Central Park against the streets: the enclosure of public space cultures in mid-nineteenth century New York

Sevilla-Buitrago, Álvaro

doi:10.1080/14649365.2013.870594

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Poorly managed commons—particularly those which are prone to congestion—suffer from over-use, erosion, and depletion and may exacerbate inequalities as, “powerful entities can make better use of the resources than those with less power” (Prainsack 2019: 3). Commoning may also give rise to new, potentially harmful power imbalances (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2014), as Anderson and Huron (2021) found in their study of parent teacher organizations in Washington DC and New York City. This calls for the exploration of new strategies and tools for commoning, like DLTs which can help to advance our understanding of these technologies’ potential for improving the management of urban commons, and for promoting more sustainable and equitable cities.…”

Section: Examining Institutional Design At the Interface Of Technolog...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Governing the urban commons”: DLT, institutions, and citizens in perspective

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Borrowing from insights produced in urban planning, media and governance studies thereby leveraging the Ostrom-nian ideas of institutions and polycentricity, this paper examines how to govern commons in the smart city. It offers a reflection upon whether Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs) could be a key notion for the commons discourse which centers around stakeholders, self-organization, and a rights-based framework. By decentralizing ledgers and enabling the interoperability of the various interfaces, DLTs make records more accessible, exchanges more transparent, and reduce costs while increasing efficiency, and permit automation, therefore commoning interactions both offline and online are facilitated. We argue that the use of DLTs to preserve the spatiotemporal integrity of key urban spaces is a common value question that needs to be elucidated or renegotiated in order to provide any useful guidance to DLTs integrity-preserving potential. In doing so, we draw attention to DLT-based urban commons and urban governance, and point to inherent incompatibilities that may lead to radical and not-so-smooth changes in urban institutions, while providing a way of thinking which can move the smart city closer towards a values-centered process and away from a preoccupation with technology and efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Examining Institutional Design At the Interface Of Technolog...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Governing the urban commons”: DLT, institutions, and citizens in perspective

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…urban biodiversity (Colding and Barthel, 2013)); • state property regime: the property is owned by the state in the name of all citizens (e.g. Central park in New York (Hess, 2008;Sevilla-Buitrago, 2014)); • common property regime: the property is owned by a group of individuals (e.g. R-Urban strategy in the Paris area (Petrescu et al, 2016));…”

Section: Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity and Challenges of the Urban Commons: A Comprehensive Review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is a comprehensive literature review about the field of the urban commons and its diversity, which we investigate through the lens of the new commons. Acknowledging a potential for adaptive capacity in the urban commons, we classify its traits into ecosystem, socio-economic and institutional factors. To make our work more practical, we further arrange them as benefits, challenges or supports. Our literature review highlights the need to further study the institutions which have an impact on the urban commons, as well as the individual and collective behaviour mechanisms at stake in the emergence and management of this commons. In addition, more light needs to be shed on the property-regimes relevant to the urban commons, with a focus on the access or use rules, rather than on ownership.

show abstract

“…Undoubtedly, processes of commodification and privatization of space abound at the city and neighborhood levels (eg Hodkinson ), let alone crude acts of physical enclosure such as gated communities and other fortified enclaves. Yet, the most far‐reaching attacks on the commons at this scale mobilize the production and regulation of publicity—not its extinction—as a key instrument to create new urban orders and dismantle collectively appropriated spaces (Sevilla‐Buitrago ). From the planning of residential milieux to the regulation of a spatial economy of collective pleasures, the city and the neighborhood have been quintessential scales for the enclosure of social reproduction since the onset of nineteenth century urban reform.…”

Section: Taming the Street Commons: Urban Enclosure And The Normalizamentioning

confidence: 99%

Capitalist Formations of Enclosure: Space and the Extinction of the Commons

Sevilla-Buitrago

2015

Antipode

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their theoretical and political potential, recent debates on enclosure usually lack an effective consideration of how space is mobilized in the process of dispossession. This article connects the analysis of enclosure's general spatial rationality to a range of illustrations of its particular formations and procedures. Enclosure is understood as one of capitalism's "universal territorial equivalents", a polymorphous technique with variegated expressions in time but also with a consistent logic that uses the spatial erosion of the commons to subsume non-commodified, self-managed social spaces. In response to the ever-changing nature of commoning, successive regimes of enclosure reshape the morphologies of deprivation and their articulation to other state and market apparatuses in order to meet shifting strategies of capital accumulation and social reproduction. Through a spatially nuanced account of these phenomena, I outline a tentative genealogy of enclosure formations that allows tracking diverse geographies of dispossession across different scales and regulatory contexts in various historical stages of capitalist development. Resumen: A pesar de su potencial teórico y político, los recientes debates sobre el "enclosure" prestan una atención insuficiente a la articulación espacial de los procesos de desposesión. Este artículo conecta el análisis de la racionalidad espacial general del "enclosure" a un abanico de ilustraciones de sus diversas formaciones y procedimientos. El "enclosure" se presenta como uno de los "equivalentes territoriales" del capitalismo, una técnica polimorfa con distintas manifestaciones a lo largo del tiempo pero dotada de una lógica consistente que emplea la erosión espacial del común para subsumir espacios sociales autónomos. En respuesta a la cambiante naturaleza de los comunes, sucesivos regímenes de "enclosure" reconfiguran las morfologías del despojo y su articulación a otros aparatos estatales y de mercado con el fin de satisfacer nuevas estrategias de acumulación de capital y reproducción social. Empleando una descripción atenta a los aspectos espaciales de estos fenómenos, se traza una genealogía tentativa de las formaciones de "enclosure" que permite explorar las geografías de la desposesión en distintas escalas y contextos regulatorios, y en etapas sucesivas de desarrollo capitalista.

show abstract

Central Park against the streets: the enclosure of public space cultures in mid-nineteenth century New York

Cited by 11 publications

References 36 publications

“Governing the urban commons”: DLT, institutions, and citizens in perspective

“Governing the urban commons”: DLT, institutions, and citizens in perspective

Diversity and Challenges of the Urban Commons: A Comprehensive Review

Capitalist Formations of Enclosure: Space and the Extinction of the Commons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About