About admin

admin has written 112 articles so far, you can find them below.

Anti-consumption in crisis

In Greece the transition from discontented European consumer society to deprived, post-crisis and austerity-laden, has had huge impacts on the people; but it has also prompted socially oriented alternative movements to adjust their identities in the face of shifting priorities: in the example explored below, for example, from cultural resistance to meeting basic needs. In doing so, one collective’s demonstration proved to offer a highly relevant model for alternative, sustainable, inclusive and affirmative forms of exchange and encounter, with multiple positive social effects. With the intensification of the refugee crisis in Europe – this model’s relevance is only like to grow; indeed there are already many such examples of solidarity and autonomy emerging; as the state-led social support fabric of cities is stripped bare by austerity policies, new inclusive forms of urbanism appear.

Investigating consumer-oriented activism, Andreas Chatzidakis and Pauline Maclaran present below this ethnographic film about Skoros, the anti-consumerist collective in Exarcheia, Athens that was established in 2008, right before the beginning of the Crisis. It runs a space where people can come and give, take, or give and take goods and exchange services without any expectations of reciprocity, and without using money. A series of interviews with members of the Skoros collective and its customers, show how the ‘free shop’ came into being on the margins of consumer culture offering an inherent critique of competition and scarcity, turning ‘one man’s waste’ into ‘another man’s treasure’. The video offers us insight into the collective’s experience of self organisation in the everyday realm of exchange, transforming a formerly negative experience of consumerism into one of community building and solidarity, from a worldview based on scarcity to one of abundance.

by Andreas Chatzidakis and Pauline Maclaran

Originally, Skoros emerged as a response to an increasingly commercialized and consumerist (Athenian) society. It represented an experimentation with doing things differently: by gifting, sharing, and exchanging; and by foregrounding the values of communality, degrowth, solidarity and social justice.

A few months after Skoros’ opening I was in Athens for my sabbatical research on forms of consumer-oriented activism and I enthusiastically joined the collective. Back then, it was rather easier to apply conventional critiques of consumerism, not least because Athens appeared conspicuously wealthier, a world-class consumer city. Shopping in super-sized malls and fredoccino-fuelled encounters became cultural norms, not searching for second-hand items or socialising with strangers in grotty-looking places. I remember, for example, observing people that would reluctantly enter, take an item and then insist on donating whatever they considered to be the equivalent market value. Skoros’ idea was too radical for them to grasp.

Of course there were also other visitors that refused to entertain the idea of Skoros. As Heracles explains in the documentary, they were those who brought and those who took too many things. Both were a “problem”, the former because they simply wanted to alleviate their middle-class guilt (as is the case in many charity shops); and the latter because they in effect promoted alternative over-consumption. “Limits” soon had to be imposed in respect to the maximum number of items one could both bring and/or take, a containing – yet somewhat contentious – solution.

Despite its problems, Skoros proved to be a very popular, and in this sense successful, place. As Nancy puts it, “this is something important that Skoros has achieved. Perhaps because it found itself in this area, in this location, as a neighbourhood shop and not within a squat or a social centre. It opened its doors to the neighbourhood, people walked in. In fact, many of those who came were people who had never done something like this before”.

But then came the Crisis, as Zoe explains: “It suddenly dawned upon us: “Resistance? To what exactly? Things are different now”. Put differently, the Crisis imposed a different kind of “here and now”, one focused less on trying to do things differently and more on urgency, a need to provide solidarity to an increasing number of people who were approaching and falling below the poverty line. Skoros’s critique of consumer needs became somewhat redundant. As a leaflet back in December 2011 wrote “…How can we insist that ‘we are not a charity’ when poverty is next to us, around and above us and it is growing massively? How to counterpropose solidarity and community when the crisis isolates individuals and makes them turn against each other?…” More recently, solidarity has also had to be channelled to the thousands of Syrian refugees who have reached the ports of Athens.

Throughout the crisis anti-consumption, as originally understood, was no longer relevant; it had to be re-evaluated and redefined. This film is produced and directed almost entirely by members of the collective, in an attempt to narrate the evolution of what seemed to be a rather simple idea.

The film is also about the power of people to exercise agency in the face of formidable socio-economic circumstances, it is about solidarity/ies, and the collective joys of doing things differently.

Written by Andreas Chatzidakis & Pauline Maclaran

Andreas Chatzidakis is Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the School of Management, Marketing and Centre for Research into Sustainability, Royal Holloway University of London. Pauline Maclaran is Professor of Marketing & Consumer Research in the School of Management at Royal Holloway University of London.

Research: Andreas Chatzidakis, Pauline Maclaran, Alexandros Korpas Prelorentzos

Project Supervision: Andreas Chatzidakis

Shot and directed by Athina Souli

Produced by Zoe Kanelopoulou

Executive producers: Andreas Chatzidakis & Pauline Maclaran

Sound operator: Giorgos Politakis

Edited by Stavros Symeonidis

Music Supervision: Elena Fornaro

Graphics: Lito Valiatza

Intervieweees (in order of appearance): Nancy Palta, Dora Kotsaka, Zoe Kanelopoulou, Elena Fornaro, Vanda Davetta, Heidi Zotika, visitor from Ghana, Lito Valiatza, Lila Kaniari, Babis Kavouras, Iraklis Panagoulis, Alexandros Korpas Prelorentz.

Editorial: To ‘the city of refuge’

Budapest, 4 September, 2015, the scene at the Keleti station. With historic buildings in the background, the most prominent part of the photograph(1) is of the camps of refugees in the brightly illuminated ‘transit zone’. Considering the accents through light, there is a strong juxtaposition/connection between ‘city’ and ‘camp’.

During the night large groups of the refugees had been brought to the Austrian border in buses. Their hopes were centered on and in Germany. Not quite two weeks later, the situation here and elsewhere in Europe had changed abruptly. The Guardian, viewing this from the shorelines of Western Europe, provided a neat and moderate characterisation:

‘Europe has moved from a moment of compassion and empathy with Syrian and other migrants striving to reach our shores back toward a reassertion of the fortress mentality that aims to stop them, sort them and return them, save for a proportion deemed to have a real claim to our hospitality.’(2)

Camps have, of course, long been emerging, short-stay ones, here and elsewhere in Europe and across the globe, some having already become, some long ago, others becoming now ‘durable’ perhaps, others declining or eliminated. At this moment, elites and/or residents of cities have been churning with no marked preference for unison with refugees and camps. ‘City’ and ‘camp’ are both, it seems, juxtaposed in opposition and connected through sympathy and/or solidarity at different moments. What lies beneath and beyond these moments?

In search of answers, drawing on and supplementing material in this and the previous issue, we make six moves. We turn, first, back to assertions investigated in our preceding editorial—‘We are here’ and ‘We say no’ with particular reference to Jerusalem in 2014 and this year in Greece—and to the territories staked out in Souza’s ‘From the Right to the City to the Right to the Planet’.

Second, with the Special Feature in this issue, we turn to camps, ‘Durable Camps’, in Europe, the USA and the Middle East, with some attention to Germany. Third, to ‘cities’ globally, to Chinese ‘small cities’ and to big cities with ‘Luxified skies: how vertical housing became an elite preserve’.

We turn, fourth and fifth, to epistemological questions, to the theoretical and practical question of whether ‘the city’ can and should be saved from the apparent stranglehold of ‘the new urban epistemology’; and to the question of epistemology itself, to the multi-disciplinary approach of the special feature, and to some indication of supplementary material that would contribute to a more trans-disciplinary approach, using, in this case, mainly literary accounts of the refugee crisis.

Finally, we turn to futures, as implied by scholarly questionings, or to simultaneously apocalyptic and utopian insights as combined in the image of ‘the city of refuge’.

Journeys, camps, cities, the planet

If we return, first, to journeys and assertions made, stories told and investigated in the editorial to our previous issue—‘We are here’ and ‘We say no’ with particular reference to the Greek Euro-crisis this summer and, also to the move made in Souza’s ‘From the Right to the City to the Right to the Planet’—we have a setting for our analytical narrative now. Germany at that stage appeared as the major threat within the troika to Athens and Greece. The drama plays out within the systemic struggle of capitalism to reverse social gains made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, subsequently with reclamation and extension in the form of popular struggles such as that of Occupy and the Right to the City and an emerging one, not just to the Right but also to a Duty to the Planet.

Our preliminary exploration of these two assertions and claims, ‘We are here’ and ‘We say no’, included two distinctions, first, between the exclusionary unilateral mainstream version of planetary urbanisation (touching occasionally on the actual existence of ‘the rural’, otherwise excluded by ‘the new epistemology’ in a less than beneficent revival of Magoovianism)3 as opposed to the full bi-lateral model. The material included now on camps and cities in this issue supplements and challenges even the sophisticated multi-disciplinary rather than transdisciplinary(3) approach (to use a second distinction previously set out above and explored in the next section below, on ‘Epistemologies…and refugees’), of the special feature, ‘Durable camps: the state, the urban, the everyday’, edited by Giovanni Picker and Silvia Pasquetti.

The camps reviewed by Picker, Pasquetti and colleagues are in Europe, including particularly Germany and the ‘gypsy camps of the UK and Italy, in the USA, the tent cities, and in the Middle East, in and around Israel with Palestinians, Bedouin and some Israeli settlements(4). Included among its six papers, is Elena Fontanari’s ‘Confined to the threshold: The experiences of asylum seekers in Germany’ which points to the established institutional machinery that will, unless challenged and disabled, together with racist and right-wing movements, undermine generous intentions towards refugees.(5)

We turn, third, from camps to ‘cities’. Could it be, that, despite some negative tendencies, camps nevertheless become, in some situations, relatively safe havens, acceptable to the residents and to already entrenched citizens? Or, at the other extreme, could it be that the non-camp settlements, the normative ‘city’, the more conventionally established urbanised forms, are heading, despite apparent legitimacy, in a non-emancipatory, possibly terminal direction? What Paul Kendall sees in his ‘Between big city and authentic village: Branding the small Chinese city’, a study of Kaili in south-west-China, is its contradictions

‘as it defines itself against the village while utilizing rural imagery for branding purposes, and as it defines itself against the big city while attempting to climb China’s urban hierarchy … ’

He finds, though, nothing too threatening; whereas this is not what Stephen Graham finds in his powerful and deeply disturbing critique, drawing on case studies from Vancouver, New York, London, Mumbai and Guatemala City, of ‘Luxified skies: How vertical urban housing became an elite preserve’. Graham refers to

‘the wholesale dismantling of the mass social housing movements— movements whose often dilapidated legacies of vertical housing are either being erased and rebuilt as upmarket towers for the rich or demonised—the last few decades have seen a striking colonisation of the urban skies by the world’s super-rich. The construction of the myth that stacked and vertical housing can never work for people on low incomes has directly worked to clear the way for the elite takeover of the urban skies’

What epistemologies could see rather than occlude such a process? Certainly not those that uncritically deploy, often without quotation marks or qualification, Schumpeter’s once relatively critical term of ‘creative destruction’. Does a contemporary reminder of Walter Benjamin’s reading of Paul Klee’s ‘Angelus Novus’ bring us nearer to grasping what is happening?

Epistemologies … and refugees

‘In one of his essays the German Jewish philosopher and literary critic Walter Benjamin writes compellingly about the Paul Klee painting known as Angelus Novus. The eponymous angel stares out from the canvas in something akin to shock: unable to move, his eyes widened, his mouth open, refusing to believe what he sees … All alone and defenceless, he watches an impending storm that will bring only chaos, confusion and cruelty.’ (Elif Shafak)(6)

Is this too extreme a characterisation of their/our situation now? What Graham has chronicled is something far, far beyond the ‘creative destruction’ in effect of the city. It is grimly ironic that this has been followed by the ‘new urban epistemology’ with the destruction of the very concept of ‘the city’. It is this act of genteel academic vandalism that Mark Davidson and Kurt Iveson gently and respectfully challenge in their ‘Beyond city limits: A conceptual and political defense of ‘the city’ as an anchoring concept for critical urban theory’. The relevance of their defence of the concept of ‘the city’ is succinctly stated in their concluding statement:’

‘Put simply, for many millions of people across the planet, the particularities of city life form the context from which planetary urbanization is experienced, understood and potentially transformed.’

But it is not just ‘the city’ and many millions of city people whose ways of life are under threat. Davidson and Iveson write:

‘We would also add that this approach to cities and the urban leaves space for ‘the rural’ to continue to matter for spatial theory and emancipatory politics in a similar manner to—and indeed, in relation to—‘the city.’

This claim also relates to many millions of people ‘on the run’ from the countryside or from planetary urbanisation or war.

