1 / 27

SOCIAL CHALLENGES OF MODERN CITIES. Visions and models

SOCIAL CHALLENGES OF MODERN CITIES. Visions and models. Cities of Tomorrow Seminar 25 & 26 October 2010 Jan Vranken Centre OASeS.

nfischer
Télécharger la présentation

SOCIAL CHALLENGES OF MODERN CITIES. Visions and models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SOCIAL CHALLENGES OF MODERN CITIES.Visions and models Cities of Tomorrow Seminar 25 & 26 October 2010 Jan Vranken Centre OASeS

  2. While cities have always been the main centres for ideas and innovation in Europe, the Manchester Declaration stresses that they must continue to ensure their position at the forefront of the knowledge economy by taking strong measures in the fields of education and business support, but also in the areas of the environment and social cohesion (Manchester Declaration of Eurocities, 22-25.11.2006).

  3. Fragments d’un discours urbain?(Barthes) • To present some social issues in a more normative vision and models perspective • Very relevant questions that we couldn’t yet answer • What models are being promoted? • By whom? • How are they being constructed, what are their basis and rationale? • How universal or differentiated are they, geographically and/or ideologically? • A discussion on the relevance and usefulness of social models: more questions instead of answers • Which principles could be applied by future cohesion policy focus in this presentation

  4. A complex force field Sustainable social order Gentrification Transition zones Social cohesion leads to social exclusion Conflict is productive Waterbed effect Top-down or bottom-up solidarity? Middleclass bias in participation Different temporalities

  5. Visions? Models? • Visions • Perspectives? Prospective thinking? ‘Futurology’? Concrete utopia’s (Bloch)? • Models • Ideal types (Weber)? • Scientific models with relations between core variables? (Theoretical constructs? Empirically tested?) • Real existing models?

  6. One approachthe European Social Model • Could the European Social Model also provide the basis (or the framework) for developing social models at the city level? • “Modernizing the European social model, investing in people and combating social exclusion” was identified as one of the main strategies for achieving the Lisbon Agenda’s goals. • Later, this ESM was specified in an annex of the Presidency Conclusions of the Nice European Council meeting. • “The European social model, characterized in particular by systems that offer a high level of social protection, by the importance of the social dialogue and by services of general interest covering activities vital for social cohesion, is today based, beyond the diversity of the Member States’ social systems, on a common core of values”.

  7. What with cohesion? • EU/EC definitions • to reduce economic and social disparities between Member States and to stabilise their economies • not strictly speaking a regional policy, certainly not an urban policy • Cohesion Fund < definition of cohesion • The Barcareport opens up this definition • ‘place-based development strategy’ is important • ‘a place-based strategy is the only policy model compatible with the EU’s limited democratic legitimacy’ • Objectives: • reducing persistent underutilization of potential (inefficiency) • reducing persistent social exclusion (relation with cohesion?) • Unit of intervention: places or functional regions, set through the policy process

  8. What with cohesion? • EU/EC definitions • to reduce economic and social disparities between Member States and to stabilise their economies • not strictly speaking a regional policy, certainly not an urban policy • Cohesion Fund < definition of cohesion • The Leipzig Charter (2007) – in full the “Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities" - emphasizes • the importance of integrated urban development policy approaches (cities should be compact in urban form, complex in functions, cohesive in social terms) • the need for interventions specifically in deprived neighbourhoods.

  9. What with cohesion (2)? • The Barcareport opens up this definition • ‘place-based development strategy’ is important • ‘a place-based strategy is the only policy model compatible with the EU’s limited democratic legitimacy’ • Objectives: • reducing persistent underutilization of potential (inefficiency) • reducing persistent social exclusion (relation with cohesion?) • Unit of intervention: places or functional regions, set through the policy process

  10. What with cohesion (3)? • The Toledo Declaration highlights the importance of integrated urban development and the urban dimension of cohesion policy. After 2014 there will be more focus on: • cities as key driver for delivery of EU2020 • more responsibilities to cities for programme delivery • the use of cohesion policy to support programmes for experimental solutions

  11. What with cohesion (4)? • We reduced Kearns & Forrest’s (2001) five elements to three dimensions • relational dimension (social networks, social capital, social order and social control, social solidarity) • cultural dimension (common value pattern and a civic culture) • spatial dimension (not only place attachment but also the spatial dimension of social networks and capital, social order and social control, solidarity and wealth disparities) • Could social cohesion be defined as the social dimension of sustainability, besides the traditional economic & ecological ones? • The political dimension could then be forms of direct and indirect democracy (unbiaised forms of participation) • The cultural dimension: cultural heritage

  12. Diversity? • Diversity was, is and will be a fundamental characteristic of cities • Creating a discourse on the positive aspects of diversity is far more difficult in a context of recession than in a context of economic prosperity. • Recent stigmatising of the concept of diversity, which has been defined in terms of a social problem rather than as a bundle of opportunities • Does diversity imply ruptures between social units (fragmentation) or does differentiation suffice? • What about the overlapping of those ruptures (ethnic, social, economic, spatial)?

