Tactical Urbanism: The New Vernacular of the Creative City

Abstract

The recent infatuation of urban governance with the ideologies of creativity has led to many cities over the world being branded as 'Creative Cities'. This policy drive has been problematised of late as a neoliberal agenda, which critics argue aids in the gentrification of cities. One reaction to this has been the proliferation of community-orientated initiatives on a smaller scale that are (sometimes) conducted outside the official capacity of the city. So-called Tactical Urbanism draws from such activity and therefore has become a popular movement for people who have a desire to change and reconfigure their city and do so without governmental involvement. Championed by the urbanist Mike Lydon, this paper charts how Tactical Urbanism has become a brand in itself, with the term being used by urban governments as a means of continuing neoliberal policies of urban development in a post-2008 recessionary era. This paper will show how Tactical Urbanism is defenestrating the former, in favour of the latter. In so doing, it is fast becoming the latest political vernacular of the Creative City.

DIY Urbanism and the Lens of the Commons: Observations from Spain

“…There seems to exist, I would dare to suggest, a rather condescending scholarly view on small‐scale experiments within bottom‐up, urban interventionism. Srnicek and Williams (: 11), for example, have coined the term “folk politics.” Even though not explicitly nor exclusively directed to DIY urbanism, folk politics “privileges the local as the site of authenticity; habitually chooses the small over the large; favors projects that are unscalable beyond a small community; and often rejects the project of hegemony, valuing withdrawal or exit, rather than building a broad counter‐hegemony.” Mould (), furthermore, has labeled tactical urbanism as “the new vernacular of the creative city.” In Mould's view, tactical urbanism has become “a brand,” coopted by and inscribed in the policy agenda of the 21st‐century Creative City. Given such views of “folk politics” and “cooptation,” one might wonder whether it would still be a worthwhile endeavor to consider DIY urbanism's potential for urban development from an academic point of view.…”

“…Even though not explicitly nor exclusively directed to DIY urbanism, folk politics "privileges the local as the site of authenticity; habitually chooses the small over the large; favors projects that are unscalable beyond a small community; and often rejects the project of hegemony, valuing withdrawal or exit, rather than building a broad counter-hegemony." Mould (2014), furthermore, has labeled tactical urbanism as "the new vernacular of the creative city." In Mould's view, tactical urbanism has become "a brand," coopted by and inscribed in the policy agenda of the 21st-century Creative City.…”

“…Yet, Douglas (), in his ethnographic study on DIY practitioners, interestingly found that those who identify as DIYers do not always or necessarily perceive themselves as radical agents. DIY urbanism, furthermore, has been conceived as an ensemble of everyday urban practices in the guise of “exemplary amateurism” (Deslandes ), as “the new vernacular of the creative city” (Mould ), or, on the contrary, as a deeper tradition of 19th‐century civic engagement (Talen ). The practice has equally been investigated from a feminist (Heim LaFrombois ), legal (Pagano ), or technology studies perspective (Jiménez ).…”

Risk and benefits in lifestyle sports: parkour, law and social value

“…Although there are cases where traceurs have been labelled as deviant, reckless, irresponsible or 'anti-social' as we noted above, these are generally rare and it would be wrong to conclude that there has been an outright opposition to parkour by the police and local authorities. In this regard parkour diverges from more stringent cases of zero tolerance approaches enacted upon other 'urban subversions' such as graffiti (McAuliffe, 2012(McAuliffe, , 2013Mould, 2014) and historically with regard to skateboarding in the USA, where legal prohibition was common in the early phase of its development (Borden, 2001). …”

City and Urbanity in the Social Discourse

“…The discourse on creativity was started by Charles Landry and Franco Bianchini [35] and advanced by Richard Florida [36]. The critics of the creativity concept argue that it follows the neoliberal programme and deepens the process of gentrification [37]. Although the academic critique is often justified, it does not out-rule the idea of creativity as an important factor in urban policies and an element of urban creation.…”