Turkish novelist Elif Shafrak follows up her reference to Klee’s’ Angelus Novus with a particular contemporary contextualisation:

‘ … he watches an impending storm that will bring only chaos, confusion and cruelty. ‘In video footage from Hungary, I saw the same expression on the face of a refugee. The man can be seen running while clutching a little child and carrying the bags that have become his sole possession in life. Suddenly, a camerawoman … stretches her leg forward and deliberately trips him up … The woman keeps filming. The man lifts his head and looks with incredulous eyes at this stranger … On his face is disbelief, just like the angel in the painting.’

Shafrak continues with a discussion of what lies beneath and beyond such moments. Immediately, it is the camerawoman’s employment by a TV company ‘known for its close ties with the ultranationalist Jobbik party.’ Beyond that she pinpoints the items that characterise that ‘impending storm that will bring only chaos, confusion and cruelty.’ She talks, too, of the forces that can resist, calm, transform it, including ‘our global political and cultural discourse as agents of change.’ But are academics agents of change?

Picker and Pasquetti, in their valuable introduction to the ‘Durable Camps’ special feature seem not too sure. On the one hand, their initial epistemological section, ‘Durable Camps: an interdisciplinary debate’, points to the significance of Agamben, ‘bringing together Schmitt, Benjamin, Arendt and Foucault’s thinking’, borders on the particular interdisciplinary versus transdisciplinary debate which City is mounting. On the other hand, their final section, ‘Enduring Analyses’, though admirably ‘responsible’ in its ‘utopian stance’ seems to point to a somewhat optimistic Fabian and finicky conclusion:

‘where a truly responsible utopian stance on urban life and in general on human thinking and acting would keep on motivating enduring analyses, which would ever more effectively undermine the taken-for-granted nature of the social world.’

Can such discourse contribute to the formation and practice of ‘agents for change’? Perhaps this is a necessary counter-statement to much self- and other-deluding razzamatazz about revolution?

Andy Merrifeld has no doubts about academics/professionals as agents of change. In his debate piece, ‘Amateur urbanism’, he states

‘Professionals and wannabe professionals are everywhere in urban studies today, everywhere in the exclusive running and ruining of cities, everywhere in the control of urban economies, everywhere in austerity drives, everywhere in think tanks and institutions who study cities, everywhere mass media have a say about cities, everywhere the grant money flows, the payroll beckons and the spotlight shines.’

‘The biggest problem’, he continues,

‘that this professionalism poses for any urban dissenter—for people I shall call amateurs—is representation. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation, into a representation done for and by professionals. And professionals brook no dissent.’

From this journal’s recent experience, with a cognitive base in the agora as well as academe, of the tension between them, Merrifield’s charge has some substance: ‘professionals brook no dissent’. And there is not too much evidence of the forces that can resist, calm, transform the impending storm.

Cities of refuge

‘I’m gonna run, I’m gonna run,

I’m gonna run to the city of refuge,

I’m gonna run’

Could cities and/or the camps, become in some situations, ‘cities of refuge’ as gateways to a deeper, materially grounded, liberated, utopian and/or more spiritual way of life, that was once celebrated in a perhaps necessarily contradictory way in African-American gospel music and blues?(7) Could pioneers of such possibilities work more extensively together, testifying to their cognitive base in the agora as well as academe, extending their gaze beyond unilateral ‘planetary urbanization’, giving to that marginalised adjective its full status as an essentially non-urban entity or entities, attending not only to the juxtaposition/connection of the camp and the city but to the need for cities of refuge and their crucial dependence on and engagement with the land, the planet?

Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY

Editorial to CITY, Vol. 19 Issue 5; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 19.5

Editorial: To ‘the city of refuge’ Bob Catterall, pages 613-617

Luxified skies How vertical urban housing became an elite preserve Stephen Graham, pages 618-645

Beyond city limits: A conceptual and political defense of ‘the city’ as an anchoring concept for critical urban theory Mark Davidson & Kurt Iveson, pages 646-664

Between big city and authentic village: Branding the small Chinese city Paul Kendall, pages 665-680

Special Feature: Durable Camps

Durable camps: the state, the urban, the everyday. Introduction Giovanni Picker & Silvia Pasquetti, pages 681-688

The roots and implications of the USA’s homeless tent cities Chris Herring & Manuel Lutz, pages 689-701

Negotiating control: Camps, cities and political life Silvia Pasquetti, pages 702-713

Confined to the threshold: The experiences of asylum seekers in Germany Elena Fontanari, pages 714-726

Spreading and concentrating: The camp as the space of the frontier Irit Katz, pages 727-740

Colonial refractions: the ‘Gypsy camp’ as a spatio-racial political technology Giovanni Picker, Margaret Greenfields & David Smith, pages 741-752

Amateur urbanism Andy Merrifield, pages 753-762


Narratives of urban life Caroline Knowles, pages 763-765

Where is home? Why home is not at the same place in the USA and Europe Melissa Ley-Cervantes & Jan Willem Duyvendak, pages 766-769

Questioning integrationist policies in Berlin: the role of neighbourhood initiatives in the city of difference Elena Ostanel, pages 770-774


  1. Axel Braun, “Budapest, Keleti Pályaudvar, 2015”. © Axel Braun, www.axelbraun.org
  2. The Guardian, September 15, 2015.
  3. For a discussion of transdisciplinarity, see Catterall, B. 2013. “Towards the Great Transformation: (11) Where/What is Culture in ‘Planetary Urbanisation’? Towards a New Paradigm.” City 18 (3): 368–379.
  4. See the important Guardian feature (each piece is short but often powerful) of September 12, 2015, ‘It can no longer be ignored’, drawing on largely non-European ‘writers’ (i.e. literary rather than ‘social scientific’). Strongly recommended are Pankaj Mishra, Orhan Pamuk, and Rana Dasgupta, in general; but, also particularly for their strong visual and visceral focus, the already quoted Elif Shafak and Ahdaf Souief’s description and exploration of another Hungarian image (28 August) for its implications. The only such source deployed in the multi-disciplinary remit of ‘Durable Camps’ is a passing reference to Kafka in the paper about the German situation.
  5. Also in this issue, Elena Ostanel’s review of Turkish Berlin. Integration policy & urban space, provides another warning.
  6. “It Can No Longer Be Ignored.” The Guardian, September 12, 2015.
  7. Take particular note of Blind Willie Johnson’s and the Rev. C.J. Johnson’s (not a relative) versions of ‘run to the city of refuge’. C. J. moves on from Blind WIllie’s ‘I’m gonna run’ to ‘You better run’. An admirably comprehensive grounded account of the German situation that includes but goes well beyond warnings and conventional politics is Loren Balhorn’s ‘Don’t count on Merkel’, www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/european-union-refugee-crisis-germany/ (accessed September 11, 2015).

Editorial: ‘We are here’

‘We, the sons and daughters of this land, are opening our doors, walking out into the streets and taking up positions in town plazas to say: We are here.’(1)

A journey and an assertion made one morning in Jerusalem after the summer of 2014: ‘We are here’. Or it could be a journey and a position taken on summer days in squares, streets, cafes outside banks in Athens and beyond in Greece in the summer of 2015, expressed in the assertion: ‘We say No’.

Universalising the steps taken above, ‘we’ can be, not just those who come from ‘this land’ but also ‘those who came … from arbitrary and despotic lands’(2). or those decimated by ‘development’ across the planet. Such people are ‘taking up positions in town plazas’ and elsewhere. Who/what did or do they encounter? What support, obstacles, fulfilment, confusions that lead to what? To further ‘arbitrary and despotic’ responses and conditions, leading to liberatory movements, terminated through oppression and/or premature death, and/or transcendence, also possibly involving acute suffering, through radical change?

Re-assembling the papers and reviews in this issue of City, in the light of recent events in Athens, Greece, Europe in the summer of 2015, in order to reflect on such journeys, testing and extending Academe(3) through explorations with multidisciplinary studies sometimes tending towards transdisciplinary ones that take in the spaces of the Agora and beyond, we construct a four-stage exploration.

The first is from Jerusalem to the planet, ‘reinterpreting our contemporary challenges for socio-spatial development’.

The second takes in two British cities and six cities classified as European and ‘in crisis’ (the latter grouping concluded with a comparison with Singapore). We move in the case of the British cities from notions of modelling urban futures in Liverpool to the unrealised semi-fiction of an abandoned comprehensive transport plan in London. In the case of the European ‘crisis’ cities the move is towards understanding affective encounter (s).

Third, taking up notions of gentrification and fascism, reconsidering London, drawing on City’s ‘holistic and cumulative project’(4) – itself a journey that has extended, in a reverse process from the Agora of its founding years in the late 1990s to its occasionally uneasy encampment on the borders of Academe from 2000 whilst seeking to retain and develop the disturbing urgency and vitality of the Agora.

Fourth, we return both to the planet and to some questions raised by the assertions ‘We are here’, made one morning in Jerusalem, and particularly by ’We say No’ made one day in Athens: who are we, where are we, how should we act, what knowledge do we need, how can we ensure that we are here to stay?

From Jerusalem to the Planet

At the first stage, one ‘here’ and now is divided, contested, Jerusalem which Haim Yacobi sees as possibly a neo-apartheid city:

‘What attracted my attention is the posters that were all over the city – in both Israeli and Palestinian parts of the city, in both Arabic and English The very performance of these languages and the woman image are not an obvious representation of Jerusalem’s politics. The woman could be either Palestinian or Israeli, her hair cover does not indicate whether she is religious or secular, and this is something that works against the logic of separation that is not just ethnic but also along gender lines.’([5.  Haim Yacobi, email, 2015-07-15.])

But that moment of hopeful transcendence has not lasted. Why?

Another ‘here’ is the planet itself, referred to by the great feminist anarchist Emma Goldman in 1906, whose words are now deployed by Marcelo Lopes de Souza in the epigraph to the opening paper to this issue, (“From the ‘right to the city’ to the right to the planet: Reinterpreting our contemporary challenges for socio-spatial development”):

‘Man issued from the womb of Mother Earth, but he knew it not, nor recognized her, to whom he owed his life. In his egotism he sought an explanation of himself in the infinite, and out of his efforts there arose the dreary doctrine that he was not related to the Earth, that she was but a temporary resting place for his scornful feet … ’

Despite its (deliberate) biblical archaisms, Goldman was asserting the geo-biogical mothering, earthed nature of ‘our’ planet and our egotistical use/abuse of it with the associated dreary (and ultimately terminal) doctrines of a supposed rationality that now replicate the forms of capitalist-and-statist markets in Academe’s fundamentally unreflective but currently influential urban-inflected and urban-infected schools of ‘planetary urbanisation.’ ‘The debate on emancipatory socio-spatial change’, Souza argues, can be by no means only a matter of ‘right to the city’ − not even within the framework of the Lefebvrian concept of ‘the urban’ (l’urbain), whose scope is wider than is usual.’

From Liverpool to Athens

Retreating for a moment from such challenging physical and intellectual vistas, other heres, nows/thens, including confusions and in fact a ‘never’, are considered in our second stage with Paul Jones’ study of modelling urban futures in Liverpool Waters, and Matthew Harle’s investigation into an ambitious and abandoned transport plan, perhaps a fiction or a quasi-fiction, in the 1960s for London.

Jones’s and Harle’s studies, though valuable in themselves have a characteristic in common which, it has been argued in this series of editorials. should be regarded with caution as part of an attempted epistemological move beyond multidisciplinary studies, perhaps towards transdisciplinary ones, involving an apparently post-positivist concern with the fictional, including models, extending to ‘vision’ and the imagination which in taking ‘over the counter-positivistic notion of ‘imagination … once deployed as a critical term in the work of Romantic writers in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, re-appropriates it, without a critical edge.’(5)

Further place/times are visited by various contributors to a special feature, introduced by Ulrike Vieten and Gill Valentine, of European urban spaces ‘in crisis’ (Berlin, Padua, Athens, Pakistani Copenhagen, and Istanbul). Yet, crisis, in any fundamental sense, seems somewhat thin in these accounts, most evidently so in the case of Athens.

Yet very different accounts of Athens are available. It is, for example, in the same period that ‘the crisis-scape’ research team completed their work, focussed on Athens and Greece, organised a conference sharing and exploring their approach in Athens in 2014, and presented and further explored their findings in a special feature, both critical and imaginative, ‘Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond’ in August, 2014. What emerged is a very different account of urban crisis. One writer, Nasser Abourahme, reflecting on the documentary film, Future Suspended (2012), which embodies part of their research, asks:

‘Is the anxious, authoritarian, militarized city of self avowedly fascist police and pitched civil war our present-future? Is this the fate of urbanity itself in our millennial, post-historical times? Is Athens, the purported birthplace of those secular forms we came to so faithfully value—democracy, the polis, the public—the harbinger of their demise?’(6)

Looking not only at Athens but also at other financialised (a key notion in the research, though missing from Abourahme’s characterisation here) cities, this is a representation of the city and its future that is now more clearly accurate than it was a year ago.

