institutionallyestranged.It would in portrayal ployedby homelesspeopleto contestthe effortsof certainlyseem to be a near-dominant NewYork's growthregimeto sanctiontheirerasure much criticalurbanstudies,and for the most part fromthe city's publicspaces. Lees (1998) too has one with which we would concur.None-the-less examinedhow by sleeping in certainstrategically the natureof this fragmenting collage and disinteraisesa fundasignificantspaces, Vancouver's'GranvilleStreet gratingurban'society'immediately kids' dramatize rightof the poornot to be iso- mentalquestion:how can we effectivelydescribe, the lated and excluded.And while such acts of trans- mapandtheorizethe contemporary city? In a quite Ed gression and strategiesof visibility do not neces- heroicendeavour, Soja (2000) proffersthe conthe sarilyoverwhelm economic,politicalandmoral cept of the 'postmetropolis'. Soja sees the modem 164
Geografiska Annaler ? 84 B (2002) * 3-4
identifyhow some groupscontriveandpracticeeffective 'spacesof escape'(see also Keil, 1999;Soja, 2000). Gil Doron (2000) raises analogous themes in that contending the discourseandpracticeof planto ninghaslongbeenpreoccupied define,nameand builtenvironcertainspacesin the urban represent ment as 'wastelands', 'derelict areas', 'dead voids'. These areneitherslums zones', and 'urban with impoverishedbut defined communitiesnor open public spaces but refer to areassuch as disused harboursand train yards, closed industrial yards,or empty spaces and empty lots. From the of perspective thoseinterestgroupseagerto further commodifyurbanland use, such spaces may representdeadzones. However,as Doronpoints out, they are certainlynot dead from the phenomenological perspectiveof the urban wildlife, social groupsandartisticcommunitieswho occupy such spaces.In otherwords,for some groupsnot incorporatedas part of the contemporary'imageable city', the urbanspaces popularlyrepresentedas be dystopiasmayactually practisedas essentialhalived spaces of escape, refuge, vens, transgressive Thus: and employment entertainment.
SPACESOF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THECONTEMPORARY CITY
metropolisas characterized a distinctiveurban by centresurrounded a sprawling suburban by periphthe landery.In contrast, emergingurban-regional with green-fieldedge cities, scape - pockmarked downtraditional suburbs, gatedestates,revitalized towns andgentrified enclaves- is thuspunctuated that the by a rangeof spatialities aredecentring city, formingan increasinglycomplexurbangeometry. Indeedsuch a decentred landscapecontainsmuch the thatdisturbs 'densityof settlement' ordinarwe ily associatewith cities (cf. Pile, 1999).Moreover, andborrowing fromthe regulation approach, Soja is contendsthat this new regime of urbanization coupledwith a new mode of social andspatialregulationenactedin partthrough: aboutby new developments the priin brought vatization, policing, surveillance, governance, anddesignof thebuiltenvironment thepoand litical geographyof cityspace.Respondingto
what Mike Davis ... has described as an enthe intensification of social and spatial control
demic ecology of fear, the postmetropolitan has landscape become filledwith manydifferent kindsof protected fortifiedspaces,isand lands of enclosureand anticipated protection againstthe real andimagineddangersof daily life. Borrowing fromFoucault, postmetropthe olis is represented a collectionof carceral as cities, an archipelagoof 'normalizedenclosures'andfortifiedspacesthatbothvoluntarily and involuntarilybarricadeindividuals and communitiesin visible and not-so-visibleurban islands,overseenby restructured formsof publicandprivate powerandauthority. (Soja,2000, p. 299; emphasesin original) At a varietyof spatialscales, then,this splintering urbanism reinforcement the of sees an institutional boundaries betweencity andsuburb, andpoor, rich northand south,all