The production of space in metropolitan regions: A Lefebvrian analysis of governance and spatial change

Abstract

The language of relational geography now permeates the field and literature of planning, with phrases such as ‘fuzzy boundaries’ and ‘flows and networks’ being commonly used to express the complexity of socio-economic and governance relations. However, recent research suggests the so-called ‘relational turn’ is not only far from complete, but is unable to account for the bounded reality of urban processes. Following from these debates, this article seeks to redirect the study of urban change away from relational and absolute interpretations of space in favour of a more robust consideration and critical reflection on the social production of city-regions. Towards this objective, the author introduces an approach situated within Lefebvre’s The Production of Space to examine strategies of metropolitan regionalism in the Capital District, New York (United States). Interpreting the city-region as a social product reflecting the co-constitutive relationship of conceived, perceived and lived space spatial elements, the paper argues that the silences of lived space within metropolitan regionalism are indicative of a post-political condition where hegemonic vision, discourse and ideology deny a robust urban democracy. It is this ability to engage with the dynamism of social change and the relationships between spaces which makes Lefebvre’s spatial theory immensely valuable for the study of emerging and shifting structures of governance.

The role of institutions in the production of space for tourism: National Forest Parks in China

“…Extant knowledge also supports the role of 2 Ecological cultivation refers to the cultural ethics forms initiated by the harmonious co-existence, virtuous cycle, comprehensive development, and continued prosperity between man and nature, man and man, and man and society (CCCPC, 2007a). parks in economic and ecological aspects in urban and rural development (Buser, 2012;Frisvoll, 2012;Halfacree et al, 2004;Moyle and Weiler, 2016;Roth, 2008). In addition, the role of tourism in national parks has evolved in other nations following a similar pattern to that in China.…”

“…Following this, the state strengthened NFPs as an important asset to develop the regional economy under its fiscal policy. Although capital not only produced a variety of tourist attractions and infrastructure in NFPs, the state and capital changed the materiality of the environment and the appropriation of sites depended by local people by the physical interventions in NFPs (Buser, 2012;Gottdiener, 1993;Hansen, 2013;Roth, 2008;Su and Teo, 2008). International organizations, for instance, UNSCO, played a positive role in conservation in NFPs acknowledged by the state to regulate the capital.…”

“…The representation of space was analyzed using policy documents (Buser, 2012;Frisvoll, 2012;Hansen, 2013;Leary, 2013;Lefebvre, 1991;Nguyen and Locke, 2014). Indeed, with the gradual adjustment to national development strategies this research found that forestry development strategies for NFPs transformed and continually created "idealized conceptions of spatial order" (Harms, 2011: 238).…”

“…Furthermore, Lefebvre (1991: 84) denoted that national parks, similar to NFPs, are "products of an activity that involves the economic and technical realms but which extends well beyond them, for these are also political products, and strategic spaces". Recent research often applies Lefebvre's (1991) spatial triad as a theoretical framework for empirical research on the production of space (Buser, 2012;Frisvoll, 2012;Hossain, 2012;Leary, 2013;Mels, 2002;Roth, 2008). Despite the various interpretations, the spatial triad has been criticized for its intuitive simplicity, conceptualization and totality (Gottdiener, 1993;Leary, 2013;Schmid, 2008;Ye et al, 2014).…”

Henri Lefebvre, Planning’s Friend or Implacable Critic?

“…Indeed, the leading planning theory book does not mention Lefebvre until its fourth edition (Campbell & Fainstein, 2015) and then only in passing. This is despite one of the first Anglophone articles on Lefebvre and planning being published over two decades ago (Allen & Pryke, 1994) and a steady trickle of publications since then (e.g., Buser, 2012;Carp, 2008;Holgersen, 2015;Honeck, 2017;Leary, 2009). Perhaps this is partly because Lefebvre is regarded by many as a tough read (Schmid, 2014).…”