1. Urban Space: Exclusion and Security

2.  Madanipour  Exclusion is “an institutionalized form of controlling access: to places, to activities, to resources, to information” (p. 160)  Exclusion is “spatialized”  Exclusion and inclusion both essential to maintaining social fabric  Borders (between nations) are the typical way to “spatialize” political exclusion  Focus on cities as “sites of difference”  Consider intersection of city and citizenship  Spatial exclusion in cities  Neighborhoods, ghettos  Public space v. private space  Social cues  Security measures, surveillance October 23, 20152The City and Citizenship

3.  Economic - lack of access to employment  Spatialized in slums, ghettos (especially jobless), favelas, etc.  Not identical with broader concept of “social exclusion”  Political - Lack of political representation  e.g. no right to vote, underrepresentation of women  Exclusion of immigrant groups  Cultural – marginalization from (mainstream) symbols, meanings, rituals and discourses  Expressed often thru differences of language, religion, nationality  Lack of assimilation?  Effect of official language, established church, secularism? October 23, 20153The City and Citizenship

4.  Dealing with spatial manifestations of social exclusion  Von Hausmann’s boulevards  Slum clearance programs  Homelessness: relocation of homeless shelters in cities; emergence in suburbs  Demolition of public housing and dispersal of residents  Responses to cities as “sites of difference”  Modern:  “impose an order onto it so that it becomes understandable and manageable” (161)  “managerial attempts to promote social cohesion by spatial organization” (164)  Post-modern:  celebration of diversity  Mostly focused on “cultural” diversity rather than economic or political elements  Neighborhoods  Obviously spatial: boundaries (somewhat defined)  Community as a sociocultural value related to spatial practices (cf. Jacobs)  Also, element of control for political officials (zoning, planning, wards) October 23, 20154The City and Citizenship

5.  Political exclusion most obvious at national scale  Borders defined and controlled  Exclusions related to citizenship  Often tied in with economic and cultural issues  Nationalism as fundamental ideological form of inclusion (and exclusion)  Globalization undermines political exclusion  Economic links enhanced  Global economic institutions  Enclaves; remittances, etc.  Cultural links (global and regional)  Spread of “Western” culture  Satellite TV  Political institutions and cooperation slower to develop  Cosmopolitanism; global cities October 23, 20155The City and Citizenship

6.  Urban space as a commodity  “land and property markets have operated so as to ensure the segregation of income groups and social classes (164)  E.g. housing developments in suburbs and gentrification in cities  “Privatization of space”  Need both public space and private space  Access to public space must be guarded from intrusion by private interests (commercialization)  Crime and security in (formerly-) public spaces  Reduce levels of uncertainty; respond to fears of crime; protect investments  Large sections of urban space managed by private companies  E.g. gated neighborhoods, shopping malls, city center walkways  Controlled access, clear boundaries, heavy private surveillance October 23, 20156The City and Citizenship

7.  Ideals  Agora in the Greek polis  Jane Jacobs’ neighborhood streets  Public plazas in Latin American cities and towns  Planned centers in “New Urbanism” of Duany, et al  Characteristics of “Public Space”  Open and accessible (to residents and to strangers)  Mixed-use (political, economic, social, cultural)  Diverse (if cities are “sites of difference” then public spaces are particular locations to experience this)  Nightmares  Empty spaces – formally “public” but boring, unused, desolate  Re-purposed – center s shift (redevelopment)  Replaced by defensible quasi-public spaces (but actually private spaces)  Replaced by private spaces and virtual public spaces October 23, 20157The City and Citizenship

8. October 23, 20158The City and Citizenship

9.  “Armed response” and “defensible space”  Focus on crime and security  “market provision of security generates its own paranoid demand” (180)  “security” less about personal safety than insulation from “’unsavory’ groups and individuals, even crowds in general”  Death of reformist view of public space  Olmsted “conceived public landscapes and parks as social safety-valves, mixing classes and ethnicities in common (bourgeois) recreations and enjoyments” (181)  This replaced by decline of public amenities (parks, beaches, libraries, playgrounds)  Redevelopment in interests of corporations  Clearing of large area in center (cf. Sassen on new forms of centrality)  Or, emphasizing “historic” district “as a support to middle-class residential colonization” (182) October 23, 20159The City and Citizenship

10.  Madanipour: “There is a direct relationship between our general sense of freedom and well-being with the choices open to us in our spatial practices” (162)  What “public spaces” have you experienced?  Where do you feel free to go?  Where do you avoid going?  Do you feel excluded? Secure? Constrained? October 23, 201510The City and Citizenship