Through Gentrification and Fascism to The Right/Duty to the Planet

A more generalised situating of urban and planetary processes is provided by contrasting accounts, in our Debates section, of the value of the concept of gentrification in relation to ‘much of the world’ by D. Asher Ghertner and in relation to ‘the global South’ by Ernesto Lopez-Morales. It is, in effect, continued and deepened in our reviews section, through Cheryl Gilge’s discussion of a characterisation of fascism by Deleuze that extends the notion into the realms of security, war and aesthetics.

In a second episode of our interpretive chronicle on ‘City’s Holistic and Cumulative Project’, Melissa Wilson takes us back to the late 1990′s considering reformist ‘millennial’ (= modernisation?) talk at Habitat II, within Istanbul and urban Turkey, and to the seminal ultra-marketisation of Covent Garden in particular and London as a whole, marketisation that continues to permeate and colonise contemporary ‘development’ and planning with its myopic obsession with and characterisation of ‘the urban.’

But if not even Lefebvre’s rich and complex elaboration of the notion of ‘the urban’, as Souza argues in his sympathetic but critical re-reading of the full range of Lefebvre’s work, can do justice to the planet itself, then it is hardly likely that appropriations of that work that miss that richness and complexity can be much more than a hindrance. The planet cannot meaningfully be reduced into the logically nonsensical quasi-dimension of unilateral binarism, in which a bipolar distinction is reduced to the one-pole ontology and epistemology of Lefebvre’s incurious scientistic interpreters. Urbanisation despite its accelerating imperialistic hold on the planet has to be seen within, as Emma Goldman recognised, the full context of the geo-biogical mothering, earthed(7) nature of ‘our’ planet and our egotistical use/abuse of it.

‘At the end of the day,’ Souza comments, ‘what is at stake is the right to the planet.’ This requires, he suggests, rethinking three issues:

1. ‘spatial organisation (pointing out the necessary, radical economic-spatial deconcentration and territorial decentralisation, but without degenerating into parochial localism and self-insulating economic processes)’

2. ‘the social division of labour, exploitation and alienation (in the context of which the trends of deterioration and regression such as labour precarisation and ‘hyperprecarisation’ should be highlighted)’

3. ‘ethnocentrism (in this regard its renewed facets relating to xenophobia, nationalism and racism must be vehemently denounced), the various types of oppression (class, gender, etc.) and heteronomy in general … ’

This, Souza concludes, has to be ‘ultimately examined and judged on the basis of autonomy in the strong sense as the crucial parameter of analysis and evaluation.’ But at this point Souza and indeed the fatally damaging divide within geography itself between the human and the physical cannot rise to the challenge implicit in his epigraph from Goldman. Whose autonomy? Humanity’s or the earth’s? We can perhaps solve this lacuna through the adoption of some notion of reciprocity, of reciprocal autonomies, involving not just a right but a duty to the planet. But this process has to be worked out and through not just the cities but the land. ‘Back to the blackboard’, Souza suggests, or, rather, to the interface.

Planetary Apocalypse and/or Millenniary Praxis

We return to Athens, Greece, Europe and to or examination and exploration of the nature of studies that could do justice to their/our condition and dilemmas in 2015. Must our knowledge base extend from Academe towards the Agora and beyond (and back)?

In the immediate July 2015 contexts of the Troika’s starkly punitive rejection (revanchism?) of the Athens ‘No’, Antonis Vradis, a scholar activist, the editor of our special feature, ‘Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond’ finds in his article ‘A negotiation, a betrayal and an endless summer’(8), as the troika’s settlement/unsettlement and enveloping confusions were imposed, the Agora at work:

‘Myth mixed in with fact, rumour with actual developments, hope blended in with fear: even still, in-between this strangest of amalgams of information and their ensuing psychological toll, there seems to be a peculiar consensus emerging. This consensus lies in the realisation that the once beloved Eurozone – for most – is little other than a financial mafia determined to utterly destroy lives in the name of fiscal discipline. It has come down to this, the barest, most crude of orders: bank profits will always come before human lives.’

The agora extends on this occasion to a party: ‘away from commercial venues, tucked away at a remote, mountainous suburb of the city of Patras … What you would normally expect to find’, Vradis continues, ‘is a big, raucous crowd, heavy beats and frantic dancing.’ What there is, instead, is ‘a big circle of us formed by the door entrance discussing the ELA, & the privatisation fund proposed by Schäuble and the utter colonisation of the country’s national economy and politics’.

‘Anything Schäuble-involving’ Antonis adds ‘is hardly a party-lifting discussion topic.’

William Tabb, author of The Restructuring of Capitalism in Our Time (2012), adds:

‘It is Germany’s rationalizing for running surpluses against the rest of Europe and then demanding everyone else stop running deficits (both cannot happen at the same time) and fear that the others, Spain above all because of Podemos, will demand a new deal of debt forgiveness and balanced growth in Europe that drives this insane punishment.’(9)

But the Agora can find few immediate answering resonance in Academe(10) or the formal institutions of the polis or even in the heroic but sadly blinkered vision of the Syriza party, the urbanised economism of otherwise erudite Marxists, and the agonised nihilism of even the antagonist movement itself.

‘The irony did not escape us. But what is one supposed to do, we told ourselves? This is not some academic discussion concerning the evils of capitalism that can be postponed for later on, for a more appropriate time; that can squeeze itself into university auditoriums and in our platforms of political propaganda. Will fear or resignation now preside? I hardly think so. Just over a year ago, our collective produced Future Suspended, a documentary that had tried to capture the footprint of the crisis on the psyche of the Athenian population, to show how this endless financial uncertainty had put people’s lives on hold. I had never experienced this feeling as much, as vividly as I had this summer, until this morning. Our entire summer has felt more excruciatingly suspended than ever’.

Beginning to deal with that now further intensified suspension will involve intellectually a move from the dominant rather thin and exclusive notion of multi-disciplinary studies to one that includes ‘thick descriptions’, yes, but within an unorthodox and widely embracing, Agora embracing, notion of transdisciplinary studies, involving the humanities and biology and the centrality of agrarian work and experience in a way that is worthy of Goldman’s insights into the planet itself, an organic entity, or series of inter-related entities-processes, currently uncomprehendingly reduced to the status of at best an also-ran in so many of the fashionable Mr Magoo-like studies of ‘planetary urbanisation.’(11) In so doing we would be moving, melodramatic as it may sound, to Apocalypse and/or Millenniary Praxis (12) in order to answer in lived reality our initial assertions and questions:

‘We are here’. In the cities but also on the land. ‘We say No’. Not just to the troika but to the neo-capitalist division and echoing academic divisions of the cities from the agora and the land and of both from the planet.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY

Editorial to CITY, Vol. 19 Issue 4; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 19.4

Editorial: ‘We are here’ Bob Catterall, pages 401-407

From the ‘right to the city’ to the right to the planet Reinterpreting our contemporary challenges for socio-spatial development Marcelo Lopes de Souza, pages 408-443

Fictions from the underground Rerouting the abandoned urban plan Matthew Harle, pages 444-462

Modelling urban futures A study of architectural models of Liverpool Waters Paul Jones, pages 463-479

Special Feature: European Urban Spaces in Crisis: The Mapping of Affective Practices with Living with Difference

European urban spaces in crisis The mapping of affective practices with living with difference: introduction Ulrike M. Vieten & Gill Valentine, pages 480-485

Everyday urban encounters as stratification practices Analysing affects in micro-situations of power struggles Peter Dirksmeier & Ilse Helbrecht, pages 486-498

The struggle for public space The hypervisibility of migrants in the Italian urban landscape Adriano Cancellieri & Elena Ostanel, pages 499-509

Socio-spatial stigmatization and its ‘incorporation’ in the centre of Athens, Greece Penny (Panagiota) Koutrolikou, pages 510-521

Ambiguity in urban belonging Pakistani Copenhagen narratives Kirsten Simonsen & Lasse Koefoed, pages 522-533

Encountering difference and radical democratic trajectory. An analysis of Gezi Park as public space Irem Inceoglu, pages 534-544

Affective practices in the European city of encounter Reflections from a distance Brenda S. A. Yeoh, pages 545-551


Why gentrification theory fails in ‘much of the world’ D. Asher Ghertner, pages 552-563

Gentrification in the global South Ernesto López-Morales, pages 564-573

Your daily fascism: investments of desire in the modern era Cheryl Gilge, pages 574-578

Jerusalem: from a ‘divided’ to a ‘contested’ city—and next to a neo-apartheid city? Haim Yacobi, pages 579-584


City’s holistic and cumulative project (1996–2016) (2) Towards millennium? Melissa Wilson, pages 585-612


  1. Haim Yacobi, this issue.
  2. See Souza’s epigraph from Emma Goldman, this issue
  3. See CITYzen’s ‘Academe or Agora? Re-situating the Urban Epistemology Debate’ on our editorial website.
  4. See Melissa Wilson’s review-article (this issue). Sitting confidently in ‘the encampment on the borders of Academe’ was the work of ‘the first Green Marxist’; Alain Lipietz (see Michael Dunford (1997)). The series title emphasises the fact that the journal’s project is both holistic and cumulative. One aspect of this is the increasing importance given to the notion that the planet has to have a more than an adjectival, also-ran existence than is permitted in unilateralist ‘planetary urbanisation’. With this emphasis it extends, (retaining, though re-interpreted, the rest of its agenda) the approach to critical theory that excluded earthed and embodied biological dimensions from its concerns and the approach to urban critical theory that excludes them from its now, particularly now, outdated characterisation of planetary urbanisation.
  5. See, for example, Catterall (2014a), p. 243.
  6. Abourahme (2014), p. 578.
  7. See also, as Souza notes, Catterall (2013).
  8. Antonis Vradis, Open Democracy, 13 July 2015.
  9. Email, July 2015.
  10. The Greek sections of this editorial owe much to an intermittent email dialogue with three Greek colleagues and three non-Greek ones. The debt to Antonis Vradis is evident, that to Professors Lila Leontidou and Dimitris Dalakoglou is, because of lack of space, not evident on this occasion but has been important. The non-Greek sources, which also relate strongly but implicitly to the theme Agora v. Academe are: Andy Merrifield’s ‘Amateur Urbanism (to appear in City’ 19.5) – whose epigraph is “Our era of technicians makes abundant use of the nominalised adjective ‘professional’: it seems to believe that therein lies some kind of guarantee” –Guy Debord; and Slavoj Zizek (with great thanks to Mark Davidson who has long laboured in CITY, by himself and in conjunction with Elvin Wyly, to demonstrate the pragmatic value of some of Zizek’s work). See particularly: www.newstatesman.com/…/Slavoj-Zizek-greece-chance-europe-awaken ‘The Greeks are correct: Brussels’ denial that this is an ideological question is ideology at its purest – and symptomatic of our whole political process.’
  11. To the usual acknowledgment of the author’s sole responsibility for any mistakes of fact or interpretation, an acknowledgement undertaken in order to protect the innocent, a specific apology has to be made to Mr Magoo for placing him in the company of myopic unilateral ‘planetary urbanists’. As Professor Souza has pointed out (email) ‘while Magoo gets into many comical (and potentially tragic) situations as a result of his nearsightedness (as we know, largely due to his stubborn refusal to admit the problem … ), he is very lucky, so that the situation always seems to work itself out for him. Perhaps some people don’t deserve so much luck in comparison with our lovely character … ’
  12. The need for such a political-economic-cultural transition arises in the concluding paragraphs of two accounts of the film in the crisis-scape special feature (see Abourahme (2014) and Catterall (2014b). The latter emphasises the unexplored potential in the film of the views of Panos Totsikas, Urban Planner, Struggle Committee of Elliniko Metropolitan Park, and member, Self-organised Allotments of Elliniko – see also the long quote from him on p. 497). How, pragmatically, could and should food and other local production be sold and distributed beyond existing capitalist arrangements in the impending financial and economic ultra-crisis with or without Grexit?

Academe or Agora? Re-situating the Urban Epistemology Debate


The academic debate over  the irreverent but very sharp  answer by Richard Walker to Neil Brenner and  Chistian Schmid’s pioneering paper on their New  Urban Epistemology and their publication  side-by-side in CITY 19.2-3 has had its day. It is time now to move on, extending the debate from the hallowed precincts of Academe towards the more relaxed meeting, talking market-place outside, beginning to rediscover at the same time what the debate is really about. Not only might Aristotle meet up again with Socrates, they might even remark on, re-mark and  eventually join with others in re-making the ground on which they stand. Meanwhile, ducking so as to miss any  remaining masonic missiles, our contributor ventures out, assuming, just for safety’s sake the name of CITYzen.

I am in love with Brenner and Schmid’s intentions “to ignite and advance further debate on the epistemological foundations for critical urban theory and practice,” and also with Walker’s goal of engaging Brenner and Schmid “in a spirit of friendly combat.”  The key issue is that urbanization concentrates everything — economic productivity and innovation, technological change, rates of change of political alliances, the evolutionary dynamics of human cultures, traditions, and institutions — and also present-day conflict and disagreement.