accompanied new formsof by To elitism and intolerance. be sure,thereis much endeavour constructurbanand post-urban utoto pias. But the self-enclosedandindeedself-exiling underconstruction whatHarare utopiascurrently vey (following the ideas of Marin(1984)) terms 'degenerate utopias':degeneratenot least in that theyofferno critiqueof the existingstateof affairs on the outside(Harvey,2000, p. 164). Andthisgets us rightto the nubof Utopia:for as of Harvey(ibid.)asks: 'can anyutopianism spatial be formthatgets materialized anythingotherthan in "degenerate" the sense thatMarinhas in mind?'
Itis interesting undoubtedly and to quitesignificant notehow so manyappealsfor utopianurbanorders are ontologicallyfixed at a relativelysmall scale: fromPlato's 'democratic' Athensof 5 000 inhabitants, Howard'sgardencities housing 25 000, the gated communities on the perimeter of US metropoles,to the new urbanvillages being conin structed the centreof UK cities.All of this might imply thatwe may wish to consignutopianthinking to the historybooks. However,in a stem derebuffs fence of utopianthinking,JohnFriedmann such negativeassertion.Accordingto Friedmann limitationsabout (2000), if we beginwith inherent the possibilities of purposive action ratherthan withimagesof desirable futures,thenwe denyourselvestheutopian that imaginations mightgenerate the passionnecessaryfor a social movementto enactthoseveryimaginings.He thenofferssome stirring imaginingsfor the 'good city' vis-a-vis theoreticalconsiderations, rights,civility,social provision andgood governance. Leonie Sandercock(1998) stretchesfurtherin her searchfor a postmoder utopia:a cosmopolis where there is genuine connection with, and respectandspacefor,the cultural'other'.In orderto envision this 'constructionsite of the mind', she calls for contemporary planningtheoryto urgently disavowmodernismso as to confrontthe shifting spatialitiesoutlinedabove and to appreciatehow witha seriesof interthesearemutually constituted connectingsocialforcesassociatedwithglobalization, especiallythe rise of mass inter-urban migration of economies, ideas and people. For Sandercock, these complex humanmigrationsare interin twined with strugglesover space, particularly termsof who belongswhereandwithwhatcitizenship rights.Hereshe drawson Holston'sworkon: The spacesof insurgent citizenship[that]conforms of the social stitute new metropolitan not yet liquidated or absorbed into the old. by As such they embody alternativefutures.... They are sites of insurgencebecause they introduceinto the city new identitiesand practices thatdisturbestablishedhistories'. (Holston, 1999, pp. 158, 167) Accordingto Sandercock,planningprofessionals haveyet to confront theseshiftingsocio-spatialities with 'conandhave,in effect,becomepreoccupied trolling' the citizenry.To this extent, the noir of planning has become reactionaryand complicit with the dominant culture:
165
All too often, 'we' - plannersrespondingto politicians- areengagedin an ongoing battle to keep 'them'['others']out of ourcommunities. And we createand use planninglegislation for this very purpose.... Such is our fear of the Other- a fearof thosewho areculturally differentandof peoplewhose symbolicand realpresencespeaksof economicinstabilitythatwe try to maketheminvisible,by removour neighbourhoods, communities,our parts of the city.And whatwe can'tdo collectively, we try to make up for by individualsecurity systems, patrolled neighbourhoods, gated communities. 