Neoliberale Stadtpolitik im globalen Kontext

Heeg, Susanne; Rosol, Marit

doi:10.32387/prokla.v37i149.495

Cited by 59 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Yiftachel (2002) argues, participatory planning lacks a critical engagement with the structural conditions within which planning is located (Heeg & Rosol, 2007). Therefore Cooke and Kothari conclude that participation is tyranny and as such it is systemic rather that "merely a matter of how the practitioner operates or the specificities of the techniques and tools employed" (2001, p. 4).…”

Section: What's Wrong With Participation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof airport

Hilbrandt

2016

Urban Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of debate, participatory planning continues to be contested.More recently, research has documented a relationship between participation and neoliberalism, in which participation works as a post-political tool -a means to depoliticize planning and legitimize neo-liberal policy-making. This paper argues that such accounts lack attention to the opportunities for opposing neo-liberal planning that may be inherent within participatory processes. In control, or, more generally, a way to depoliticize planning (Gunder, 2010;Miessen, 2010;MacLeod, 2011). While participatory planning approaches can be read as attempts to avert conflict and legitimize pre-defined objectives, I aim to show that these processes do not merely work to produce consensus. Rather, the case of 4 Tempelhof is a useful example to consider the opposite: formal spaces of participation provide opportunities to defy urban planning. In other words, the case of Tempelhof illustrates a process in which an active urban public objects to its inclusion through tokenistic forms of participation, so that these attempts not only fail to produce consensus, depoliticize activists or settle conflict, but also foster moments of conflict.To be clear, my aim is not to downplay cooptation in participatory planning. As the editors of this special issue convincingly show, attempts of control and moments of contention are closely interwoven. However, the exclusive emphasis on de-politization and cooptation that the post-political framework suggests, risks ignoring moments of insurgency that remain possible or are perhaps widened within and through participatory planning. As a consequence of this blind spot, an understanding of the workings of contention within planning-processes remains underdeveloped.Secondly, this paper seeks to understand how civil society actors use participatory space to politicize and challenge institutional planning attempts. I probe the notion of insurgent participation to frame the study of such practices. Insurgent participation aims to foreground the contradiction of participating in while aiming to subvert, contest, or resist contemporary planning regimes. And it seeks to highlight the various modalities of political practice that may work to shape planning through contentious interventions in institutionally designed processes. In the case of Tempelhof, spaces of engagement provided a terrain upon which opposition was organized and performed through a number of complementary elements: In formally organized workshops, forums and information events, participation allowed participants to raise awareness of the proposed development scheme's downsides; public events brought disparate actors together, allowed them to connect specific interests and ally different initiatives; participatory workshops provided opportunities 5 to introduce discussions on contested themes and reframe the scope of the questions that had initially been open to debate; gardening projects installed as interim uses were key to challenging the lack of visio...

show abstract

Section: What's Wrong With Participation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof airport

Hilbrandt

2016

Urban Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High‐quality urban environment, for instance, has been found to be a key factor in the global competition for securing investment (Carmona ; Gunder ; Stanilov :5). What is more, Sobyanin's introduction of tools for participatory planning and self‐empowered planning practices resonate with a shift towards “soft neoliberalisation strategies” in city making (Heeg and Rosol :496). Finally, a generally observed trend towards remodelling cities for the demands of the middle classes (Lees et al ) is represented, for instance, by Moscow's new housing policies and the creation of exclusive public spaces.…”

Section: Conclusion: Moscow Urban Development As a Case Of Neoliberalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Neoliberal Urbanism in Moscow, 1992-2015

Büdenbender

Зупан²

2016

Antipode

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the urban development of Moscow from 1992 to 2015, arguing that the city's recent transformation from grey asphalt jungle to a "city comfortable for life" is driven by a process of neoliberal restructuring. In particular, the study finds that a set of multi-scalar dynamics-namely, the global financial crisis, the rise of a local protest movement, and an intensified rivalry between federal and Muscovite elites-were the key driving forces behind Moscow's current evolution. The work advances a conceptual framework of neoliberal urbanisation that enhances the literature on post-socialist cities and, more generally, the broader debate on actually existing neoliberalism.

show abstract

“…New strategies of governance, he contends, problematize a broad range of issues in terms of communities and their alleged qualities and deficits, including sexual minorities, ethnic groups and immigrants, aiming to activate, educate, empower and control in new forms of participa tory politics (see also Blokland et al, 2015, in the introduction to this symposium; and Tsianos, 2014). Neoliberal urban development entails new forms of decentralized control, governance and cooperation between collective private and public actors at local levels (Mayer, 2003;Heeg and Rosol, 2007), with private actors positioned to represent community interest and participatory input. While these communities might factually be overlapping in terms of multiple allegiances and commitments, membership is not always freely chosen and is inflected by the intersecting power dynamics of class, racism, sexism and heteronormativity.…”

Section: Homonationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clash Of Subcultures? Questioning Queer–Muslim Antagonisms in the Neoliberal City

Kosnick

2015

Int J Urban Regional Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the framing of conflicts over public space as they unfold in a climate of neoliberal urban transformation in contemporary Germany. Examining how the alleged concerns of a ‘queer community’ have been pitted against the alleged moral agenda of Muslim immigrants in the country, examples of conflicts over ‘queer’ public leisure spaces in Berlin will give insights into how different cultural minority positions are mobilized against each other in the context of both urban and national citizenship debates that are marked by a neoliberal re‐evaluation of diversities and inequalities.

show abstract

Neoliberale Stadtpolitik im globalen Kontext

Cited by 59 publications

References 4 publications

Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof airport

Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof airport

The Evolution of Neoliberal Urbanism in Moscow, 1992-2015

A Clash Of Subcultures? Questioning Queer–Muslim Antagonisms in the Neoliberal City

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About