Is it possible to discern correlations between past and present urban policies? Do path dependencies exist at the urban level? If so, how do they differ from other links between the past and present? A preview of the literature dealing with dependencies and urban change, a presentation of the research methodology and an examination of the historical archives of six European cities in France, Germany and Switzerland enable us to identify three features common to both past and present transport and urban planning policies—namely, contingency, reproduction and innovation.
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Érès. © Érès. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
In this article, we propose to examine the diversity of ‘gentrification’ trajectories taken by six neighbourhoods in the Île‐de‐France Region. To apprehend the dynamics of the different gentrification processes, we investigate the manner in which changes in the urban environment render it accessible to certain residential aspirations and lifestyles and inaccessible to others. Our findings, based on a combination of a quantitative survey and socio‐historical analyses of six inner‐city and suburban neighbourhoods, suggest that ongoing gentrification largely depends on ways in which newcomers are able to maintain their lifestyle, and consequently on the elements likely to disrupt this. Thwarted gentrification, observed for example in the Goutte d'Or, can only be understood if we consider the not inconsiderable difficulties of daily life in such neighbourhoods and the relatively low level of social tolerance of newcomers. Static analyses attentive only to the structure of the property market do not account for the nuisances that, over time, make an environment intolerable and drive residents away. The dynamics of multifaceted gentrification relate, therefore, not only to the diverse structural characteristics of the various neighbourhoods but also to the differentiated — functional, social and sensitive — everyday experiences, perceptions and evaluations of the built environment. Résumé Nous nous proposons d'examiner la diversité des trajectoires de gentrification de six quartiers d'Île‐de‐France. Pour appréhender la dynamique des différents processus de gentrification, nous analysons comment les changements opérés dans l'environnement urbain le rendent accessible à certaines aspirations résidentielles et certains modes de vie, et inaccessibles à d'autres. Combinant une enquête quantitative et une analyse socio‐historique des six quartiers (centraux et périphériques), nos conclusions suggèrent que la gentrification en cours dépend largement de la mesure dans laquelle les nouveaux habitants peuvent préserver leur mode de vie, et par conséquent, des facteurs susceptibles de perturber celui‐ci. La gentrification contrariée, observée par exemple à la Goutte d'Or, ne peut être appréhendée que si l'on tient compte des difficultés non négligeables de la vie quotidienne dans ces quartiers et de la tolérance sociale relativement faible des nouveaux arrivants. Les analyses statiques intéressées uniquement par la structure du marché immobilier n'expliquent pas les nuisances qui, avec le temps, rendent un environnement intolérable et poussent les habitants à déménager. Les dynamiques d'une gentrification à plusieurs visages sont donc liées non seulement aux diverses caractéristiques structurelles des quartiers, mais aussi aux évaluations, perceptions et expériences quotidiennes (fonctionnelles, sociales, sensorielles) différenciées de l'environnement construit.
Although ‘arrival infrastructure’ is central to the experience of migrants arriving in a new city, is it sufficient to form a ‘hospitable milieu’? Our article compares newcomers’ experiences with ‘arrival infrastructure’ in two European cities: Brussels and Geneva. Based on ethnographic research with 49 migrants who arrived a few months earlier, we show that arrival infrastructure is Janus-faced. On one hand, it welcomes newcomers and contributes to making the city hospitable. On the other hand, it rejects, deceives and disappoints them, forcing them to remain mobile—to go back home, go further afield, or just move around the city—in order to satisfy their needs and compose what we will call a ‘hospitable milieu.’ The arrival infrastructure’s inhospitality is fourfold: linked firstly to its limitations and shortcomings, secondly to the trials or tests newcomers have to overcome in order to benefit from the infrastructure, thirdly to the necessary forms of closure needed to protect those who have just arrived and fourthly to those organising and managing the infrastructure, with divergent conceptions of hospitality. By using the notion of milieu and by embedding infrastructure into the broader question of hospitality, we open up an empirical exploration of its ambiguous role in the uncertain trajectories of newcomers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.