Trojan Horse or Adaptive Institutions? Some Reflections on Urban Commons in Australia*

Abstract

The rubric of 'new' commons signals the re-assessment of old dilemmas about resource management and collaborative action in new social, spatial and technological settings. Urban commons feature in the expanding register of new commons, but there has been little analysis of the meaning and application of the concept. This article explores the urban commons in an Australian context, focusing on the provision of social infrastructure. While noting criticism of the concept's imprecision and ideological valency, the article argues that the urban commons offers new perspectives on public resources, urban governance and sustainability.

Commoning toward urban resilience: The role of trust, social cohesion, and involvement in a simulated urban commons setting

“…The urban commons potentially support this type of adaptability via informal networks of actors interacting in a bottom-up manner Foster, 2011;Nagendra & Ostrom, 2014), their experimental and sometimes disruptive character (Arora, 2014;Borch & Kornberger, 2015;Chatterton, 2016;Corsín Jiménez & Estalella, 2013;Radywyl & Bigg, 2013) and their openness to newcomers (Arora, 2014;Bruun, 2015;Foster & Iaione, 2019;McShane, 2010). This results in the formation of a network as community of practice with shared practices, shared knowledge, identity building, and tangible products.…”

Working with Strangers in Saturated Space: Reclaiming and Maintaining the Urban Commons

“…This is not to say that scholars are not using the term “urban commons”, for in fact the term is used more and more (see, for example, Armiero ; Dienel et al ; Gioielli ; Kassa ; Lee and Webster ; Mandizadza ; McShane ; Newman ). But much of the extant work on the urban commons takes the city as a site for the commons without theorizing what may be distinct about a specifically urban commons (with key exceptions, discussed below).…”

“…If the theory of the commons cannot apply in the urban context, it will quickly become a historic relic. Pointing to this lack, a number of scholars of the commons have called for more attention to and better theorization of the urban commons (Blomley ; Bravo and De Moor ; Bresnihan and Byrne ; Foster ; McShane ; van Laerhoven and Ostrom ). I turn now to examining two key characteristics of the “urban” that I argue give unique shape to the experience of the urban commons.…”

Comunes urbanos: de la gestión colectiva al derecho a la ciudad

“…Los ejemplos van desde los sistemas de distribución de agua (Bakker, 2007;Wutich, 2009), de infraestructuras portuarias (Selsky & Memon, 1997), de carreteras (Blomkvist & Larsson, 2013), de electricidad (Byrne, Martínez & Ruggero, 2009;Lambing, 2012) o de recolección y tratamiento de desechos (Cavé, 2012;Post & Baud, 2003), los ecosistemas naturales en la ciudad (Svendsen & Campbell, 2008) o incluso los sistemas de regulación del suelo (Porter et al, 2011;Salingaros, 2010). Debido a su importancia como facilitadores de la vida urbana y a la complejidad de su gestión, suele apelarse a las instituciones públicas para la provisión, cuidado y mantenimiento de estos recursos, ya sea de forma directa (Sofoulis & Williams, 2008) o bien utilizando formas híbridas de cogestión o coproducción con la sociedad civil (McShane, 2010).…”