1998, p. 21). (Sandercock, The contentandnature thishighlystirring of quote lead us to say somethingaboutdystopia.The por(2000, p. trayalof dystopian images,as Friedmann 462) indicates,alertsus to processesthat,if disregarded,would lead to an urbanfuture 'we would find abhorrent'. However,and in a similarvein to Amin andThrift'sswipe at 'doomsaying' academics, Merrifield(2000, p. 474) has intonedhow so many critical urban scholars seem utterly compelled towardsthe very featuresthey/we hate and arebattling stampout,suchas homelessness.He to cites Mike Davis' work as an exemplarwherethe more Davis recountsLos Angeles' 'carceralcity', the morewe aredrawntowards geographies its and 'mesmerized fascinated its dynamics,by its and by perversity and absurdity' (Merrifield,2000, p. is how 473). HereMerrifield acknowledging therepulsiveandeven the garishin city life mayactually be quitetitillating,simultaneously thrillingandappalling,while in the processwe all hate ourselves for being thrilled! Interestingly,Merrifieldthen suggestshow: [Peoplemay] only inventutopiasandnot really want to live in them. [For]Living in them meansthe end of novelty,fantasyandcuriosity; everythingwould become routine, never the to adventure, death-knell the humanspirit. 2000, p. 479) (Merrifield,
ing them - legally, of course ... - from our
thesethemesstretches beyondthe scope of this paper, we do wish to conclude with two issues we consider vital in definingand envisioninga progressiveurban politics.Thefirstconcernsa relative ignoranceof the state in much of critical urban studies.We areawarethatmanygatedhousingdevelopmentscreatea privateworldthatshareslittle with its neighboursor the largerpolitical system that 'underminesthe leading to a fragmentation life' (Blakely,1997;citedin Platt,2001, p. 22). We and ecoalso know that certainneighbourhoods nomic regionsdiscussedabovearebereftof a maturedemocratic politicalmilieu.As MichaelDear a (2000) warns,thishaspermitted formof 'shadow that can tax and legislate for issues government' such as policing. But it is rarely accountable mandate is oftenresponand a through democratic sive largely to the whims of globally oriented wealthcreation.Now while it may be temptingto interpretthis as indicative of some 'end of the state',thestateis farfromabsentin all this:its ideothe logical armorchestrating legislationgoverning arm private just property utopias as its repressive sipolices the dystopianspaces of the multaneously revanchist city. Similarly,the plethoraof edge citleisurezones andfortifiedprivatoies, interdictory new piasareall generating physicalandinstitutional scales of enclosure,new zones of governance (Baeten,thisissue).None-the-lessourpoliticalgeof ographicalappreciation this emerging patchworkof theurban remainsfeeble anddelandscape mandingof urgentscholarlyattention. A second issue concernsthe tendencyto elide territorial forms, most citizenshipwith particular notably the nation-state.Caldeira(1999, p. 137; aboutthe emphasesadded)offerssome rethinking parametersof citizenship in cities and suggests in thatthe 'criterion participation political life for
could be local residence rather than national citivery concept of civitas - organized community
zenship'. She then adds that this more locally forgedmodeof politicalidentitycould providethe for opportunity immigrant populationsto become engagedmoreactivelyin progressivelyreshaping their everyday lives. A more radical approach would be to decouple citizenship from any one It particularterritoriality. is here that Holston's The courageousand variedarguments workon the wideninggulf offeredby (1999) anthropological and raisea host betweenformalandsubstantive Sandercock Merrifield Friedmann, citizenshipproves of questionsaboutthewaysin whichwe mightseek most instructive(see also Yuval-Davis,1999; cf. to imagine,campaignon behalfof, plan,research, Marshall,1950). He pointsto one possible way of live transform, in, departfrom, love and hate our seeing a new avenuefor urbanplanningthrough cities. While furtherdiscussion on 'multiplecitizenshipsbasedon the local, regional contemporary 166
LANDSCAPING THECONTEMPORARY CITY SPACESOF UTOPIAAND DYSTOPIA:
