Oslo City Hall: June 14th 2012Reimagining urban growth in the desire lines      g    g       g     of community‐led develo...
Outline of talk      Outline of talkHow do we understand growth?                      g• Key concepts  –   Infrastructures...
My approach                   My approach• Interdependent spheres of restructuring  (housing, employment, gender relations...
( Soft ) Infrastructures of Daily Life (‘Soft’) Infrastructures of Daily Life• I i i f  Inspiration for an integrated appr...
How do we understand urban growth?          Two extremes• (i)  (i) Orthodox ‘celebration’ (growth machine)         h d ‘ l...
Opposing the ‘celebration’ of growth:        sustainable de‐growth• (ii)  (ii) negative, unintended consequences          ...
Efficiencies of sharing           Efficiencies of sharing• G  Growth vs D      th De‐growth binary too simple – more      ...
Urban imaginations• Addressing the loss of a sense of collective   responsibility and shared endeavour     p         y• Co...
How might we re‐imagine an alternative pattern            of growth?  Desire lines.... Used as a metaphor for the hazards ...
Participation and co‐creation           Participation and co creation• Distinction to be made  Distinction to be made   be...
Almere OAl     Oosterwold, The                ld ThNetherlandsa New Town entirely built on reclaimed land where sites are ...
Other community‐led innovations  Other community led innovations• Ithaca Eco‐village    Hockerton Earth Sheltered  (cohous...
Norddysson   Mælkebøtten      Midtdyssen                                                 Bjøreekloen                      ...
Concluding remarks           Concluding remarks• from whose perspective are ‘growth’,                 p p             g   ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Helen Jarvis: Reimagining Urban Growth in the Desire Lines of Community-led Development. 14.06.2012

1,133 views

Published on

Powerpointpresentasjon av Helen Jarvis foredrag på TAB/BUK-konferansen 14. juni 2012, Bystyresalen, Oslo Rådhus.

Published in: Design, Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,133
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
164
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Helen Jarvis: Reimagining Urban Growth in the Desire Lines of Community-led Development. 14.06.2012

