DIAP Politecnico di Milano Milan, 4 april 2007 URBAN POPULATIONS: SPACES, PLACES AND EVERYDAY LIFE prof. Gabriele Pasqui

A general framework: the dis-junction between spaces/places and locally rooted society Without any “apocalyptic” approach, It is possibile to recognize a radical change in patterns and dynamics of the relationship between society and space. This change has three main aspects: Economic Social Political

Dis-junction: economic aspects Globalisation and financialisation of economic worldwide relationships change traditional connections between space and production This phenomenon, that is far from a de-materialisation of a virtualisation of capitalistic economy, is relevant both at global and at local level. In contemporary cities, for example, effects can be seen: in mobility of all productive factors (human capital, financial capital, people, information) in new forms and spaces of labour in new relationship between production of goods and services in new forms of mixité involving different economic functions in a new role of cognitive dimensions of production

Dis-junction: social aspects From a social perspective dis-junction has at least three relevant aspects: Individualisation of social relations (crisis of social cohesion principles and factors) Fragmentation (in time and space) in pratices that use urban places Pluralisation of cultures, lifestyles, values and interests (incommensurability). Links between social practices relations and spaces/places are more and more partial, temporary, casual, contingent

Dis-junction: political aspects In modern societies politics is based on the link between power and territory. In this link lies the birth of national States. Globalisation and crisis of national State have brought to a more complex relationship between space, power and politics. This is true also at the locale level and in local (urban) policies. It is difficult to govern both horizontal relationship between public bodies and interest and a plural society and vertical relations between (more or less) legitimated local and general interests. In these problems we can find the origins of the crisis of local democracy

Urban populations In this framework the problem of urban population is an interesting example of how these aspects of dis-junction work and what consequences they have for representation and policies. But: what do we mean with the term “population”?

Urban populations: seven examples 1.Everyday commuters 2.Patients and their relatives coming in Milan and using hospital services and facilities 3.Young south american street gangs 4.Foreign studens 5.Cyclists moving for work and not work reasons 6.Heavy metal music fans 7.Web networks of role game players

Conc. C. Novak

commuters temporary workers entertainment users

What have in common? Urban populations, in this approach, are different from Martinotti’s populations (city users, commuters,..), because each one can belong to more than one population Populations are characterised by the share of some localised practices, even if in some cases their belonging to the population is voluntary while in other cases is more or less compulsory (social and economic ties are important)

Populations…. Move, creating moving and instables urban geographies at different scales. These movements are very importants (even if some population is stable: for example older people) Movements create new urban patterns, strictly connected with moving trajectories These movements are linked with time (and especially with rythmes: daily, weekly, annual, or longlife)

Representastions of populations and of their movements look like nautical maps: they introduce to a new metropolitan geography

Populations…. Re-create and re-signify spaces and places, through their everyday practices Different populations have various relationship with space, but these relationship can also be relevat for the identity of single persons sharing common experiences Recreating means also spot these spaces and places for a period of time Spaces and places are both ties and opportunities for populations (their are champs, using Bourdieu)

Populations…. Sometimes produce public or common goods (or evils), directly or indirecty. These goods or evils can be considered externalities. These goods (or evils) are not the effect of public policies, but an unintended social effect of social practices

Populations…. Can express a demand for public policies. In some cases this demand is the effect of a constitution of a social subjectivity (commuters commitees; cyclists associations,..), but this is not always true (ballers want basket playgrounds without expressing directly this need)

Consequences for representation Ordinary scales of representation are not usable We need a representation considering three dimensions: Time (and rythms) Space (and places) Patterns

Consequences for policies Decision is not so important for populations The main problems are those of representation Policies should be “pemeable” to social practises Policies should consider everyday life effects