and transnationalaffiliations that aggregate in urbanexperience'(Holston, 1999, contemporary p. 169). Here, thereis no intentionof necessarily privileging 'the local' in the formationof a progressive politics. Rather,it is aboutsteppingoutside of the state's legal and political framework anddaringto contemplate in rightsdifferently, the contextof the 'social dramas the new collective of and personal spaces of the city' (ibid, see also Amin, et al. 2000). To this end, then,while retaining some methodologicaland theoreticalgrip on the state, we must simultaneously reimaginenew lines of politicalengagementbeyondits very contours. Not to do so would be to foreclose future discussions on the definition of citizenship and to denyus the opportunity engagein a progressive of the urbanquilt. remaking
into unconsciousness'.Instead, and acknowledginghere the practicesand performances agents, we need to be of awareof how 'consumersof the goods and services they areafforded such spaces, ... activelyperform theirpresby ence in specific motile milieus' (Aminand Thrift,2002, p. 124). 5. On this theme, Goss (1993) points to the ways in which retailspaceis increasingly colonizingotherprivateplanned ly ownedpublicspacessuch as hotels,railwaystations,airports,office buildingsand hospitals,as shoppingbecomes the dominant of expression contemporary publiclife. 6. In his commentary Garreau's on ideas, Beauregard (1995) has also pointedout how Garreau relativelysilent about is politics,exceptto pointout thatedge cities often spanpolitical jurisdictions are thus governedby multiplebodies and or exist in unincorporated areas. 7. Newspapers and 'lifestyle' magazinesregularlyglamorize the lifestyleof peoplelivingin eitherbrownstone townhouses with theiroriginalpanellingand wood-burning fireplaces, or in largefactorylofts (Zukin,1998).This is classically in illustrated JeremyGates'(2002a,b, c) regular featuresin
Hello! Magazine.
8. In the early 1960stherewerefewerthan1000 CommonInterestDevelopments. by the mid-1980sthereweremore But Acknowledgements than80000, andabouteightout of everyten urbanprojects in the USA are 'gated'(BlakelyandSnyder,1997). The authors gratefulto GuyBaeten,EricClark are andtwo anonymous refereesfor helpfulcomments 9. HookandVrdoljak(2002) have recentlyindicatedhow the to SouthAfricanversionof the gatedcommunity referred is on an earlier version of this paper. Gordon as the SecurityPark. MacLeodgratefullyacknowledgesthe supportof 10. While a 'fortifiedurbanism'probablyreachesits zenithin in cities suchas LA andSao Paolo,recentdevelopments the The LeverhulmeTrust for funding the research and centreof Manchester otherUK cities confirmhow simiPublic Space in Urban Britain (Ref RG/8/ project lar architectures throughthe veins of Britain'scurrent run 2000/0372). The usualdisclaimersapply. 'urban renaissance'. 11. Leasingagentseven planthe mix of tenantsandtheirlocations withinthe mall, usuallyexcludingrepairshops, launNotes dromats thriftstores,each of which might 'remindthe and consumerof the materiality the commodityand attract of 1. Although, saw ironically,mostof his supporters it as a way of thosewhosepresencemightchallengethe normality conin whichcapitalism couldbe preserved (Fishman, 2002). (Goss, 1993). sumption' 2. A great deal of the most influential- and provocativeconstitutean (albeitlimited) has scholarship emergedfromcities in the USA, particularly 12. Recent'slow food' campaigns to attempt counterthe pace of existenceforcedupon those New YorkandLos Angeles.And in a paperof this nature, the negotiating consumerist city. of thereareobviousdangers assuming genericchangefrom is wordfor revenge,andSmith'srefcases (Thrift,1997).We arethussensi- 13. 