Hence when we get to the point of ‘planetary urbanization’ — whether understood in social-theoretical, Lefebvrian terms or pragmatic McKinsey-Consulting-profit-potential terms — then we’ve gotten to a point of powerful diffusion and re-spatialization of the political economies of knowledge in a spatial configuration of transnational contingency: it’s getting harder to predict which events, which stories, in which cities, will shape the new course of history in {today’s media-saturated?} tomorrow’s media-connected urban world.

“The Urban” is back, and it’s a searchable (and sentient) urbanismi, with critical perspective focused on the brand names that know us:  it’s no accident that David Harvey and Ed Glaeser are shown an image of Google’s new facility in Greenwich Village in order to begin a videotaped debate on what “productivity” means in the new age of digitally surveillant creative urbanism.(1)

But “productivity” can, in certain circumstances, be measured in terms of the magnitude of the audience willing to reconsider the epistemological foundations of urbanism as a way of life — or of those engaging with friendly combat over which assumptions we should abandon and which intergenerational achievements should be preserved or extended.  What is most crucial is that we all acknowledge and engage our disagreements in the urban agora, in City …

Hence when we get to the point of ‘planetary urbanization’ — whether understood in social-theoretical, Lefebvrian terms or pragmatic McKinsey-Consulting-profit-potential terms — then we’ve gotten to a point of powerful diffusion and re-spatialization of the political economies of knowledge in a spatial configuration of transnational contingency: it’s getting harder to predict which events, which stories, in which cities, will shape the new course of history in [today’s media-saturated?] tomorrow’s media-connected urban world.

  1.  Editor’s question and author’s response: ‘Even you miss out that biocultural entity, the material planet, that is the battlefield on which the ‘contestation’ is being fought out. Do I remember you once saying that as a student you undertook only one course in physical geography?’ ‘Excellent point indeed — yep, only one fizzgeog course (but it was a great one)’

CITY at the AAG 2015, Chicago, April 21-25

‘What are the dimensions and nature of the  urbanisation processes? What forms of action – resistance, reform, and/or revolution are needed to transform urbanisation from something that we largely undergo or react to and against into something that we produce?’ These questions will be explored in the City panel ‘Dimensions of Urbanisation: Resistance, Reform and/or Revolution? (2117).

A second panel will debate the definition of urban in relation to social justice.

Debates: (Re)defining the urban and the question of social justice

is scheduled on Tuesday, 4/21/2015, from 12:40 PM – 2:20 PM in Water Tower, Hyatt, West Tower, Bronze Level

Organizer(s): Alex Schafran

Chair(s): Alex Schafran

Panelist(s): Teresa Caldeira – University of California, Berkeley

Christian Schmid – ETH Zurich

Michael Storper – London School of Economics

Ozan Karaman – University of Glasgow

Artwork: Giovanni Battista PiranesiSession Description: Urban studies has recently returned to a series of debates surrounding the definition of the urban. How and where do we understand urbanization? How do we grapple with the variegated history and geography of the urban? Do concepts need refining, redefining or both? A related question involves the impact of these questions, in particular for questions of social justice and inequality. This panel invites leading urban theorists to revisit contemporary debates on the urban, and to speculate as to what they mean for social movements, questions of social justice and the future of urban inequality.

City panel: Dimensions of Urbanisation: Resistance, Reform and/or Revolution? (2117)

is scheduled on Wednesday, 4/22/2015, from 8:00 AM – 9:40 AM

in Columbus H, Hyatt, East Tower, Gold Level

Organizer(s): Bob Catterall – CITY

Chair(s): Bob Catterall – CITY


Antonios Vradis – Durham University

Adam Elliott-Cooper – University of Oxford

Bob Catterall – CITY

Sharon M. Meagher – Widener University

CITY Issue 19.2-3

CITY, Issue 19.2-3 April 2015; ‘Cosmopolitan multinational music group’, in the aptly named Greenmarket Square, Cape Town.

Session Description: Drawing on a wide range of experience, research and activism, this session explores two questions and their interconnections. What are the dimensions and nature of the  urbanisation processes – as discussed notably in  Brenner and Schmid’s recent paper, ‘Towards  a new epistemology of the urban?’  (City, 19.2-30) -that we are undergoing, reacting to/against, and/or producing? What forms of action – resistance, reform, and/or revolution -are needed to transform urbanisation from something that we largely undergo or react to and against into something that we produce? The panelists are editors of CITY, an academic, cultural and activist journal, engaged in action-research.  The work of those contributing to this session ranges from Brazil and Greece, from London and Birmingham, from Latin America and Africa to the USA, and from women’s to racial, and class struggles.

Answers to these questions can only come, we argue and report, from  multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary action-related  studies, that address racial/ist, cultural, social, ‘environmental’,  and economic/financial  dimensions of  the places , times of and beyond urbanisation.

Editorial: ‘You’re surrounded … ’

‘Urban residents are surrounded by discrepant infrastructural capacities … Being surrounded from all sides, and with such thick textures of surveillance and calculation, promises both the possibility of being really ‘pinned down’ and disappearing altogether.’ (AbdouMaliq Simone) (1)

We are surrounded, negatively, by infrastructural capacities or, positively, extended by them? Or perhaps both, surrounded and extended? If so, in what proportions? And is it/was it ultimately a choice, or series of choices, ones that can still be made, or not?

And what are these externalities, contexts? Are they media/technologies or perhaps the one-time project of ‘the city’ now taking on the (increasingly alien?) form of urbanisation?

Or, beyond that, is there the now marginalised realm of the country/nature? And, ‘space’? Are those realms, best characterised perhaps as ‘nature’, outside or inside us?

If inside/outside, are we, somewhat paradoxically, surrounded by ourselves? Or by aspects of ourselves, whose inner/outer separation and possible distortion we need to recognise and address if we are to avoid ‘the promises (of) both the possibility of being really ‘pinned down’ and disappearing altogether’? Or …


Such questions and some answers are suggested by our special feature in this issue on infrastructures, from which AbdouMaliq Simone’s words are taken, by papers from three other substantial projects, one on urbanisation by Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid, with a reply from Richard Walker, a second on Africa by David Simon, and a third on technologised and politicised realms by Stephen Graham, now looking into ‘urban air’.

Introducing one of a series of particular temporal dimensions as explored in this journal, Melissa Wilson draws in part on a reading (2) of a particular period, looking into the early pages of City, an early stage of its project, as elites and ‘multitudes’, edged towards 2000, towards and away from ‘millennium.’

Further investigations are undertaken in papers on the nature of smart cities as contexts, on a possible basis for social transformation in Poland, and on London’s class structure and struggles. Only the third, Mark Davidson and Elvin Wyly’s paper following, as does Chris Hamnett, our occasional series on London’s class structure, is touched on here.

We conclude with a return to Simone’s thoughts on infrastructure’s more than marginal role in social organisation and to a summing up and a polemical conclusion.

Windows: ‘Towards millennium?’

‘Interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds’, the special feature to which Simone contributes, explains and explores ‘a method for critical urban studies’. Its explorations are set out in six papers grouped, as Hillary Angelo and Christine Henschel explain in their introduction, according to three sets of interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds:

‘They condition the social world by shaping subjects and publics; they become tools through which people interpret large-scale change and develop a picture of their wider environment; and they allow scholars to literally connect the dots between very different experiences and places to make sense of broader social developments.’ These are supplemented by two Afterwords, one by Fran Tonkiss on ‘Economies of infrastructure’ and the other by AbdouMaliq Simone, ‘Come on out, you’re surrounded: The betweens of infrastructure’. From the introduction to the Afterwords, this is a valuable contribution to advancing critical urban studies. On this occasion it is to Simone’s invitation to ‘come out’ that we shall return.

A more dynamic, though essentially unilinear, account of the one-time project of ‘the city’ now taking on the form of runaway urbanisation is given in Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid’s seminal paper, ‘Towards a new epistemology of the urban?’ They distinguish, as have others, between context and ‘the context of contexts.’

‘(A)ll engagements with urban theory, whether Euro-American, postcolonial or otherwise, are in some sense ‘provincial’, or context-dependent, because they are mediated through concrete experiences of time and space within particular places. Just as crucially, though, conditions within local and regional contexts under modern capitalism, have long been tightly interdependent with one another, and have been profoundly shaped by broader patterns of capitalist industrialization, regulation and uneven sociospatial development. The recognition of context dependency—the need to ‘provincialize’ urban theory—thus stands in tension with an equally persistent need to understand the historically evolving totality of inter-contextual patterns, developmental pathways and systemic transformations in which such contexts are embedded, whether at national, supranational or worldwide scales.’

The major achievement of Brenner and Schmid’s paper is its delineation of this ‘totality of inter-contextual patterns, developmental pathways and systemic transformations … at national, supranational or worldwide scales.’ It is also a supremely useful, in fact essential, guide to the plethora of such studies, a cornucopia, that Brenner, Schmid and their associates are producing faster than many of us can read them. Stekhanov is not dead!

Our preliminary discussion here expresses some doubts about their notion of ‘the urban’ and the related discounting of ‘the rural’/nature, hence its unilinearity. We are surrounded, and yet … Walker, in his response, ‘Building a better theory of the urban’ has some doubts. Seeking to interpret together the theses that Brenner and Schmid discuss largely separately—in this case, Theses 1(‘the urban and the non-urban are theoretical categories, not empirical objects’) and 4 (‘the fabric of urbanization is multidimensional’)—Walker argues

‘ … because the elemental problem of ontological first principles is not engaged in Thesis 1, it recurs again and again in subsequent theses. For example, it is simply not tenable to dismiss ‘the putative non-urban “outside”’, as they do under Thesis 4; if nothing is outside the urban, then the urban is everything; and if it is everything, it is nothing in particular and therefore not an interesting problem.’

A somewhat polemical statement. Nevertheless, the point does need to be made. More balanced is Walker’s account in a later section where he moves between logical points and empirical observations concluding:

‘to leap from a relational process to the conclusion that this makes rural areas ‘internal to the urban’ remains sorely undialectical …  the urbanization of the countryside is always underway but always never complete. Indeed, there is a reverse ruralization of cities that is altering the urban fabric in important ways.’

To Greenmarket Square and beyond (letting in a little ‘urban’ air)

At one point in his wide-ranging paper, ‘Uncertain times, contested resources: Discursive practices and lived realities in African urban environments’, David Simon touches this theme:

‘ … another reality is that growing numbers of erstwhile migrants lead urban lives until death, even while often maintaining rural connections and performing periodic oscillating migration or visits to rural extended family homes. In other words, processes of urban assimilation are at work but these need not and often do not have the assumed Eurocentric end point of an eventual loss of rural ties. Hybridised identities embracing different locations and categories of place—even across national boundaries—may be becoming new cultural norms in such societies’

He illustrates the point with one of his photographs, captioned: ‘Cosmopolitan multinational music group’, in the aptly named Greenmarket Square, Cape Town.

‘The key point to make’, he argues, ‘is that Greenmarket Square in the Cape Town CBD (where the photo was taken) has, since the end of apartheid, become a market for curios and curiosities from across Africa, sold by traders from all over the continent. As such it has acquired a distinctive post-apartheid cosmopolitan identity and atmosphere that still characterises only a handful of non-elite places in the city.’ (Email from Simon, March 2015)

Of course, to say that such places are hybrid or cosmopolitan is not to say that they are rural (or urban). It may be to at least to suggest, though, that they are neither-and-both, something simultaneously less and potentially something more – as indeed were/are many such squares only recently Occupied and more recently re-possessed, for the time being. We are surrounded, and yet … Greenmarket is indeed well-named: ‘green’ yet not so much embedded in and yet ‘transcending’ organic processes and local rural production as traditional markets were; a ‘market’ in that sense and yet also subordinated to and at the same time resistant to and resisting capitalist and imperialist marketisations. The to-ings and fro-ings and intimated surpassings of such considerations would take us to an advanced form of the dialectics and ‘reverse re-ruralisation’ that Walker mentions in passing and to the analytical/interpretive contrasts between discursive practices and lived realities that are invoked by Simon:

‘Drawing on both political economy and post-structural/postcolonial approaches in search of hybridised theoretical progress, the paper explores how elite preoccupations and interests confront the diverse and often culturally rich lived realities of the urban majorities and their respective contingent senses of identity and belonging. The former remain framed by discourses of modernity expressed in terms of segregated land uses, aesthetics and ‘order’, whereas the latter generally relate to more mundane instrumentalities of shelter, basic services and survival/livelihood strategies in complex social realities, sometimes giving rise to syncretic or novel alternative cultures.’

It is the failure of Brenner and Schmid to embrace such an analytical/interpretive programme that predetermines the difficulties they encounter with ‘the rural’ (not even addressing the deeper problem of ‘nature’) There are, as Walker hints, new rural potentialities. But, as Simon reaches out to them, there are signs of ‘complex social realities, sometimes giving rise to syncretic or novel alternative cultures.’

