Dear all
Apologies for cross-posting ...
AAG 2010 Call For Papers, 14-18 April, Washington DC
Title: The Privatization of Public Space? Comparisons, periodizations and
trajectories
Organizers: Setha Low (Environmental Psychology, Geography and Anthropology,
CUNY) and Kevin Ward (Environment and Development, University of Manchester)
Session Abstract:
Around the global neo-liberal urbanization seems set fair to continue to
rapidly transform cities and public space in geographically uneven,
variegated and multiple ways. Not uncontested, not un-resisted, not
un-subverted but nevertheless with far reaching and profound consequences.
Over the past twenty years or so, it has been argued that the privatization
of urban public space in cities has accelerated through the closing,
redesigning, and policing of public parks and plazas, the emergence of
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) that monitor and control local streets
and parks, and the transfer of public air rights for the building of
corporate plazas ostensibly open to the public. In the suburbs, on the other
hand, privatization appears to have taken the form of conservation easements
that restrict access to public lands, the creation of shopping malls and new
town centers relocated within these private commercial developments, and the
building of gated residential communities. Accompanying this expansion of
private interests are changes in modes, mentalities and methods of
governance and regional differences in how local governments and residents
are encouraging private encroachment on public space. Thus privatization, in
this sense, is the examination of how private interests succeed in
restructuring, redefining, and governing what previously was considered
“public”.
Privatization has also been used metaphorically to stand-in for the
excluding or limiting of access to public space. While there has been some
work on the legal frameworks within which these strategies are being
pursued, there is still much that needs to be done on the nature of the
property itself. Mitchell and Staeheli (2005) argue that it is more fruitful
to think in terms of the politics of property and that instead of focusing
on the privatization of public space, they explore the notion of
“pseudo-private property.” Gerald Kayden (2000) offers another term to
describe the new spatial formations found in New York City where private
corporations create “privately owned public spaces” in exchange for zoning
variances in terms of building height or other zoning concessions.
This paper session builds on a range of insights to address (and question)
the privatization of public space (or urban privatization): its underlying
principles, processes, and properties, and its impact on social relations
and everyday urban life. We suggest starting by comparing, contrasting, and
putting into dialogue with each other, the various documented forms of
privatization practices, such as Community Improvement Districts, Homeowners
Associations, Business Improvement Districts, public/public partnerships,
conservancies, incorporation, zoning, etc. will prove an intellectually
fruitful point of departure. More specifically, we argue that better ways
of defining and analyzing privatization processes and their consequences are
necessary to describe what is happening to public space in many cities and
suburbs today. Simply resorting to using the term ‘neo-liberalism’ is to ask
too much of any one word. Specifically, we argue for the need to move beyond
the tendency in our theoretical and methodological approaches to often focus
on only one or two dimensions to the privatization of public space.
We welcome contributions that address one or more of the following broad themes:
1. Existing theoretical approaches to the multi-faceted and multi-scalar
processes involved in the apparent privatization of public space. There is
a whole host of adjectives that can be used to describe the privatization
process, the most relevant of which appear to be 'capitalist',
'entrepreneurial' and 'neoliberal' that suggest a particular set of
relationships between the public and the private. And the latter two in
particular are reflective of how scholars have sought to conceptualize the
changing relations between state and markets over the last twenty years.
How do these terms enhance our understanding of privatization within the
urban context? How do they restrict our thinking?
2. Empirical studies of the privatization of public space, or its
resistance. Despite the wealth of evidence, there is still much that is not
known about its form and its function, particularly as processes take shape
in geographically distant but socially inter-connected sites and spaces of
the city and suburb. For example, is it possible to distinguish between
ownership and management, whether public space, buildings, infrastructure
(schools, transport, hospitals)? Or, what is there to say about urban
theory on the basis of empirical examples from outside the UK and the US?
How and what way are cities in the global north and the south
inter-connected for example?
3. Methodological contributions that seek to generate new insights into the
privatization processes and those that seek to use changes to more
emancipatory means. There is a range of methods that might be used to
reveal both the doing of privatization and its many varied consequences.
From studies that trace how it gets performed into being through to accounts
that focus more squarely on what it means for those who live and experience
privatization. Moreover, current work on the comparison of cities and their
privatization is revealing both the differences and the similarities between
cities.
4. Contributions that reveal the various technologies in place to support
the privatization of public spaces and its alternatives. A small but
insightful geographical literature has emerged to explore phenomenon such as
auditing, benchmarking and key performance indicators. These disciplining
tools are increasingly used to rank cities. They are also used to push
forward alternative visions of the city, based on more sustainable and just
indicators. So the battle is not just on the privatization but on how it and
its consequences should be calculated, measure and tabularized.
Authors are invited to submit a brief abstract (not more than 250 words) to
both the session organizers Setha Low ([log in to unmask]) and Kevin Ward
([log in to unmask]) by Monday 5 October.
|