• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Against Divided Cities in Europe
 

Against Divided Cities in Europe

on

  • 2,609 views

Presentation for the workshop "Against Divided Cities in Europe" of URBACT Annual Conference 2012

Presentation for the workshop "Against Divided Cities in Europe" of URBACT Annual Conference 2012

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,609
Views on SlideShare
1,984
Embed Views
625

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

5 Embeds 625

http://www.conference2012.urbact.eu 492
http://conference2012.urbact.eu 127
https://twitter.com 3
http://www.slashdocs.com 2
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Against Divided Cities in Europe Against Divided Cities in Europe Presentation Transcript

    • AGAINST DIVIDED CITIES IN EUROPEWorkshop 4Core group members:Iván Tosics, Darinka Czischke, Peter Ramsden, Laura Colini,Simon Güntner, Thierry Baert, Reinhard Fischer
    • Workshop topic • Decreasing employment, wealth polarisation and migration in European cities have been drivers in spatial polarisation • The result is booming inner cities while left-behind peripheral areas, in some cities even ghettoes of poor and minority groups
    • Workshop topic • Surveys show attitudes hardening to more disadvantaged communities – neighbourhood regeneration being in the vanguard of gentrification • This workshop identifies hard and soft approaches and area- based’ and horizontal tools • There are interesting attempts to address these problems through promoting social mix, sometimes with massive demolition of existing buildings • Each citys circumstances are unique and complex
    • Workstream: method of working • Core group of 7 people • Two „city hearings”: 2-2 cities shown and discussed with invited city representatives and experts • Berlin (Malmö invited) • Lyon / Vaulx-en-Velin (Naples invited) • Video interviews with well known experts: Ronald van Kempen (NL), Georg Galster (USA), Paul Lawless (GB), Reiner Aster (D), Jan Vranken (BE) • Tribune article, Conference workshops, Thematic paper
    • Workshop structure • What is segregation, why is it a problem? • Illustrated by video interviews with Ronald van Kempen, Georg Galster • What can be done – the possible policy interventions • Concrete manifestations of segregation and polarisation: city cases • Berlin (Reinhard Fischer) • Naples (Gaettano Mollura) • Group work to discuss the cases • Discussion: integrating horizontal and area based policies
    • Workshop topics to answer We are interested in your views: •What signs would tell you that a city is divided, spatially polarised ? •Has polarization increased in the last decade? •What do you think, why is this a problem? •How can we stop cities becoming too polarized? For your answers: Workshop Stand in the foyer; Blog on the conference website under Workstream 4
    • POLICIES AGAINST SOCIO-SPATIALSEGREGATION IN EUROPEBy Laura ColiniIRS Leibniz research institute, BerlinCore group member URBACT Work stream‘Against Divided Cities in Europe’
    • Aims Presentation 1part (5 min) • What is segregation? • Why is it problematic? • And its manifestations in Eu cities • Video : interview of advisors for this workstream (10 min) • Presentation II part (5 min): • Policy responses and URBACT capitalization
    • What is segregation? • “Spatial segregation is the projection of the social structure on space” (Hausserman- Siebel 2001) • Spatial segregation implies spatial concentration of a certain group in an area (Kempen Özüekren 1998) • Often used as synonims are Marginalization ( Wacquant “ urbanoutcast”); Exclusion ( French origins translated into the EU regional) Polarization, Dynamic and multiscalar process of production of socio/spatial inequalities (Massey, Brenner, et al.)
    • Causes widening inequalities • Free market, individualism, limits on governments , deregulation, promised that benefit will trickle down and provide revenues for social services, but this did not happen • Retrenchment of the welfare state • Desocialization and flexibilization of the labour markets • Decreasing security in employment • Increase of migration flows
    • What is the problem with spatialsegregation? • The spatial concentration of certain groups of people in a specific area is not per sé problematic. • To what extent this spatial concentration is the result of choice or constrain?
    • Segregation is visible in cities
    • but can not be understood exclusively on the spatial level
    • Manifestations Similar segregation patterns may have different reasons and factors Similar manifestations of segregation in EU cities, may be very different in their dynamism and impacts Different Dimensions: economic, social, cultural, residential , mobility, religious, ethnic, visual … Different ways to measure it (e.g. multiple index of deprivation UK, social monitoring systems Berlin De, t al)
    • EU cities have localised deprivation in which unemployment, poverty, lack of services and mobility issues are more concentrated. These areas can function for the city wide as:• “transitory neighbourhoods” in which new comers to a city can find affordable rents and low costs of life. Once personal conditions improve people move out of the area ( e.g. Malmö).• Areas providing low cost labor, cheap services to businnesses and residents.investments on exclusively Area based approach may mitigate some of the multiple problems faced but risk to move the problems somewhere else)
    • A puzzle • How to avoid the reproduction of poverties? • Is there an adequate understanding of the localised forms of segregation and the link to wider economies to which they are embedded? • Which urban policy interventions? • Examples from URBACT (e.g. Berlin, Malmö,Vaux en Velin, Napoli)
    • POLICIES AGAINST SOCIO-SPATIALSEGREGATION IN EUROPEBy Darinka CzischkeDelft University of TechnologyCore group member URBACT Work stream‘Against Divided Cities in Europe’
    • Horizontal & Area-based policies • Horizontal policies: • Not linked to any specific spatial level • Focus on improving situation of PEOPLE (low income, special needs) • Area-based policies: • Focus on a specific geographical unit (e.g. neighbourhood) • Aim to improve situation of people living in specific areas.
    • Horizontal policies • Operate by domain / sector • Education, public health, housing (social housing) policies… • Do not focus on segregation per se but might have positive effect on it • France: Solidarity and Urban Renewal (SRU) law (tenure mix) • Berlin: Local Pacts for the Economy and Employment (‘intelligent networking’)
    • Area-based policies • Assumption: by focusing on PLACES with specific problems, the situation of the PEOPLE in these areas will improve. • ‘Soft’ measures: Fostering skills, social capital and building capacity of people in specific areas (e.g. work integration and training programmes in specific areas, local festivals, etc.) • ‘Hard’ measures: Physical restructuring or upgrading programmes in specific areas (e.g. demolition, new infrastructure, housing, etc.)
    • Social Mix • Aim at changing social composition of areas with high levels of socio- spatial segregation • Different definitions across countries • Two types: introduce better-off residents in deprived areas (gentrification) or disadvantaged people into well-off areas (statutory quotas, etc.) • Mainstream policy but controversy; evidence on effects not conclusive
    • Integrating horizontal & area based policies • Pros & cons of each approach… * • Complementary strengths • Examples… • Nantes Metropole • Others? Your city/country? … *