Integrating superdiversity in urban governance: the case of inner-city Lisbon

Abstract

This paper analyses how urban governance incorporated migration-driven superdiversity combining cultural and economic development policies. We use the case of Mouraria, a Lisbon neighbourhood, as a site where city strategies accommodate old and new diversities to render a cosmopolitan sense associated to a ‘diversity advantage’ approach. We identify three strategies shaping urban governance: de-ethnicisation of superdiversity and urban growth policies, diversity aestheticisation and the rationale of encounter, and place marketing and city branding. We find that urban governance in a superdiverse neighbourhood relies on policies of economic development and market creation that incorporate cultural diversity from a de-ethnicised perspective.

Can regenerated inner‐city areas remain sites of public‐place sociability? Psycho‐social processes predicting public sociability in a changing neighbourhood

“…Extending this previous research, we propose that – in a context where the regeneration program did not force gentrification but allowed newcomers to seek the area because they identified with its value and attempts to retain some continuity were made (Oliveira & Padilla, 2017; Tulumello, 2015) – place identification will be central to residents' self‐reported use of public spaces as sites to socialize, even in the face of transformations. In this sense, we expect the effect of cultural continuity on public place sociability to be partially mediated by place identification.…”

“…Mouraria was chosen because of its traditionally lively public place sociability (Bettencourt & Castro, 2015), and because it has undergone a program with a mixed/bottom‐up regeneration strategy since 2010 (CML, 2010). The program – conceived “under the overarching slogan of ‘requalify the past to build the future’ ” (Oliveira & Padilla, 2017, p. 5) – has involved both the direct intervention of the municipality, community consultation and the active participation of local organizations (Bettencourt & Castro, 2015; Tulumello, 2015). Local organizations have offered, for instance, input for developing local jobs and legal support for preventing tenant displacement (Tulumello, 2015).…”

“…This model thus brings social diversity by imposed gentrification (Bailey, Miles, & Stark, 2004; Freeman et al, 2016; Heath, Rabinovich, & Barreto, 2017; Pissourios, 2014). In contrast, in bottom‐up/mixed models, authorities directly assure the regeneration of public places and buildings (Gainza, 2016; Padilla, Azevedo, & Olmos‐Alcaraz, 2014), but offer subsidies and/or fiscal incentives to owners assuring renewal of their decaying properties, and implement community consultation for supporting the creation of local jobs, helping fight poverty and stigmatization (Bettencourt & Castro, 2015; Oliveira & Padilla, 2017; Pissourios, 2014; Tulumello, 2015). This brings diversity by initiating small‐scale gentrification, that is, influxes of new residents of low‐medium income but higher academic qualifications than long‐time ones (Davison et al, 2012; Malheiros, Carvalho, & Mendes, 2012; Oliveira & Padilla, 2017).…”

“…Addressing such questions, the present paper aimed to understand resident's experiences in place within the context of a recent regeneration program of an inner‐city neighbourhood located in the heart of Lisbon: Mouraria. This is a traditionally working‐class area where a lively public place sociability has long been a striking characteristic, and where a regeneration program of bottom‐up/mixed‐strategy started in 2010 (CML, 2010), increasingly attracting new small‐scale gentrifiers (Oliveira & Padilla, 2017). Building on a questionnaire survey, we investigated if public place sociability is maintained by both traditional and new gentrifiers and explored the role played in this maintenance by three social psychological processes: the sense that the neighbourhood has retained collective cultural continuity (Smeekes & Verkuyten, 2014) in the face of the transformations; place identification, that is, the feeling of belonging to, fitting in and being attached to the neighbourhood (Droseltis & Vignoles, 2010); and place knowledge (Naess, 2013), that is, the extent to which residents feel they know the place and its history.…”

Friendly Communities and Outdoor Spaces in Contexts of Urban Population Decline

“…Thus, in the cited study, the public quality of spacious urban parks is associated with naturalness but, for particular social groups, visiting woodlands or more natural spaces can endow a sense of vulnerability or insecurity and, therefore, some groups may avoid them, such as women [44] or ethnic minorities [45]. In several European cities, social segregation in shrinking core neighbourhoods is often synonymous with high concentrations of immigrant communities, for example in Barcelona (Spain) [46], Athens (Greece) [47], Manchester (UK) [48], or Lisbon (Portugal) [49]. Previous literature on immigration and urban migration has pointed to the value of appropriate outdoor spaces such as communal parks or gardens to increase neighbourhood connections and sense of community [50,51].…”