At this point in the search for ‘hybridised theoretical progress’ we might let in a little air. Unfortunately, as Stephen Graham points out in his paper on the significantly neglected field of ‘the political ecology of urban air’, it is urban air and increasingly antithetic to actual life support. Graham works from Latour and Sloterdijk to his own characteristically truly global (3) and passionate yet cool empirical research: ‘As Bruno Latour has emphasised so elegantly, Sloterdijk’s work hammers home the enormous stakes that surround the essential technopolitics of a species inhabiting environments of increasingly manufactured and “conditioned” air.’

Graham’s research takes up ten themes, to which, he suggests, a political ecology of urban air should attend:

- the links between global warming, urban heat-island effects and killer urban heatwaves;

- urban pollution crises;

- the paradoxes of urban pollution;

- horizontal movements of polluted air;

- the vertical politics of urban air;

- the construction of vertical condominium structures for elites;

- the vicious circles that characterise air-conditioned urbanism;

- heat-related deaths of workers building air-conditioned structures in increasingly hot climates;

- the growth of large-scale air-conditioned environments;

- and, finally, the manipulation of urban air through military action.

We are indeed surrounded. Critical urban studies, however, seems logically now to lead to critical bio-cultural and spatial studies of settlement and unsettlement.(4)

Doors: ‘Come on out, you’re surrounded.’

We return to Simone’s thoughts, moving from our special feature’s introductory emphasis on ‘interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds’ to Simone’s emphasis on ‘the various doors they (the intervening papers) seem to collectively open.’ His first sentence in our epigraph, ‘Urban residents are surrounded by discrepant infrastructural capacities’, is followed in the full text by a listing of such cases leading to an interim conclusion: ‘For the majority of urban residents these various techniques and material supports of being surrounded appear designed to foster the fullness of inhabitation wherever residents are located.’ However, he continues his dialectical exploration of this context of contexts towards a deeply pessimistic characterisation of coming out: ‘there also seems to be a gnawing dissatisfaction and disorientation with any specific place in particular. In the midst of such rampant contradictions, individuals are left little choice but to ‘come on out’, as if they are going to be ‘outed’ anyway. Simply to show up, to appear, to be visible is the purported solution to these dilemmas’. The position he takes is close to, but even more bleak than that taken by Elvin Wyly in his reference in our previous issue to ‘a globalised precariat…struggling to find an audience, to “go viral” and have a chance at…something.’(5)

Simone continues, concluding with the sentence taken as the second and final sentence of our epigraph:

‘To appear as something specific, as something consonant with the truth of a situation, of one’s being or background, is not important. For ‘coming on out’, far from engendering particular modes of subject-making, becomes a dispersal of sense and action across all kinds of composite, temporary identities. Being surrounded from all sides, and with such thick textures of surveillance and calculation promises both the possibility of being really ‘pinned down’ and disappearing.’

Checking back from the dangerous threshold of Simone’s doors to a windowed, watchful gaze of one of the scholars who informed, inspired and curated this special feature, Hillary Angelo. She ventures, off-the-cuff, the following fine reading of these passages:

‘I understand him to be saying that being so thickly surrounded by infrastructure (that distributes benefits so unequally and forces all kinds of interactions) traps people in a way — into “coming out”, as he calls it, in response to whatever inadequate situation the infrastructure corners you into. And this, then, can only be a partial/situational presentation of self or political position that is more a product of those constraints than a positive statement of whatever/whoever the person/group is or wants to be/say. And in that sense, infrastructure traps us even if it seems to make some people more visible sometimes.’(6)

Bearing this in mind as an accurate reading of relatively moderate, disturbing nevertheless, mainstream experience we have to ‘connect the dots’ from AbdouMaliq Simone’s profoundly telling account (earlier in his paper) of black struggles and eliminations, to David Simon’s ‘uncertain times, contested resources’ in Africa, Stephen Graham’s tracking down of ten dimensions of the decidedly non-urbane ‘urban air’ that envelopes us, and to the unilinear ‘planetary urbanisation’ to which Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid commit us to despite Richard Walker’s protestations about ‘reverse ruralisation.’ Within and beyond this lie the uncertain promise of spaces symbolised by Greenmarket Square, the perhaps untimely glimpses of millennium, and contestations.

Missing from such a gently loaded summing-up are less gentle positions often enough argued in City.

Brenner and Schmid’s last section advances the thesis that ‘the urban is a collective project in which the potentials generated through urbanisation are appropriated and contested’. The contestation is not too evident in that section nor does the continuous repetition throughout of Schumpeter’s term ‘creative destruction’ without quotation marks or qualification help to establish the dialectics (‘live working or die fighting’?) of these struggles.

By contrast, the basis of the struggles is considered as indicated from the outset in City even in the subtitle to Mark Davidson and Elvin Wyly’s paper (in this issue): ‘Same, but different: Within London’s ‘static’ class structure and the missing antagonism’. See also their important remarks about 1830′s Paris, drawing on Ranciere’s The Nights of Labour: The Worker’s Dream in the Nineteenth Century France (1989).

Bringing such analyses together with our frequently expressed articulations on ‘the rural’/nature/planet/earth/cultivation/culture, we now turn to a polemical form of expression:

Urbanisation now is not about the urban, it is about the non-creative destruction of the urban – and of the rural. It is the surrender of those interweaving polar identities.

We are surrounded, then, by our surrenders. The planet is not a dismembered billiard table but a living ‘wild-flowered’ (Abrams 2011, cited in Catterall 2013) entity. Millennium is not a time, it is a process of reclaiming the planet-and-the-city. It is a process of reversing those surrenders so that we can find ourselves in our surroundings.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY

Editorial to CITY, Vol. 19 Issue 2-3; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 19.2-3

Editorial: ‘You’re surrounded … ’ Bob Catterall, pages 145-150

Towards a new epistemology of the urban? Neil Brenner & Christian Schmid, pages 151-182

Building a better theory of the urban: A response to ‘Towards a new epistemology of the urban?’ Richard Walker, pages 183-191

Life support: The political ecology of urban air Stephen Graham, pages 192-215

Uncertain times, contested resources: Discursive practices and lived realities in African urban environments David Simon, pages 216-238

The changing occupational class composition of London Chris Hamnett, pages 239-246

Same, but different: Within London’s ‘static’ class structure and the missing antagonism Mark Davidson & Elvin Wyly, pages 247-257

IBM’s smart city as techno-utopian policy mobility Alan Wiig, pages 258-273

The transformative power of cooperation between social movements: Squatting and tenants’ movements in Poland Dominika V. Polanska & Grzegorz Piotrowski, pages 274-296


There is a politics of urban knowledge because urban knowledge is political: A rejoinder to ‘Debating urban studies in 23 steps’ David Madden, pages 297-302

The future of the urban academy Alex Schafran, pages 303-305

Special Feature: Interactions with Infrastructure as Windows into Social Worlds: A Method for Critical Urban Studies

Interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds: A method for critical urban studies: Introduction Hillary Angelo & Christine Hentschel, pages 306-312

The birth of the urban passenger: Infrastructural subjectivity and the opening of the New York City subway Stefan Höhne, pages 313-321

Hierarchies of happiness: Railway infrastructure and suburban subject formation in Berlin and Cairo around 1900 Joseph Ben Prestel, pages 322-331

Infrastructure as a divination tool: Whispers from the grids in a Nigerian city Eric Trovalla & Ulrika Trovalla, pages 332-343

Networked infrastructures and the ‘local’: Flows and connectivity in a postsocialist city Liviu Chelcea & Gergő Pulay, pages 344-355

Toward an infrastructural critique of urban change: Obsolescence and changing perceptions of New York City’s waterfront Boris Vormann, pages 356-364

Rent gap, fluid infrastructure and population excess in a gentrifying neighbourhood Anant Maringanti & Indivar Jonnalagadda, pages 365-374

Afterword: Come on out, you’re surrounded: The betweens of infrastructure AbdouMaliq Simone, pages 375-383

Afterword: Economies of infrastructure Fran Tonkiss, pages 384-391


Today and tomorrow gangs: Youth and violence at the margins of the global city Katherine Saunders-Hastings, pages 392-395

Accessing public spaces Tara Saharan, pages 396-399


1. Abram, David. 1997. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York: Vintage Books.

2. Abram, David. 2011. Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology. New York: Vintage Books.

3. Catterall, Bob. 2013. “Towards the Great Transformation: (10) Earthing ‘Planetary Urbanisation’.” City 17 (6): 835–844 doi: 10.1080/13604813.2013.869084 (Taylor & Francis Online)

4. Mason, Paul. 2007. Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global. London: Harvill Secker.


  1. AbdouMaliq Simone (this issue).
  2. Melissa Wilson (2015), “City’s Holistic and Cumulative Project (1996–2016): (2) Towards Millennium?” City 19 (4): forthcoming.
  3. Graham is also working towards a major study, Vertical (Verso, 2017), covering many other aspects of the politics of verticality: elevators; housing; skyscrapers; plus sewers, walkways, flyovers, satellites, drones, geology …
  4. A more holistic or transdisciplinary (rather than multidisciplinary) extension, one attuned to epistemological dimensions, to all the approaches discussed above would require phenomenological expertise and practices, as deployed by David Abram (see his Becoming Animal, cited in Catterall (2013) and in Wilson (forthcoming) and subsequently and, particularly, in his The Spell of the Sensuous (1997), the chapter on non-urban air, ‘The Forgetting and Remembering of the Air’)
  5. Wyly in a quote that provides the epigraph to our previous “Editorial: ‘Go viral or die trying’” – using a recent advertising slogan that seems to be a deliberate commercial send-up of a slogan, one coined in a seminal moment of working-class history, the Lyons silk-weavers revolt of 1831, as discussed by Paul Mason in his book Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global (2007) (see City 19 (1), p. 2).
  6. Email from Hillary Angelo, March 2015.

Editorial: ‘Go viral or die trying’

‘(The) globalizing working class is now put into dialogue with what the science historian George Dyson has called the ‘universe of self-replicating code,’ in an intensifying global meritocracy. That’s the playful, retail side of “Go Viral or Die Trying” — but the harsh, wholesale warehouse side of it is a globalized precariat, downgraded by intensifying, accelerating neoliberalization and put into competition with robotics and the widespread elimination of jobs for human beings, struggling to find an audience, to ‘go viral’ and have a chance at … something.’(1)

Is the somewhat sombre figure gazing inwards-outwards from a keyboard in an advertisement placed somewhere along the Delhi-Jaipur Expressway, also to be placed, as authors and scholars are increasingly, within ‘a globalized precariat, … struggling to find an audience, to ‘go viral’ and have a chance at … something’? Is that something a matter of (apparently?) gaining a place within the ‘intensifying global meritocracy’? But what is that? Where is that? Is this the nexus between ‘the city’ and literacy at which we have arrived, the ‘cognitive capitalism’ in which literacy ‘reconstituted through partially automated constellations of quantification and commodification’ serves, and is served by, planetary urbanisation? Is this the somewhere where something is found? Is this our scene?

These questions arise here through a reading of Elvin Wyly’s ‘Where is an author?’, subsequent discussion with him of this particular image and slogan, ‘Go viral or die trying’, followed up through the context(s) presented in this issue, beyond these to the historic associations of the slogan, and, beyond that, to ‘the human condition’ at this point in urban and planetary history.


What, then, is our scene or scenes? There are so many uncertainties: Something, Somewhat, Somewhere, Sometime. And so many questions: What? Where? When? Who? ‘There must be someway outa here’? Which? And how do we come to characterise these scenes and possible exits?

There are at least eight scenes or combinations of scenes presented in this issue. A ninth, giving perhaps the origin of the advertiser’s slogan is added.

Taking them in the order in which they are presented, Wyly’s combination of an intensifying global meritocracy and a downgraded globalised precariat comes first. In it he takes an insight from Foucault through ‘an intertextual dialogue with contemporary critical urban theory as well as earlier elements of Comte, Marx and Kant.’ What should also be noted is his use at times of particularly resonant photographs, such as this one, that more than merely illustrating a point also, in the case considered here, opens it up to further possibilities?(2)

Two further papers take up specific scenes, in Cyprus and Turkey, associated with conflict. In Cyprus, Paul Dobraszczyk’s atmospheric photographs and descriptions, in his ‘Traversing the fantasies of urban destruction’, take the reader through the off-bounds, former Greek resort town of Varoshka, abandoned at the time of the Turkish invasion in in 1974. He asks how, in a world saturated with images, real and imagined, where the line between them becomes increasingly blurred, we might (in Zizek’s terms) ‘traverse the fantasy’. He concludes: ‘I suggest, like Zizek, that fantasies of large-scale ruination allow us access to a potentially redemptive form of imaginative thinking … ’ In Turkey, authors Tahir Abbas and Ismail Hakki Yiggi are relatively optimistic about the implications of the ‘Scenes from Gezi Park’ that they witnessed.