  1. 1. Oslo City Hall: June 14th 2012Reimagining urban growth in the desire lines  g g g of community‐led development Dr Helen J D H l Jarvis i Reader in Social Geography
  2. 2. Outline of talk Outline of talkHow do we understand growth?  g• Key concepts – Infrastructures of daily life y – Sustainable degrowth – Efficiencies of sharing – Participation and co‐creation• Metaphors p – Desire lines – Urban imaginations • Expressions/ examples• Concluding remarks
  3. 3. My approach My approach• Interdependent spheres of restructuring (housing, employment, gender relations);  everyday dilemmas of work/life balance• Time‐space coordination (not only who does  what, where, when, but non‐instrumental (e.g.  as mutuality, stewardship)• Recent shift from absence of ‘balance’ to  motivations and intentions of excluded  residents to seek a ‘better future’ via ‘utopian  method of thinking’‐ a journey of  h d f hi ki ’ j f experimentation and yearning.
  4. 4. ( Soft ) Infrastructures of Daily Life (‘Soft’) Infrastructures of Daily Life• I i i f Inspiration for an integrated approach; originally a Nordic  i d h i i ll N di feminist housing and urban design project ‘New Everyday Life’  (Gullestad 1991).• The vision of a more harmonious, creative and just society in  which children’s and women’s needs and the social  reproduction of all people and natures are valued as central  reproduction of all people and natures are valued as central motives for action (and policy).  • Crucially, the infrastructure of daily life is the social fabric that  lubricates collective responsibility and local networks of  lubricates collective responsibility and local networks of reciprocity and exchange (diverse economies).• Progressive planning ‘manifestoes’ including EuroFEM (Booth  and Gilroy 1999). d Gil 1999)• Developments in participatory and collaborative planning  ( (Horrelli et al. 1998; Healey 1997; Jarvis 2009).  ; y ; )
  5. 5. How do we understand urban growth? Two extremes• (i) (i) Orthodox ‘celebration’ (growth machine) h d ‘ l b i ’( h hi ) – Measured in terms of jobs and investment, global  competitiveness and a culture and quality of life  that attracts and retains skilled workers. – Coincides with hyper‐modern time‐space  coordination and labour‐saving technologies that  tend to stretch‐out and time‐shift multiple  t d t t t h t d ti hift lti l commitments more energy intensively – N t li Naturalises marketised h k ti d household livelihood and  h ld li lih d d ‘runaway’ consumption (Amin and Thrift 2005)
  6. 6. Opposing the ‘celebration’ of growth:  sustainable de‐growth• (ii) (ii) negative, unintended consequences i i d d – Goal of sufficiency; standards of living can be  maintained and improved through greater resource  i t i d di d th h t efficiency.  – An ‘ethic of care’ ‐ for social justice (addressing An  ethic of care for social justice (addressing  inequality within society and between generations)  and ecological sustainability.  g y – Distinguish between unplanned de‐growth (recession)  and a voluntary, smooth and equitable transition to a  regime of lower production and consumption.
  7. 7. Efficiencies of sharing Efficiencies of sharing• G Growth vs D th De‐growth binary too simple – more  th bi t i l complex picture of competing interests – e.g. Norway, practical, home‐centred idea of egalitarian e.g. Norway, practical, home centred idea of egalitarian  individualism combined with very high rate of one‐person  households.• Assumed ‘economy of scale’ in ‘smart growth’ urban Assumed ‘economy of scale’ in ‘smart‐growth’ urban  re‐development (energy savings) undermined by  consumption/debt cultures of privacy and property. p / p y p p y• Sharing is socially and spatially constructed and  influenced to a considerable  extent by  presence/absence of ownership; suggests that  / b f hi t th t ‘unplanned’ autonomous public spaces (the street)  help incubate vitality and resilience – via sharing. p y g
  8. 8. Urban imaginations• Addressing the loss of a sense of collective  responsibility and shared endeavour p y• Consider the landscape of social interaction and  collaboration – civil society, ‘soft’ infrastructure.• R lib i Recalibration evident in local efforts to establish  id i l l ff bli h and promote distinctiveness of place, e.g. slow  food, cittaslow (slow cities), post‐material social  ( ) p movements of simple living (focus on ‘being and  doing’ rather than ‘possessing’).  – The Economics of Happiness, documentary by Helena The Economics of Happiness, documentary by Helena  Norberg‐Hodge for ISEC. – Illich (1973: 12) ‘conviviality’  the opposite of global,  p y y industrial productivity. The ‘tools’ of conviviality facilitate  ‘autonomous and creative engagement among persons  and between people and their environment’. 
  9. 9. How might we re‐imagine an alternative pattern  of growth?  Desire lines.... Used as a metaphor for the hazards of  pspeculative development; unmet desire to create homes that are nodes in a community fabric.in a community fabric
  10. 10. Participation and co‐creation Participation and co creation• Distinction to be made Distinction to be made  between planning for  people, whether designed  people whether designed by experts or in  consultation with end‐user,  consultation with end user and planning with people;  genuinely participatory,  genuinely participatory• co‐creative, joint‐venture  or community‐led i l d• The Great North Build• http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_d etailpage&v=QudbFaYulf8
  11. 11. Almere OAl Oosterwold, The  ld ThNetherlandsa New Town entirely built on reclaimed land where sites are provided for the construction of individually designed homes
  12. 12. Other community‐led innovations Other community led innovations• Ithaca Eco‐village  Hockerton Earth Sheltered (cohousing) USA Housing Project, UK low‐impact eco‐villages;  Innovations in shared housing (older  I ti i h d h i ( ld home‐owners sharing with younger  tenant carers); Senior and inter‐generational  Senior and inter generational cohousing; New forms of mutual home ownership.
  13. 13. Norddysson Mælkebøtten Midtdyssen Bjøreekloen Neighbouring gentrification Den Bla Karamel Nordområdet Psyak MælkevejenLoppebygningen Løvehuset Fabriksområdet SyddyssenPrærien Fredens Ark Tinghuset
  14. 14. Concluding remarks Concluding remarks• from whose perspective are ‘growth’,  p p g , ‘competitiveness’ and ‘liveability’ understood?• Strong economies can be hostile environments Strong economies can be hostile environments  for those in poor health, those caring for  dependents, or managing on a low income. dependents, or managing on a low income.• Inequalities between households; a web of  resources and multiple economies; Bourdieu s resources and multiple economies; Bourdieu’s ‘logic of the situation’.• compelling arguments for engaging in a more compelling arguments for engaging in a more  imaginative review of how people might live and  work differently in the future. work differently in the future

×