'Revanche' the French such 'paradigmatic' erent here is the 'revanchist'political movementwhich, tive to AminandThrift's(2002,p. 5) chargethat'evocation the century, throughout last threedecadesof the ninteteenth for cannotalwaysbe a substitute systematic analysis'.In orreactedviolentlyagainstthe relativeliberalismof the Secof derto illustrate nature contemporary the utopiasanddysondEmpire the socialismof the ParisCommune. and cashigh-profile, symptomatic topiaswe do drawon certain 14. The regularity with which we have thus far deployedthe with additional cases, butwherepossiblewe also illustrate us terms'inclusion'and 'exclusion'prompts to pausebriefes and, where appropriate, seek to draw out the practices and ly for reflection.As with all suchbinaryoppositions dithat andprocessesof socio-spatiality help to fashionutopichotomousmodes of thought(Lees, 1998), there are danas/dystopias. a gers of presenting blanketreadingwherebyall exclusions 3. Festival marketplaces profoundlyambivalentplaces, are are bad and all inclusionsare good. However,as Iveson's commitwhich, for Goss (1996, p. 221) in theirrhetorical (2002) studyof the exclusionof men fromMclversladies' ment to utopianvalues of urbanism open up opportunities baths in Coogee, a suburbof Sydney, indicates,inclusion forurban politicsthatcritiques ignore.Thuseven if contemandexclusion'needto be interrogated respectto procwith abclasses areconspicuously poraryworkingand marginal esses throughwhich they are politicallyjustified,thus enasent fromthe spectacleof consumption, labourof their the kinds to betweendifferent blingcriticaltheorists distinguish is in historical material counterparts aestheticized preserved of exclusion'. and culture,imagesof the workingwaterfront employment of 'streetartists'- the original'streetpeople'. 4. In analyzingcontemporary consumption spaces, there are Gordon MacLeod, Department of Geography, Uniobvious dangersof reproducing excesses of Adorno's the versity of Durham, Durham, DHI 3LE, 44(0)191critique of ideology and popularculture. However, and while not wishing to detractfrom their ideological influ- 374-7065 malls don't simply 'bludgeon... consumers E-mail:Gordon.MacLeod@durham.ac.uk ence, shopping
167
GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVINWARD
Kevin Ward, School of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, 44(0)161275-7877
DAVIS,M. (1998):Ecologyof Fear: LosAngelesand the Imagination of Disaster. Metropolitan Books-Henryholt, New York.
DEAR, M. (2000): The Postmodern Urban Condition. Oxford,
E-mail:k.g.ward@man.ac.uk References
ALLEN,J. (1999): Worldswithincities, in MASSEY,D., ALLEN,J. andPILE,S. (eds):CityWorlds. London, Routledge,
pp. 55-97. AMIN, A. and THRIFT, N. (2002): Cities: Reimagining the Ur-
Blackwell. DEAR,M. (ed.) (2002):FromChicagoto LA:MakingSense of an DETR(1999):Towards urbanrenaissance: sharingthevision. of and Transport the Regions Department the Environment, (http:www.regeneration.detr.gov.uk/urbanren/l.html) of G. DORON, (2000):TheDeadZoneandthearchitecture transgression,City,4: 247-63. J. and J. ESSER, andHIRSCH, (1989):Thecrisisof Fordism thediInterand mensions a 'postFordist' of structure, regional urban and 13:417-37. national Journal Urban Regional Research, of and PlanS. FAINSTEIN, (1994): TheCityBuilders:Property and Blackwell,Oxford. ning in London New York, and Howard Le R. Ebenezer FISHMAN, (1996):Urban Utopias: in S. Corbusier, CAMPBELL, and FAINSTEIN,S. (eds): Blackwell,Oxford. Readingsin PlanningTheory, in visionsof suburbia, R. FISHMAN, (2002):Bourgeois utopias: S. S. FAINSTEIN, andCAMPBELL, (eds):Readingsin Urban Theory, Blackwell,Oxford. in FLUSTY,S. (1998):Buildingparanoia, ELLIN,N. (ed.):Architecture Fear. Princeton Press,NT. of University surveillance, FLUSTY,S. (2001): The banalityof interdiction: Jourof controlandthedisplacement diversity, International nal of UrbanandRegionalResearch, 658-664. 25: J. FRIEDMANN, (2000):The GoodCity:in defenseof Utopian Journalof Urbanand RegionalRethinking,International
Urban Theory. Sage, London.
ban.Polity,Cambridge. N. AMIN,A., MASSEY,D. andTHRIFT, (2000):Cities the for