Two subsequent scenes are both in New York. One as represented by the Phun Phactory, or Institute for Higher Burnin’, in Queens. And the other in our special feature compiled and introduced by David Madden on the late Marshall Berman, ‘a radical New York intellectual’, with contributions by Todd Gitlin, Daniel Skinner, and Gareth Millington, whose implicit and explicit theme of ‘faithful to the city’ is one to which we shall return.

The sixth scene is in ‘London’s Olympic State’ and the seventh has perhaps a place for authors and ‘the people’ somewhere ‘Toward the Horizon of Democracy’.

The penultimate scene, ‘City’s holistic and cumulative project’ as presented by Melissa Wilson and Bob Catterall, draws on Los Angeles, sometime, then and now, as CITY nears its twentieth year and seeks to uncover its roots and advance its growth. The concluding scene, presented here in this editorial, takes us from the slogan ‘Go Viral or Die Trying’ to its origin in Lyons in 1830-1 and to ‘the human condition’ at this point in urban and planetary history.

What, whose scene?

What is a scene? In an introduction to Joseph Heathcott’s piece on New York’s late Phun Phactory, Anna Richter gives a democratic slant to a definition, generalising from her experience and that of her predecessor as editors of our long-running series, ‘Scenes and Sounds’. The series presents a scene which ‘invites readers to follow urban dwellers through their everyday lives, using navigational skills that correspond with spatial grammers and practices.’ But that democratic element can be negated, as Heathcott shows in his article, following the neoliberal imperatives that undermined and eliminated both the ‘phun’ and the ‘phactory’? What then? Heathcott concludes with two alternatives. But, Richter suggests, these are ‘perhaps not too far away from creative-class discourse in urban planning’. Nor, much more threatening to Higher Burnin’, is the agenda of ‘self-replicating code,’ in a combination of an ‘intensifying global meritocracy’ with the increasingly downgraded globalized precariat, in which acutely marginalised citizens are now invited to ‘“go viral” and so, by implication, have a chance at … something.’ Nor can we expect too much from Todd Gitlin/s celebration of Marshall Berman’s ‘perennial modernism’? To what extent is ‘Hurling the little streets aganst the great’ now the answer? What, then, is the ‘something’? Wyly spells it out:

‘You could be famous. You could become known, get a job, get admission to an elite institution that will give you entry to the disappearing rungs of the middle class—but as those rungs disappear faster, it’s a widening gap between those on the top—the viral global celebrities—and every other step lower on the ladder.’(3)

Live working or die fighting

‘The widely cited story is Kodak vs. Instagram: at the peak, Kodak employed 140,000 before the company died amidst the digital shift; Instagram, when it was bought by Facebook for a billion dollars, had a total full-time employee roster of … thirteen.’(4)

Wyly concludes:

‘So that’s part of what I think of when I think of this image—a global competition that is spinning faster and faster. And a lot of it is about education (somewhere in my collection I have an image for one of the schools outside Delhi promising to educate the ‘global child’), and thus it is about an unassailable meritocracy (who can be against everyone trying to be ‘the best’?)’(5)

But the dialogue, and struggle, that Wyly points to between ‘the globalizing working class’ and an ‘intensifying global meritocracy’, with its “universe of self-replicating code” can only succeed when we turn to the actual processes described in Paul Mason’s seminal book (2007, (6), Live Working or Die Fighting, How the Working Class Went Global. It cannot be, as Andy Merrifield (2013, (7) would have it, a matter of mere encounter. What it has to be, as Mason brings out so clearly in his chapter on the Lyon silk weavers’ revolt of 1831, is also a matter of organisation. As Pierre Charnier, a master weaver, argued it out with his colleagues:

‘It’s our sedentary lifestyle … which shapes our morale. It is etiolated, just like our bodies. In order to remedy this double weakness. We have to create within our profession an esprit de corps. And there’s only one way to get there: organisation … ’(8)

Charnier set up the Society of Mutual Duty. What was involved is described by Mason. An aspect of this organisational activity was the setting up of the first worker’s newspaper in history, L’Echo de la Fabrique. It forecast a revolt. In the ensuing revolt one contingent carried a black flag. On the flag was a slogan: ‘Live Working, or Die Fighting’. It is, of course, a necessary alternative to ‘Go Viral or Die Trying’. It is part perhaps of what the somewhat etiolated figure gazing inwards-outwards from a keyboard in an advertisement placed somewhere along the Delhi-Jaipur Expressway, and many others, are waiting for, a city that exceeds Berman’s and Millington’s optimism, a city which becomes ‘faithful to the earth’.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY

Editorial to CITY, Vol. 19 Issue 1; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 19.1

Editorial: ‘Go viral or die trying’ Bob Catterall, pages 1-4

Where is an author? Elvin Wyly, pages 5-43

Traversing the fantasies of urban destruction: Ruin gazing in Varosha Paul Dobraszczyk, pages 44-60

Scenes from Gezi Park: Localisation, nationalism and globalisation in Turkey Tahir Abbas & Ismail Hakki Yigit, pages 61-76

Scenes and Sounds

Introduction: Hacking the redevelopment script Anna Richter, pages 77-78

The bold and the bland: Art, redevelopment and the creative commons in post-industrial New York Joseph Heathcott, pages 79-101

Special Feature: On Marshall Berman (1940–2013)

On Marshall Berman (1940–2013): A radical New York intellectual: Introduction David Madden, pages 102-103

Hurling the little streets against the great: Marshall Berman’s perennial modernism Todd Gitlin, pages 104-108

Remembering Marshall Berman Daniel Skinner, pages 109-111

Remaining faithful to the city: Marshall Berman’s provocative optimism Gareth Millington, pages 112-120


Adventures in the art of dissent and London’s Olympic State Andrew Harris, pages 121-125

Towards the horizon of democracy: Nurturing our desires, giving space to possible path Francesca Governa, pages 126-130

City’s holistic and cumulative project (1996–2016): (1) Then and now: ‘It all comes together in Los Angeles?’ Melissa Wilson & Bob Catterall, pages 131-142


  1. Email from Elvin Wyly, 6 January, 2015.
  2. Particularly resonant photographs, are selected for most issues, often with invited comments from the photographer/author such as this one, that more than merely illustrating a point also open up the image and implicit meanings to further possibilities.
  3. Wyly, ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Mason, P. 2007. Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global. London: Harvill Secker.
  7. Merrifield, A. 2013. The Politics of the Encounter: Urban Theory and Protest Under Planetary Urbanisation. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
  8. Mason, p. 32.

Take the Money and run! An evening exploring London’s response to the crisis, with films, talks and debate

Centre of Media Studies, SOAS and CITY Journal present

Take the Money and run! Trickledown Economics: From Hedge Funders to the London Riots

“Riots are the voice of the unheard” – Reverend Martin Luther King


Saturday January 24th, 2015, 4:00 pm to 8:30 pm

at the Khalili Lecture Theatre, SOAS, Russell Square

No need to book – all welcome

An evening exploring London’s response to the crisis, with films, talks and debate

The financial crisis following the banking collapse in 2008, has been a purely man-made phenomenon, an unsurprising result of the suicidal economics of short-term, casino economics of the international financial sector, and its capital, the City of London. The link between production and ‘wealth creation’ has been shattered by the financialisation of international capital, hence creating a market detached from economic realities. This has led to the deepest financial crisis in our lifetime, with hundreds of millions all over the world suffering, and having to pay the cost of the reckless financial market. In its wake, ten of thousands have ransacked London shops, taking a bottle and running.

Have we learnt anything from these events? Have we changed society to take account of the two related disasters? Are we now immune from a further crash? What is the price being paid for the last crash, and who is paying it? Are further riots likely, or will society take political action instead to efficiently transform the financial sector? Is this a crisis of financial capital, or of capitalism?

Instead of dealing with the banks and financial institutions of Capitalism which have brought about this latest crisis, the UK Coalition government has launched a massive attack on the victims – the unemployed, the low-wage earners, migrant workers, people on benefits, the old and the infirm. They are to ones who are paying the cost of the banks profligacy.

To answer the question, two filmmakers and a number of researchers have come together to think about London and the crisis, at a point in time when positive change seems further than ever.


16:00            London is Burning (2012, 45Minutes), a documentary film by Prof. Haim Bresheeth (SOAS)

17:00            Secret City (2012, 72 minutes) a documentary film by Prof. Michael Chanan (Roehampton University)

18:30 Panel presentations and discussion:

Chair: Prof. Annabelle Sreberny (SOAS)

Panel Presentations

Prof. Jeremy Gilbert (UEL)

Property and Power in the post-political City

Adam Elliott-Cooper (Oxford University)

Resistance: Disruption at the point of consumption

Michael Edwards (UCL)

London: a class struggle waged from above, and resistance

Q&A Session with Panel and directors

Editorial: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’

“First, the working classes and bohemians were priced out … That was gentrification. Now comes plutocratisation: the middle classes and small companies are falling victim to class cleansing. Global cities are becoming patrician ghettos … Global cities are turning into vast gated communities where the one per cent reproduces.” 1

Seen as a series of accumulating stages, this characterisation – gentrification followed by plutocratisation followed by a third stage in which patrician ghettos are moving towards domination – is, to say the least, alarming. Concluding their careful analysis in this issue of London’s changing class structure and residential mosaic, David Manley and Ron Johnston turn to the tripartite characterisation by Saskia Sassen of recent urban developments(s). The source in which they came across this formula was an article by the anthropologist and journalist Simon Kuper, in which concentrating on Paris he equates changes there with London, New York and Tokyo (2)

This characterisation and its implications are considered here on the basis of the studies assembled. Does the tripartite model stand up in this light? Or could it be that the various situations and analyses assembled point to a condition that is much more alarming? Whatever the intensity of this condition, is or are there a way or ways out? What do different analytic approaches have to contribute to understanding the situations and their possibilities? Are there any signs of emergence?

That the condition is much more than alarming, in fact terminal, is argued in Adrian Atkinson’s paper in which he looks at urbanisation as ‘a brief episode in history’, as it speeds into decline and self-destruction. Moving on to one of our three special features, ‘Cities in the Arabian Peninsula’, and taking up a paper on environmental costs of coastal urbanisation in the Arabian Gulf, one can see the biological dimension of this possibly terminal condition.

The signs of an emerging alternative to decline and eventual collapse are discerned and documented in Atkinson’s article and in the introductions to and papers in the other two special features. In both ‘Assembling Istanbul’ and ‘Labour Resistance across Global Spaces’, new directions are identified in, for example, the paper that each includes on Romani struggles, one in Istanbul and the other in Italy. Returning to London, a further paper from the Labour Resistance feature, on ‘Precarious Workers’, there are in the struggles of the cleaners signs of an alternative to Sassen’s charted course of mounting progression/ regression for urbanisation.


The near-terminal state of environmental degradation in at least one major world region is now becoming evident. John Burt brings this out in the case of the coastal areas of the Arabian Peninsula. He notes the impact of urbanisation on sabkhas (salt-flats), mangroves, beaches, seagrass beds, and coral reefs (70% of them are now ‘effectively lost’). In addition to coastal development, other factors impacting on coastal ecosystems are overfishing, the production of desalinated water (whose waste products, including toxic pollutants, are discharged back into the Gulf), and pollution from the oil and other industries. Some of this is familiar from newspaper stories, or through glamorised treatment in colour supplements but is marginalised or ignored when the relationship of ‘urban’ to non-urban/rural and to their bio-cultural foundations is missed. ‘Taken together their cumulative impact’, Burt concludes, ‘could trigger the collapse of those productive habitats that for millennia have supported coastal populations … ’

Much of Atkinson’s earlier work in this journal has concentrated on cities. Here his emphasis is on the wider spatial and historical context of urbanisation, the consequent deepening exploitation and decline of rural/ agrarian areas (to which should be added coastal areas), and on a topic much neglected by the social sciences, civilisation. On the rural/agrarian dimension, Atkinson argues that the current global population will soon enough become ‘un-feedable’:

‘indeed, due only to irrational distribution and wastage, rather than a shortfall of supply, we already have more than 1 billion hungry and undernourished people, many of whom were made so by the globalisation of their rural food production industries as a result of international trade agreements.’

The neglect of the topic of civilisation is not to the credit of the social sciences. One can note how in the quest for an, in fact, crudely reductive notion of scientificity earlier work on qualitative dimensions of social life by philosophers and, for example, founding figures in the development of sociology, notably Marx, Weber and Durkheim, has been marginalised or abandoned – a tendency furthered by the neoliberalisation of universities. It is to the credit of Atkinson that as a consultant, working on urban, environmental and local economic development issues, one fully aware (unlike many) of the need for a grass-roots rather than elitist ‘professional’ approach, he has also devoted much of his life to reworking this vast qualitative territory. The bearing of such grounded scholarship on current activist concerns can be seen, for example, in the treatment in his concluding paragraphs of the relevance of a seminal 1980 book on, academically-speaking, ‘moral philosophy’, Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue , to the Right to the City movement:

‘The book analyses how Occidental culture lost the very ability to formulate moral principles at any more than the personal or interpersonal level. We thus see notions asserted—readers of this journal may think of the Right to the City—that swim around in a void, having lost any meaningful foundation or effective connection into a more basic or coherent or systematic moral universe.’

