Selling the ‘scary city’: gendering freedom, fear and condominium development in the neoliberal city

Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: urban regeneration policy in a “dense” space in Lisbon

“…Planning studies in the United Kingdom debate localism and decentralization for the increased social and economic polarization they entail (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2013;Davoudi & Madanipour, 2013;Deas, 2013). Critical geographers debate neoliberal revitalization and regeneration policies for their effects in terms of displacement and social exclusion (see, among others, Urban Geography 3 Kern, 2010;Smith, 1996). Other scholars, addressing dimensions of security policies, suggest that neoliberal governance has driven the emergence of an urban geopolitics made up of fortification and control (see, among others, Graham, 2010;Rossi & Vanolo, 2010).…”

The London 2012 Olympics: The cultural politics of urban regeneration

“…Indeed, following Kern (2010), an institutionalised culture of fear of the urban/racialized other is actually integral to the success and legitimation of revanchist (see Smith 1998) urban gentrification: "fear of the other justifies displacement and redevelopment" (Kern 2010: 210, my emphasis) that can be further mitigated through "private security, rationalized through the potential for wealth accumulation, and even commodified as desirable qualities of urban regeneration" (Kern 2010: 225). Who belongs, who is welcome or connected, who constitutes the 'active' and 'responsible' neoliberal citizenry within 'productive' places became apparent, at times contested, and perhaps further complicated, during the cultural performance of place/people during the London 2012 opening ceremony.…”

“…In this sense, the discursive representations and material repositioning of London operates as a form of ocular authoritarianism that facilitates the disappearance of degeneracy, through it being made in/visible: the pernicious, discursively based subjectification of the degenerate body, ultimately providing the justification for its systematic evisceration (Silk & Andrews 2008) from London's post-Olympic consumptive spaces. Thus, somewhat reworking Kern (2010), the mutual constitution of bodies and places, point us towards an understanding, through London 2012, of the embodied dimensions of urban life and the governance of subjects, places and everyday life through valorisation of consumption, the pathologization of the other, and, the associated legitimacy of an apparatus of security predicated on fear and perceptions of insecurity. Of course, such concerns raise important questions about the relevance and morality of such spaces, their symbolism for the wider urban citizenry morality and the longer term 'liberty-cost' (Raco 2012) of such 'grand projects' (Sinclair, 2012).…”

Liquid London: Sporting Spectacle, Britishness & Ban-optic Surveillance

“…Such processes contribute to a social and cultural urban apartheid through spatially concentrated regenerative investment characterised by selective belonging, displacement, urban neglect and the disrepair of built environments, 'rights to citizenship' through participation or exclusion from collective human experiences. 6 The uneasy juxtaposition between those served by 'capital space' (Harvey 2001) and those either servile to, or shunned by, its over-determining consumerist logics, suggests that London 2012 contributed to on-going processes through which urban populations, spaces, and national citizenship became bifurcated in 'scary cities' (England and Simon 2010;Kern 2010), comprising the generatively affluent-both native to London and transient populations-and the degenerative poor; the private consumer and the public recipient; the civic stimulant and the civic detriment; the socially valorised and the socially pathologised (see also Davidson and Wyly 2012;Graham 2012).…”

“…Following Kern (2010), such an institutionalised culture of fear is integral to the success and legitimation of revanchist (see Smith 1998) urban gentrification: 'fear of the other justifies displacement and redevelopment' (Kern 2010: 210, our emphasis) that can be further mitigated through 'private security, rationalized through the potential for wealth accumulation, and even commodified as desirable qualities of urban regeneration' (Kern 2010: 225). The very notion of unease and potential threat from terrorist attacks has contributed towards an increase in the demand for surveillance by those who feel increasingly more at risk (Haggerty and Gazso 2005).…”