Many not the Few. Policy Press, Bristol. ARNOT, C. (2002): The great escape. The Guardian, Society, 30
2-3. January: BAUMAN,Z. (2000):Liquid Modernity. Polity,Cambridge. the R. BEAUREGARD, (1995):EdgeCities:peripheralizing cen16: tre, UrbanGeography, 708-721. E. M. America: GatBLAKELY, andSNYDER, (1997):Fortress ed Communities the United States. BrookingsInstitute in DC. Press,Washington, BONDI,L. (1999): Gender,class, and gentrification: enriching thedebate, Environment PlanningD: SocietyandSpace, and 17:261-282. BOYER,C. (1992): Cities for sale: merchandising history at on SouthStreetSeaport, SORKIN, (ed.): Variations a in M. Theme Park:TheNewAmerican Cityand the Endof Public Space.Hill andWang,New York. search, 24: 460-72. in FYFE,N. andBANNISTER, (1998):Theeyes uponthe street: fantastic BOYER,C. (1995):Thegreatframe-up: appearances J. H. contemporary spatialpolitics,in LIGGETT, andPERRY, closedcircuittelevisionsurveillance thecity,in FYFE,N. and in D. (eds):SpatialPractices:CriticalExplorations Social/ and (ed.):Imagesof the Street:Planning,Identity Controlin Oaks,CA. spatialTheory, Sage,Thousand Public Space. Routledge, London. N. N. BRENNER, andTHEODORE, (eds)(2002):SpacesofNeGARREAU, J. (1991): Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Douin oliberalism:UrbanRestructuring WesternEuropeand bleday,New York. North America. Blackwell, Oxford. urban dreams: are GATES,J. (2002a):Penthouse high-fliers litJ. and BURNS, C., CAMPBELL, DUANY, A., KAYDEN, R., Hello!, 711: S 10-11, (April). erallyskybound, In A. KRIEGER, (2002): Urbanor suburban? FAINSTEIN, GATES,J. (2002b):Waterside offer living:canal-side properties S and CAMPBELL, S (eds): Readings in Urban Theory. chic urban living,Hello! 712: S10-11 (May). Blackwell,Oxford. town house is GATES,J. (2002c):Hit the town:the traditional T. enclaves:the new urban CALDEIRA, (1999):Fortified segrebackin style,Hello!,715: S10-11 (May). gation, in HOLSTON J. (ed.): Cities and Citizenship. Duke GOSS,J. (1993):The 'magicof themall':ananalysisof theform, NC. Press,Durham, retailbuiltenvifunction,andmeaningin the contemporary P. (2002):Squatting stilllegalandfree:a brief is CHATTERTON, ronment,Annals of the Associationof AmericanGeogra34: 1-7. in intervention the corporate Antipode, city, phers, 83: 18-47. S. CHRISTOPHERSON, (1994): The fortresscity: privatized GOSS,J. (1996):Disquieton the waterfront: Reflections noson in spaces,consumer citizenship, AMIN,A. (ed.):Post-Fordof talgiaafldUtopiain the urban archetypes festivalmarketism:A Reader.Blackwell,Oxford,pp. 409-427. places, Urban Geography, 17: 221-47. COX, K. R. (1993): The local andthe globalin the New Urban HAMNETT, (1991):The blindmen andthe elephant: exthe C. and and D: Politics,Environment Planning Society Space,11: planation of gentrification, Transactions of the Institute of 433-448. 16: BritishGeographers, 173-89. M. CRAWFORD, (1992):Theworldin a shopping mall,in SOR- HANNIGAN, J. (1998): The Postmodern Metropolis. Routledge, on Park:TheNewAmerKIN,M. (ed.):Variations a Theme New York. ican Cityand the Endof PublicSpace.Hill andWang,New to HARVEY,D. (1989a):Frommanagerialism entrepreneurialYork. ism:the transformation urban of in governance LateCapitalD. aesthetand CRILLEY, (1993):Megastructures urban change: Annaler,71B: 3-17. ism, Geografiska ics, ideologyanddesign,in KNOX,P. (ed.):TheRestlessUr- HARVEY,D. (1989b):The UrbanExperience. Blackwell,Oxban Landscape. Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs,NJ. ford. M. (1990):Cityof Quartz: theFuturein Los HARVEY,D. (2000): Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh DAVIS, Excavating University, Angeles.Verso,London. Press,Edinburgh. of Los DAVIS,M. (1992):Fortress Angeles:themilitarization ur- HOLSTON, (1999):Spacesof insurgent in J. citizenship', HOLban space, in SORKIN, M. (ed.): Variations on a Theme Park:
TheNewAmerican andtheEndof PublicSpace.Hilland City Wang,New York.
STON, J. (ed.): Cities and Citizenship. Duke Press, Durham
NC, pp. 157-73. J. A. Cities HOLSTON, andAPPADURAI, (1999):Introduction:

168
SPACESOF UTOPIAAND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THECONTEMPORARY CITY and citizenship,in HOLSTON, (ed.): Citiesand CitizenJ. NC. ship.DukePress,Durham, hetD. M. HOOK, andVRDOLJAK, (2002):Gated communities, of and of a erotopia the 'rights privilege: 'heterotopology' the 33: SouthAfricansecurity-park, Geoforum, 195-219. HOWARD,E. (1902): GardenCities of Tomorrow (2nd ed.). SwanSonnenschein, London. on K. Exclusion: Critical Reflections IVESON, (2002):Justifying the DisputeoverMclversLadies'Baths.PublicSphereNetUniverof work,Working Paper1, Department Geography, England. sity of Durham, Cities. J. JACOBS, (1961):TheDeathandLifeof GreatAmerican Random House,New York. and J. Postcolonialism the JACOBS, M. (1996):Edgeof Empire: London. City.Routledge, JONAS,A. andWILSON,D. (eds) (1999): The UrbanGrowth Machine:CriticalPerspectivesTwoDecadesLater.SUNY, New York. JUDD,D. (1995): The rise of the New WalledCities, in LIGGETT,H. andPERRY,D. (eds):SpatialPractices:Critical in Oaks, Explorations Social/Spatial Theory. Sage,Thousand CA. and Urbanization KEIL,R. (1999):LosAngeles:Globalization, SocialStruggles. Wiley, Chichester. in S. D. KELBAUGH, (2002):The new urbanism, FAINSTEIN, BlackandCAMPBELL, (eds):Readngs in Urban S. Theory. well, Oxford. L. KNOPP, (1998):Sexualityandurban space:gaymaleidentity in R. politicsin theUS, theUK,andAustralia, FINCHER, and Guilford J. Press,New JACOBS, (eds):Citiesof Difference, York. M. LAURIA, (ed.) (1997):Reconstructing RegimeTheory: RegulatingUrbanPolitics in a GlobalEconomy, Sage, London. C. LEADBEATER, (2000):Livingon ThinAir: TheNew EconLondon. omy.Penguin, LEES,L. (1994):Rethinking gentrification: beyondthepositions of economicsor culture, 18: Geography, Progressin Human 137-50. renaissance thestreet: and LEES,L. (1998):Urban spacesof conin trolandcontestation, FYFE,N. (ed.):Imagesof theStreet: and Controlin PublicSpace.Routledge, Planning,Identity London. a towards 'geoof LEES,L. (2000):A reappraisal gentrification: 24: of ProgressinHuman Geography, graphy gentrification', 389-408. of LEES,L. (2001):Towardsa criticalgeography architecture: 8: the case of an ersatzColosseum, Ecumene, 51-86. LEY,D. (1997): TheNew MiddleClassesand the Remaking of CentralCities.OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford. H. LOGAN.J, and MOLOTCH, (1987): UrbanFortunes:The of BerkePoliticalEconomy Place. University California, of ley. the LOW,S. (1999): Introduction: Theorizing city, in LOW,L. (ed.): Theorizingthe City. RutgersUniversityPress, New 1-33. Brunswick, the E. McCANN, (1995):Neotraditional developments: anatomy of a new urban 16: form,UrbanGeography, 210-233. Associations E. MacKENZIE, (1994): Privatopia:Homeowner Yale Uniand the Rise of Residential PrivateGovernment. versityPress,New Haven,CT J. E. McLAUGHLIN, andMUNCIE, (1999):Walledcities, surand in C. S., veillance, regulation segregation, PILE, BROOK, G. Cities?Routledge, London. andMOONEY, (eds):Unruly to G. MacLEOD (2002):Fromurban entrepreneurialisma revanof chistcity?Onthe spatial injustices Glasgow'srenaissance, 34: Antipode, 602-24.
T. and MARSHALL, H. [1950](1977):Class,Citizenship Social Press,Chicago,IL. Development. ChicagoUniversity MASSEY,D. (1999):Onspaceandthecity,in MASSEY,D., ALLEN,J. andPILE,S. (eds):CityWorlds London, Routledge, pp. 157-175. A. MERRIFIELD, (2000): The dialecticsof dystopia:disorder andzerotolerance thecity,International in Journalof Urban 24: and RegionalResearch, 473-489. D. MITCHELL, (1995):Theendof publicspace?People'sPark, definitions thepublic,anddemocracy, of Annalsof theAssociationof American 85: Geographers, 108-133. D. of MITCHELL, (1997): The annihilation space by law: the roots and implications anti-homeless of laws in the United 29: States,Antipode, 303-335. D. MITCHELL, (2001):Postmoder geographical praxis?Postmodemimpulseandthe waragainsthomelesspeople in the 'Post-Justice' city', in MINCA,C. (ed.):Postmodern Geogand raphy:Theory Praxis.Blackwell,Oxford,pp. 57-92.
NEWMAN, K. (2000): No Shame in my Game: The WorkingPoor in the Inner City. Vintage, New York.