To say this is not, of course, to write off the Right to the City movement but to point to a problematic dimension of its praxis so as to be able to direct attention towards engaging with it.

‘Swimming around in a void’? Romani struggles in Istanbul and Rome

The signs of an emerging alternative to decline and eventual collapse are set out in Atkinson’s article and in papers in the other two special features. In both ‘Assembling Istanbul’ and ‘Labour Resistance across Global Spaces’ new directions are indicated in the introductions and, for example, in the paper that each includes on Romani struggles, one in Istanbul and the other in Italy. But are these struggles nevertheless swimming around in the void to which Atkinson points? Or is there a way out? How might we know?

Each of these papers on Romani struggles is housed in a different analytic approach, set out in an introductory paper in each case, assemblage theory and a broadly cultural orientation for the ‘Assembling Istanbul’ papers, and a broadly political economy and labour-oriented approach in the papers of the ‘Labour and Resistance across global spaces’ special feature.

In their introductory paper, ‘Assembling Istanbul: buildings and bodies in a world city’, Elizabeth Angell, Timur Hammond and Danielle van Dobben Schoon make it clear where it is that readers will find themselves assembled. Nevertheless they consciously and deliberately use a political economy narrative in a section providing ‘A brief primer on contemporary Istanbul’ while noting ‘the potentially incompatible commitments of assemblage urbanism and political economy.’ This introduction and the feature as a whole provide a valuable contribution to that debate – one in which they acknowledge that ‘this journal has played a crucial role (Amin 2007; McFarlane 2011; Swanton 2011) between potential incompatibles.’

Among the papers one, “‘Sulukule is the gun and we are its bullets’: Urban renewal and Romani identity in Istanbul”, by Danielle van Dobben Schoon, provides a valuable cultural emphasis in following the progress of a hip hop video (3) – in and beyond Istanbul. But how can such cultural forms take Romanis and others through and beyond ‘urban renewal’, the ‘storm’ of building that Asu Aksoy (2012) has so eloquently described, so as embody their needs? ‘Assembling Istanbul: buildings and bodies’ is the title of the feature. But what forms of analysis and action in what socio-economic spheres are needed for liberatory embodiment?

In her summing up the feature, ‘Cultures of assemblage, resituating urban theory’, Amy Mills provides ‘a response to the papers’, apparently from within the assemblagist position, allowing David Harvey a walk-on part in the last three paragraphs. But it is not clear that the feature has succeeded in ‘resituating urban theory’, as Mills claims. A return to their political economy ‘primer’ might help? In the Introduction to their special feature, ‘Labour and Resistance across global spaces’, a valuable contribution to understanding and action, Adam Elliott-Cooper, Amber Murrey, Ashok Kumar and Musab Younis adopt a broadly political economy labour-oriented approach with a close focus on forms of resistance and organisation from ‘different sides of the North–South divide: juxtaposing the office custodian and the garment factory; gentrification and the modern prison; state-led repression enabled by transnational corporations and the emerging forms of anti-capitalist resistance’.

Among the Roma in Rome, Gaja Maestri in her contribution sees ‘the economic crisis as an opportunity.’ The paper shows how austerity generates new strategies and solidarities for negotiating Roma access to housing in Rome but lacks the dimension of cultural e ́lan that the equivalent assemblage paper provides. Assemblage and political economy seem, on this showing, to need each other – at least if we are to be clear about the full potentials, negative and positive, of the progression/regression of mounting urbanisation and environmental degradation so as to inform and motivate people towards seeking and finding a way out.

London (and beyond) revisited: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’

Revisiting London in another political economy and labour-oriented paper, the same problem arises. Jamie Woodcock’s ‘Precarious workers in London: New forms of organisation and the city’ is, on the one hand, weak on the tactilities of socio-economic and cultural processes, but, on the other, there is, as with other papers in this special feature, an acute sense of the contradictory particularities and potentialities of precariousness/‘pre ́carite ́’ which Bourdieu ( 1998 ) described as a

‘new mode of domination in public life … based on the creation of generalized and permanent state of insecurity aimed at forcing workers into submission, into the acceptance of exploitation. (W)hat is presented as an economic system … is in reality a political system which can only be set up with the active or passive complicity of the official political powers.’

To illustrate the new forms of organisation Woodcock considers two recent university campus struggles, of casual staff and of cleaners in London. In the first, the casual staff at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) launched a campaign, ‘Fractionals for Fair Play’, which began with a survey and then proceeded beyond research to action (successful). The second, the ‘cosas’ campaign (Spanish is widely spoken by the workforce) of University of London cleaners’ started in 2012 – a strike slogan, ‘We are not the dirt. We clean’, shown in the photograph, was erected at the University of London Senate House in February 2014 – is ongoing but has already met with some success. ‘The campaign’, Woodcock reports, ‘had workers’ self-organisation at its heart, but was also able to build links of solidarity with other groups of workers and students’. He refers to inter-relations between the workers, London Citizens, the established unions and the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) Cleaners Branch.

Returning to Sassen’ s three stage model, it has not been the intention here to say much about the first two stages. The first two, gentrification and class cleansing plutocratisation, are already familiar. The third stage of patrician ghettos should be seen in their attachment to ways of life such as those exhibited in and around the Arabian Peninsula. Returning to Burt’s paper on the Gulf, we note:

‘Today chronic oil pollution from ballast discharge, industrial spillage, ship collisions and related causes continue to affect coastal ecosystems. Continued growth in shipping activity, oil production and sewage discharge that will occur alongside urban expansion is likely to be linked to increased occurrence of harmful algal blooms, excess nutrient input, oxygen deficiency and increased heavy metal and organic pollution.’

How can this be dealt with? Burt suggests

‘only the engagement of the highest state authorities may trigger meaningful and long-lasting improvements in coastal management. Improving awareness of the value and importance of coastal ecosystems among senior leadership in Gulf countries should be considered a critical first step towards enacting positive change (the engagement of these decision-makers could trigger comprehensive improvements in the legislative and regulatory framework guiding coastal urbanization.’

Such notions could, though, be deployed as part of the new mode of domination to which Bourdieu referred. Or, to repeat Atkinson’s diagnosis, they could ‘swim around in a void, having lost any meaningful foundation or effective connection into a more basic or coherent or systematic moral universe’. Or they could be deployed by workers’ movements with self-organisation at their heart, research in their programs, claiming the Right to the City, able to build links of solidarity with other groups of workers and students, and continuing to assert and act upon the slogan: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’


Aksoy, S. 2012. “Riding the Storm: ‘New Istanbul’.” City 16 (1– 2): 93–111

Amin, A. 2007. “Re-thinking the Urban Social.” City 11 (1): 100–114.

Bourdieu, P. 1998. Contre Feux . London: Raisons d’agir.

Catterall, B. 2004. “Is It All Coming Together? Further Thoughts on Urban Studies and the Present Crisis: (2) What Time is this Space?” City 8 (2): 307–335.

Lisiak, A. A. 2014. “Navigating Urban Standstill.” City 18 (3): 334–348.

McFarlane, C. 2011. “Assemblage and Critical Urbanism.” City 15 (2): 204–224.

Shao, Q. 2013. Shanghai Gone: Domicide and Defiance in a Chinese Megacity . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Shin, H. B. 2014. “Contesting Speculative Urbanisation and Strategising Discontents.” City 18 (4– 5): 509–516.

Swanton, D. 2011. “Assemblage and Critical Urban Praxis – Part Four.” City 15 (6): 727–730.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY
Editorial to CITY, Vol. 18 Issue 6 ; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 18.6

Editorial: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’ Bob Catterall, pages 603-608

Urbanisation: A brief episode in history Adrian Atkinson, pages 609-632

London: A dividing city, 2001–11? David Manley & Ron Johnston, pages 633-643

Special Feature 1: Assembling Istanbul: Buildings and Bodies in a World City

Assembling Istanbul: buildings and bodies in a world city: Introduction Elizabeth Angell, Timur Hammond & Danielle van Dobben Schoon, pages 644-654

‘Sulukule is the gun and we are its bullets’: Urban renewal and Romani identity in Istanbul Danielle van Dobben Schoon, pages 655-666

Assembling disaster: Earthquakes and urban politics in Istanbul Elizabeth Angell, pages 667-678

Matters of the mosque: Changing configurations of buildings and belief in an Istanbul district Timur Hammond, pages 679-690

Cultures of assemblage, resituating urban theory: A response to the papers on ‘Assembling Istanbul’ Amy Mills, pages 691-697

Special Feature 2: Roundtable on Arabian Peninsulas

Cities in the Arabian Peninsula: Introduction Pascal Menoret, pages 698-700

Visualizing the margins of Gulf cities Manuel Benchetrit & Roman Stadnicki, pages 701-707

Real estate and political power in 1970s Riyadh Paul Bonnenfant, pages 708-722

Public space and public protest in Kuwait, 1938–2012 Farah al-Nakib, pages 723-734

Urban margins in Kuwait and Bahrain: Decay, dispossession and politicization Claire Beaugrand, pages 735-745

Searching for Nasser Square: An urban center in the heart of Dubai Yasser Elsheshtawy, pages 746-759

The environmental costs of coastal urbanization in the Arabian Gulf John A. Burt, pages 760-770

Special Feature 3: Labour Pains: Resistance Across Global Spaces

Labour and resistance across global spaces: Introduction Adam Elliott-Cooper, Amber Murrey, Ashok Kumar & Musab Younis, pages 771-775

Precarious workers in London: New forms of organisation and the city Jamie Woodcock, pages 776-788

Interwoven threads: Building a labour countermovement in Bangalore’s export-oriented garment industry Ashok Kumar, pages 789-807

The economic crisis as opportunity: How austerity generates new strategies and solidarities for negotiating Roma access to housing in Rome Gaja Maestri, pages 808-823

Does school prepare men for prison? Karen Graham, pages 824-836


The civil relevance of geography between power and knowledge Matteo Bolocan Goldstein, pages 837-841

Bordered subjects Kate Hepworth, pages 842-845


  1. David Manley and Ron Johnston were drawing on an article in the Financial Times (15–16 June 2013) in which the anthropologist and journalist Simon Kuper, concentrating on Paris but equating changes there with London, New York and Tokyo, quotes this tripartite characterisation from Saskia Sassen (not referenced).
  2. The application of this set of changes can be extended and is further intensified by taking up, as we did in our previous issue, Qin Shao’s (2013) work on Shanghai and Hyun Shin’s (2014) related account of aspects of ‘development’ in China and elsewhere in which they deploy the notion of domicide.
  3. or earlier work in this journal on hip hop see Lisiak (2014), and Anna Richter’s introduction to it and my own deliberately ex-centric ramble ten years earlier, ‘What time is this space?’ (2004).

Editorial: ‘City makes your life happier’?

‘Clearly, everyday domicide is as systematic and widespread as the pursuit of economic interest. It has affected and will continue to affect large numbers of mostly powerless people, especially in the developing world. The murder of homes is an intentional act.’

Issue 18.4-5 editorial

Relatively comfortable readers, North and South, may read the first two sentences without too much discomfort. The third may arouse in some feelings of unease and dissent about mixed categories (do, for example, the notions of murder and intention belong to this context?). Comfortable readers, though uneasy, may accept this as a perhaps permissible exaggeration of ‘such things’ elsewhere but not a perspective that comes ‘home’ to them. We shall see.

Hyun Bang Shin begins his analysis of contemporary Chinese development, in this issue (1), with the full paragraph from which this epigraph is taken. It is from Qin Shao’s recent book, Shanghai Gone: Domicide and Defiance in a Chinese Mega-city.(2) Shin does not dissent. ‘While her findings are largely based on the city of Shanghai,’ he observes, ‘the stories of uprooted families and flattened dwellings are reminiscent of millions of other similar cases around the world.’

Shin does, however, present another perspective. He includes a photograph of slogans from the 2010 Shanghai World Expo. The one in English is comforting, ‘Better City, Better Life’. And it is accompanied (to the right) by a cartoon-like character. It is ‘Expo’s mascot called Haibao holding a firecracker, a usual way of celebrating in times of new year’s eve, etc.’(3)  The other slogan Shin translates (literally) as ‘City makes (your) life happier’, and comments: ‘While the slogan in ‘English was emphasising the importance of improved urban management, the slogan in Chinese was simply an emphasis on ‘city living’ itself. In other words all that is required for a happy life is to live in cities.’ Ultimately, without radical changes that are not on the public agenda, these two slogans are not opposed. ‘Better City, Better Life’ fits neatly within ‘City makes your life happier.’