  13. Four forms of social differences

  14. URBAN POLICIES • GATEWAY TO DIVERSITY • Transitory neighbourhoods: • Characteristics and relations with city • Characteristics of and relations with residents • Economic and learning function Newcomers (high number and the majority from non-diverse context) Learning how to live in a diverse city (tolerance, respect)  diverse interpretations of diversity  a two-sided process  diversity = as well differentiation as fragmentation (model Vranken) ‘To have social cohesion, social exclusion in inevitable’ ‘Social cohesion supports and restricts social mobility’

  15. Single focus? The public city? The enterprising city? The diverse city? The cohesive city? The participating city? The built-up city?

  16. The cohesion dimension of the enterprising city • Current policy agendas at every level have two main concerns: competitiveness versus cohesion • They aim at promoting the economic competitiveness in the globalizing system of urban regions. At this point two questions arise: • To what extent it is true that socially cohesive societies have a competitive advantage • What is the role of (social and ethnic) diversity in this relationship? • Hypothesis: social and ethnic diversity foster creativity and dynamism in cities; through innovations, entrepreneurship, and spatial dynamism they contribute to economic competitiveness. By focusing on the dynamism that (social and ethnic diversity) creates in urban economy, we can shed a light on the relationship between social cohesion and economic competitiveness.

  17. Illustrations

  18. The cohesion dimension of the public city • The public city refers to the presence of public spaces • Public spaces are meeting places in the broadest sense: from just observing each other to physical meetings, interaction & communication and further to (political) forums • Public places create the opportunity for a developing feeling of belonging (‘monuments’). • Efforts to restore some of these spaces … • versus mediocre development of the space, erosion by dispersal of functions (shopping malls?), privatisation of their management, privatisation of public spaces by groups (from gentrification to ‘semi-public places’)

  19. Illustrations

  20. The cohesion dimension of the participating city • Participating city refers to the provision of adapted frameworks for diverse forms of participation, which means not only the traditional indirect democracy – which has developed (degenerated) into a client relationship with the administration in stead of a community of citizens taking up social responsibility • Needs to improve this traditional form of participation with direct forms • The cohesion dimension is that through processes of participation people come to formulate common goals, discover common interests and develop common actions. • The constructive use of conflicts is important here.

  21. Illustrations

  22. The cohesion dimension of the built-up city • One way: the built-up city refers to its built structure, which may separate its residents or facilitate their interaction and communication – in the first place of its residents, but also its other users (visitors, workers, …) • The other way: how do the different users of the city perceive the city: the built structure (streets, public places) comes alive only through the way people use it. Shifts in functionality, etc • Threats to the importance of density, due to • Importance of virtual networks and meetings places? • City centres developing into Disney World • Urban sprawl

  23. Illustrations

  24. The cohesion dimension of the diverse city • Diversity refers to the fact that - almost by definition - a multitude of different groups are living together in a city; groups with a different social, cultural & religious, political, and ethnic background. • This diversity can be considered a threat or a capital (a bundle of opportunities) • Will urban diversity lead to increasing economic competitiveness? • And to more understanding between different social and ethnic groups? • Or – will greater diversity produce enhanced inequalities, misunderstandings, racism, intolerance and xenophobia between the different groups that make up the urban?

  25. Illustrations

  26. The cohesion dimension of the cohesive city • Use cohesion or diversity as the ‘transversal perspective’ to look at those different models? • Question: how do those single models relate with each other? • How do they contribute to social cohesion or diversity – our long term perspectives? • What with social and spatial mobility and their interrelation? • We didn’t mention social & ethnic mix yet… • An illustration: Urban health?

  27. Illustrations • The Dublin City Development Plan (2011-2017) proposes a flexible framework to: • draw together the many diverse regeneration initiatives taking place in different locations • nurture the development of a modern knowledge economy and work with its capacity to develop economic clusters in local areas • embrace the emergence of cultural clusters which are seen to be increasingly important in underpinning quality of life and developing depth in our international profile • foster a sense of place and develop community identity in the city core and suburbs. • http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Pages/CityDevelopmentPlan.aspx

More Related