PILE,S. (1999):Whatis a city?In MASSEY,D., ALLEN,J. and PILE,S. (eds):CityWorlds. London,pp. 3-52. Routledge, J. PINE,B. J. andGILMORE, (1999):TheExperience Economy: Work Theater EveryBusinessa Stage.Harvard is and BusiMAL. ness Press,Cambridge, E. of PLATT, (200 ): Insearch thecomfortzone,FinancialTimes 13 19-22. (Weekend), October: G. a World: RevoluRITZER, (1999):Enchanting Disenchanted Pine tionizingtheMeansof Consumption. ForgePress,London. of coulda postROBINS,K. (1993):Prisoners thecity:whatever modem city be? in CARTER, E., DONALD, J. and and J. SQUIRES, (eds):SpaceandPlace: Theories Identity of and London. Location.Lawrence Wishart, L. SANDERCOCK, (1998):Towards Cosmopolis. Wiley,Chichester. Politics:A SociologicalInterpreP. SAUNDERS, (1980):Urban tation.Penguin,Harmondsworth. in SAWYER,M. (1999):Parkand Ride:Adventures Suburbia. Little,Brown& Co, London. J. SHORT,J., BENTON,L., LUCE,W. andWALTON, (1993): the Reconstructing imageof the industrial Annalsof the city, Associationof American 83: Geographers, 207-224. LonSIBLEY,D. (1996):Geographies Exclusion. of Routledge, don. of SMITH,N. (1992):Contours a spatialized politics:homeless of vehiclesandtheproduction geographical scale,SocialText, 33: 54-81. N. and SMITH, (1996):TheNew UrbanFrontier: Gentrification the Revanchist London. City.Routledge, SMITH,N (1998): Giulianitime: the revanchist1990s, Social Text,57: 1-20. N. new urbanism: SMITH, (2002):New globalism, gentrification 34: as globalurban strategy, Antipode, 427-450. CriticalStudiesof Citiesand SOJA,E. (2000):Postmetropolis: Regions.Blackwell,Oxford. in M. M. SORKIN, (1992a):Introduction, SORKIN, (ed.):Variationson a Theme Park:TheNewAmerican andtheEnd City of PublicSpace.Hill andWang,New York. in SORKIN,M. (1992b):See you in Disneyland, SORKIN,M. on Park: TheNewAmericanCity (ed.): Variations a Theme and the Endof PublicSpace.Hill andWang,New York. Cities:anidealforliving,HighLife: C. STOCKS, (2002):Garden
British Airways, August: 63-8. SENNETT, R. (1990): The Conscience of the Eye: the Design and Social Life of Cities. Alfred Knopf, New York.
169
GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD SWYNGEDOUW, E. (2000): Authoritarian governance, 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 Today. Polity Press, Cambridge. WACQUANT, L. (1994): The new urbancolor 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, Town Planning Review, 72: 149-170. WEBSTER, C., GLASZE, G. and FRANTZ, K. (2002): Guest editorial: The global spread of gated communities, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29: 315-320. WOLCH, J. and DEAR, M. (1993): Malign Neglect: Homelessness in an American City. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. YUVAL-DAVIS, N. (1999): The 'multi-layered citizen', International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1: 19-36. ZUKIN, S. (1991): Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. University of California Press, Berkeley. ZUKIN, S. (1995): The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell, Oxford. ZUKIN, S. (1998): Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisation in space of consumption, Urban Studies, 35: 825-839.
170

Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia - Landscaping The Contemporary City

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia - Landscaping The Contemporary City

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia: Landscaping the Contemporary City Author(s): Gordon MacLeod and Kevin Ward Source:

SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

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

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

Spaces of utopia I: Producing and consuming the transforming urban economy

tion spaces - nouvelle cuisine restaurants, bou-

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

that span the Atlantic - Towards an Urban Renais-

SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

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

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

THECONTEMPORARY LANDSCAPING CITY SPACESOF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA:

- the naming can hardly be incidental - that sit un-

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

SPACES OF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THE CONTEMPORARY CITY

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

SPACESOF UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA: LANDSCAPING THECONTEMPORARY CITY

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVIN WARD

LANDSCAPING THECONTEMPORARY CITY SPACESOF UTOPIAAND DYSTOPIA:

GORDON MacLEOD AND KEVINWARD

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

TheNewAmerican andtheEndof PublicSpace.Hilland City Wang,New York.

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

NC, pp. 157-73. J. A. Cities HOLSTON, andAPPADURAI, (1999):Introduction:

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

Вам также может понравиться