There is, though, a possible, though complex, combination of ideological opposition and practical unity between the two perspectives presented by Shin. If one argues that ‘domicide’ is not only practised far away from the comfort zones of elitist exceptionalism and ‘democracy’ but also within them, then existing cities or urban/ised forms may not make our lives happier. But how can citizens be encouraged or forced into the acceptance of the slogan ‘City makes your life happier.’ And how can such seduction or enforcement be resisted and superceded?

Such possibilities are touched on here through a brief sketch and interpretation of some of the various contributions gathered together in this issue – two standalone papers, one on Vancouver, the other on urban governance, two special features, one on Northern Ireland, and the other on the ‘crisis-scape’ of Athens and beyond (including Mexico City and Shin’s powerful paper on Chinese urbanisation).

In supplementing and challenging mainstream readings of urbanisation and domicide, relevant attention is given here, as part of a continuing emphasis on the value of personal, artistic, fictional accounts of some of the processes at work, to the contribution of the humanities to a new paradigm for planetary urbanisation rather than to purely empirical or analytical approaches. See the brief references below to reflexivity in Andy Merrifield’s paper, to film and to Lefebvre’s dictum in Adele Lee’s contribution to the special feature on Northern Ireland, and in the crisis-scape Special Feature, to the attention given to their own film ‘Future Suspended’ and to Angelopoulos, particularly his film ‘Ulysses’ Gaze’. What follows are essentially notes towards future reading(s) and discussion.

As interpreted here, Shin’s contribution, ‘Contesting speculative urbanisation and strategising discontents’ suggests, first, the question of ‘urban’ forms shaped by speculative urbanisation, resistance to them, and their relation to notions of ‘the city’ and of domicide, to which is added consideration of what kinds of thought and action can represent them. A second question, is then a major ethical and practical question one about the planetary future, post-urbanised futures, and of what kinds of thought and action, urban and rural/agrarian (added at this point), might make us happier, if happiness is to be our major criterion. What can represent and reshape them, could and should contest and undermine domicide, ‘strategising discontents’, the second half of Shin’s title.

It is these two overlapping questions – of urbanised forms and of post-urbanised futures – that, haunted by the counterforces of domicide and resistance, shape this reading of the various papers assembled here. The preferred term in this issue is urbanised rather than urban as a pointer to the question of whether the city ideal has been and is being increasingly marginalised, distorted and undermined, urbanisation as a close companion of urbicide as well as domicide.

Urbanised forms

In the first of the two stand-alone papers Vancouver’s relatively recent development is presented through a revelatory use of Geertz’ concept of involution as ‘the over-driving of an established form in such a way that it becomes rigid through an inward over-elaboration of detail.’ Picking up further on, Jamie Peck, Elliot Siemiatycki and Elvin Wyly, refer twice to its ‘overdriven’ quality. It is, first, a ‘phenomenon [that] has been an involutionary one, rather than an evolutionary or revolutionary one, in the sense that it has been marked less by clean historical breaks or linear incrementalism, but by the continued “overdriving” of sub/urban patterns, processes and practices’. Secondly, on the urbanised, not urban, nature of this powerful form, the authors comment: ‘More than interurban reorganization, more even than postmodern juxtaposition, Vancouver’s development pattern reveals an “overdriving”, complexification and recombination of extant sub/urban forms.’ There seems no end to this continual churning except that, as the authors note, it is not stable.

Moving from the exotic quality of Vancouver and the appropriately exotic quality of its analysis, Northern Ireland presents another urbanised form, problematic both for its inhabitants and its social analysts. Crucial for the ‘cityness’ of a city are its spaces and their uses. It is the sharing of the spaces across religions and, latterly, with new ethnicities that constitutes the problem on the ground. For the first section of the feature, on policies and practices, it is also, with exceptions, the somewhat distanced and distancing discourse of standard forms of research that is the problem. In the second section on ethnic and cultural diversity, the distance narrows. The title of one of the papers, ‘Are you a Catholic Chinese or a Protestant Chinese?’, suggests a lightening of touch. It is, perhaps significantly, by a Lecturer in English Literature, Adele Lee who introduces the analysis of two narrative films from and about migrant communities referring to Henri Lefebvre’s dictum that ‘the most important thing is to multiply the readings of the city’, and that the city contains ‘plentiful detritus to construct different stories which can challenge and provide an antidote to dominant discourses’.

The second standalone is a characteristically deeply felt and acutely observed paper, a fine exercise in reflexive writing, on another aspect of urbanised forms, ‘accountancy governance’. Andy Merrifield even manages to maintain his narrative flow in the abstract to his paper:

‘A new nobility assumed the mantle of political and authoritative power, a para-state of accountants and administrators, of middle managers and think-tank “intellectuals”, of consultants and confidants who reside over our privatized public sector, filing the paperwork and pocketing the rents and fees, together with the interest payments and bonuses, in our ever-emergent rentier and creditor society.’

However, he omits one of the most important aspects of the paper; ‘a new urban collective consumption.’ In the last few pages, following discussion of Castell’s notion of collective consumption as a defining characteristic of the urban in ‘ The Urban Question ’ (1997 in English translation) , he builds a discussion of the possibility of and necessity for a people’s form of accountancy, partly building on Bourdieu’s critique (Acts of Resistance, 1998) of the new ‘state nobility’ and on his own experience and thoughts, leading to the proposed initiative, a movement rather than an institution, for ‘a new urban collective consumption’, correctly and importantly noting that his discussion has entered a normative zone:

‘We, on the Left, need to affirm another value yardstick, free from the cynics’ speculative grip, another form of human solidarity, one that might enrich urban life beyond wealth.’

Towards post-urbanised forms

‘Athens is already heralded in international media (even supposedly “progressive” ones for that matter) as a city that is about to be reborn from its ashes, the “investment opportunities” posed by the city, and so on.’ (Vradis)

Yet another urbanised form is ‘the city that is about to be reborn’. The slogans ‘Better City, Better Life’ and ‘City makes your life happier’ are not, of course, uniquely domiciled in China. Nor, indeed, is their partner, domicide.

Much, much has to be said about domicide. We need to refer to the full quotation (only the first part was used in the epigraph above) from Shao that Shin gives in his epigraph. It is a deeply disturbing account of domicide as a universal form of oppression and psychic destruction into which the apparently less threatening Western/Northern forms of gentrification and relocation fit:

‘Domicide … severs its victims’ lifetime attachment to homes and community and deprives them of the built environment that has shaped their tradition and identity. It also wounds their sense of dignity. Everyday domicide, in other words, in many ways cruelly redefines the existence of its victims and severely diminishes, if not destroys, the quality of their lives … ’ (Shao)

The two partners, in varying degrees of intensity, land wherever they are least needed by the many and are most needed by the few.

That partnership is tracked and resisted in our Special Feature, ‘Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond’, edited by Antonis Vradis on the basis of the conference in May 2014 organised in Athens with his colleagues in the crisis-scape research team whose productions included the film ‘Future Suspended’.(4)

Vradis provides a valuable introduction to the twelve contributions. He concludes with particular reference to discussion of their film and to one other film, Ulysses’ Gaze , and the illuminating gaze of its great director, Angelopoulos. Of the latter he refers to him as ‘easily the most important documenter of the turbulent recent political history of the Greek territory.’ It is a gaze, urbanists please note, that extends out to and back to the villages. Their film, too, ‘Future Suspended’ has a penetrating gaze as it looks into contemporary Athens. As Nasser Abourahme asks in his review of the film:

‘Is the anxious, authoritarian, militarized city of self-avowedly fascist police and pitched civil war our present-future? Is this the fate of urbanity itself in our millennial, post-historical times? Is Athens, the purported birthplace of those secular forms we came to so faithfully value — democracy, the polis, the public — the harbinger of their demise?’

It is in this full context that we return to Shin’s paper ‘Contesting speculative urbanisation and strategising discontents’. He sums up his analysis as follows:

‘China’s speculative urbanisation is both an ideological and a political project that disrupts and/or destroys the lives of the masses, while it is the few that benefit from it. As the state and capital proceed with their heavy investment in fixed assets and rewrite the built environment, displacement becomes the norm for villagers and urbanites.’

As the reference to villages suggests, Shin is introducing a rural/agrarian dimension here as well as one that includes migrants and ethnicities, a key dimension of the Greek experience. The strategy that he puts forward is that ‘China’s particular trajectory of urbanisation requires the right to the urban struggles to be inclusive of the struggles by the new working class, who are fighting for their access to the “redistribution” of surplus value and for their “recognition” as legitimate citizens and not simply migrants … The alliance is in need of further inclusion of village farmers whose lands are expropriated to accommodate investments to produce the urban, and of ethnic minorities in autonomous regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang whose cities are appropriated and restructured.’

Not only in China but across the globe such alliances, urban with rural populations, are needed against the domicidal forms of urbanisation. The murder of homes and ways of life, though permitted by ruling ideologies, law and associated contained consciences, is intentional. City, without the rural/agrarian dimension, won’t make us happier. City takes note.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY
Editorial to CITY, Vol. 18 Issue 4-5 ; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 18.4-5

Editorial: ‘City makes your life happier’? Bob Catterall, pages 381-385

Vancouver’s suburban involution Jamie Peck, Elliot Siemiatycki & Elvin Wyly pages 386-415

Against accountancy governance: Notes towards a new urban collective consumption Andy Merrifield pages 416-426

The Production of Shared Space in Northern Ireland: Part 1

Introduction: Beyond the divided city: policies and practices of shared space Milena Komarova & Dominic Bryan pages 427-431

‘Shared space’ as symbolic capital: Belfast and the ‘right to the city’? Mary-Kathryn Rallings pages 432-439

The psychological dimensions of shared space in Belfast Rosaleen Hickey pages 440-446

Beyond the walls: Dismantling Belfast’s conflict architecture Jonny Byrne & Cathy Gormley-Heenan pages 447-454

Changing direction: Defensive planning in a post-conflict city Tim Cunningham pages 455-462

The Production of Shared Space in Northern Ireland: Part 2

Introduction: Ethnic and cultural diversity Adele Lee pages 463-465

Possibilities for change?: Diversity in post-conflict Belfast Carey Doyle & Ruth McAreavey pages 466-475

‘Are you a Catholic Chinese or a Protestant Chinese?’: Belfast’s ethnic minorities and the sectarian divide Adele Lee pages 476-487

Beyond Derry or Londonderry: Towards a framework for understanding the emerging spatial contradictions of Derry–Londonderry—UK City of Culture 2013 Peter Doak pages 488-496

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 1: Future privatised

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 1: Future privatised page 497

Crisis-scapes suspended: Introduction Antonis Vradis pages 498-501

Crisis and land dispossession in Greece as part of the global ‘land fever’ Costis Hadjimichalis pages 502-508

Contesting speculative urbanisation and strategising discontents Hyun Bang Shin pages 509-516

Unravelling false choice urbanism Tom Slater pages 517-524

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 2: Future devalued

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 2: Future devalued page 525

Infrastructural flows, interruptions and stasis in Athens of the crisis Dimitris Dalakoglou & Yannis Kallianos pages 526-532

Is the crisis in Athens (also) gendered?: Facets of access and (in)visibility in everyday public spaces Dina Vaiou pages 533-537

Strange encounters Jaya Klara Brekke pages 538-544

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 3: The present fighting back

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 3: The present fighting back page 545

Emerging common spaces as a challenge to the city of crisis Stavros Stavrides pages 546-550

The crisis and its discourses: Quasi-Orientalist attacks on Mediterranean urban spontaneity, informality and joie de vivre Lila Leontidou pages 551-562

Crisis, Right to the City movements and the question of spontaneity: Athens and Mexico City Christy (Chryssanthi) Petropoulou pages 563-572

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 4: Future reflected

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 4: Future reflected page 573

Ross Domoney and Giorgos Triantafyllou: an interview Ross Domoney & Giorgos Triantafyllou pages 574-576

Ruinous city, ruinous time: Future Suspended and the science fiction of the present Nasser Abourahme pages 577-582

What is to be done? Redefining, re-asserting, reclaiming and re-shaping land, labour and the city Bob Catterall pages 583-588


Deleuze and research methodologies: The impact on planning Hooman Foroughmand Araabi pages 589-593

For creative appropriation: John Protevi’s Life, War, Earth and urban studies Keith Harris pages 594-597

Reframing the ‘creative city’ through tailored and context-sensitive policies Eduardo Oliveira pages 598-602


  1. Hyun Bang Shin (this issue)
  2. Shao, Q. (2013), Shanghai Gone: Domicide and Defiance in a Chinese Megacity, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  3. Email from Shin, 2014-09-07.
  4. Future Suspended is available to watch and download at https://vimeo.com/86682631
Page 1 of 1212345»10...Last »