• About
  • Publication
  • Events
  • Urban Poetry Society

Read Cities

~ rethinking the urban world

Read Cities

Tag Archives: Geography

RGS-IBG AC 2016: Narrating Displacements

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Events, London

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

conference, displacement, Geography

Narrating Displacements: A Radical Way to Rethink Urban Theories and Politics

RGS-IBG Annual Conference, August 30 to September 2, London, UK

Convenors

Hyun Bang Shin (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
Yimin Zhao (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
Mara Nogueira (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

Session abstract

We have been witnessing the rise of urban expansion, gentrification, mega-events and many other political economic events in urban space; all of them have direct impacts on the daily life of local residents through large- or small-scale displacements. Displacement hence becomes a term that has been widely used for critical urban theories in analysing contemporary urban change, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people use this word in the literature, however, relatively few attentions are paid to mechanisms through which place-based understandings and discourses of displacement are enabling/ bounding the historical-geographical conjuncture of domination and resistance.

Discourses of displacement are diverse geographically; they are also narrated and deployed by different subjects from distinct perspectives in displacement processes. Expressions like “chaiqian” (demolition and relocation), “qianyi” (relocation), “qiangpo qianyi” (forced relocation) are used in China to express actions through which the state institutions and businesses operate. In South Korea, “cheolgeo” (demolition), “gangje cheolgeo” (forced demolition) or “yiju” (relocation) are more frequently utilised by those subject to displacement. Elsewhere in Latin America, for example in Brazil, “despejo” (eviction) “desalojamento forçado” (forced eviction) and “expulsão” (expulsion) are common concepts deployed by those suffering displacement threats and their allies. On the other hand, the actors promoting displacement prefer to deploy milder terms such as “desocupação” (evacuation) or “realocação” (reallocation).

The use of these particular expressions shifts the focus towards the final act of displacement; even though in reality people would experience (the feeling of) displacement long before actual demolition, eviction or relocation. Moreover, discussions about belonging and the sense of place show how displacement may occur even in the absence of such events. In this regard, abrupt changes to space might cause people to feel “out of place” even though they remain in the same location. To narrate the experience of displacement focusing only on the final acts has serious negative implications for formulating effective strategies that allow pre-emptive earlier contestations to resist and counteract displacement pressure. Furthermore, how displacement is actually narrated in a given local context is not trivial, for conceptualising displacement is itself political.

This session invites papers to reflect on narratives and discourses mobilised around displacement in a diverse range of social, political, economic and cultural settings by attending specifically to the tensions emerging from conceptualisation of displacement by different subjects in daily practices. The aim is to collaboratively reveal the role of displacement discourses in constructing the historical-geographical conjuncture of domination/ resistance, and to uncover power relations/ mechanisms and state effects produced within this conjuncture. Suggestive topics include:

  • Place-based understanding (especially outside the Western context) of displacement and its socio-spatial effects;
  • Conceptualising displacement by different subjects;
  • The role of space in enabling or bounding people’s conceptualisation of displacement, or in affecting their reflections on the gaps between different conceptualisations;
  • The state manoeuver and tactics in promoting displacement with legitimised (sometimes hegemonic) ideology;
  • The effects of different narratives in reshaping understandings of displacement and in opening up possibilities for resistances.

Abstracts of presentations – Session 1

Chair: Hyun Bang Shin
Time: Friday 02 September 2016, 14:40 - 16:20
Venue: TBC

Antagonistic Space and Subjects in Beijing’s Greenbelt

Yimin Zhao (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

In the mainstream literature of contentious politics, space is frequently assumed as a container or a bounded entity. This view has been gradually altered by political geographers, who attend more to the constitutive role of space in understanding socio-political changes. Yet what has been under-examined in the literature is how and to what extent individuals become both spatial objects and political subjects simultaneously in the rise and fall of social movements. This research, drawing on the observation of contingent construction (and decaying) of collective actions in Beijing’s Greenbelt, aims to demonstrate that space and subjects of resistances are mutually constitutive of each other. The paper will illustrate that this mutual constitution needs to be identified by focusing on residues of the hegemonic logic underlying the rise of spatial antagonism. In Beijing’s Greenbelt, the local state’s urbanisation project not only transforms the territorial structure of the rural-urban continuum and the political economy within this structure but also shapes the way villagers view their land, houses and (property) rights. Following transformations of their lifeworld, villagers’ bodies and subjectivities are remade to the extent that their consciousness, identities and discourses are all affected and redefined by the local state’s hegemonic logic. For example, money, rather than the sense of place, becomes the predominant evaluation principle in the displacement process, deployed by both local state and villagers themselves. These impacts altogether make their resistances to displacement possible, but at the same time make these actions contingent and render difficult, if not impossible, the call for wider and stronger resistance alliances for “the right to the city”.

Disciplining Street Life in Hong Kong: Narratives of Displacement and Urban Resistance

Maurizio Marinelli (University of Sussex, UK)

This paper investigates the mega-project of transforming the physical and socio-economic structures of retailing and dwelling in colonial-global Hong Kong. The selected focus is on the progressive annihilation of street markets to create space for ultra-modern, luxury high-rise buildings. Street markets play a crucial role in the policies of urban regeneration, heritage, place making, healthy eating, sustainability, environmental impact, social and community cohesion (Watson, 2005; Stillerman 2006; Shepherd, 2009). Based on the premise that street hawking and street markets are historically part of a wider socio-economic, political, and cultural system, this paper will concentrate on the stories of survival, resistance and metamorphosis of the ‘vital living past’ of Graham Street Market in Hong Kong’s Central District. This 150 years old market, a remarkable example of ‘living heritage’, is currently under threat due to neo-liberal logic of redevelopment and gentrification of colonial-global Hong Kong: in 2007 the Urban Renewal Authority announced its plan to destroy the vibrant market (which was declared ‘a slum’), and replace it with four brand new, sleek, luxury high-rise office buildings, hotels and shopping malls. The paper analyses the role of concerned civil society organisations (such as ‘Savethemarket’) vis-à-vis Government authorities, urban planners and developers in the battle against domicide: the destruction of home which also implies the destruction of memory (Porteous, Smith, 2001). The analysis of this historical market will shed light on the entanglement between the condition of precarity of the street hawkers and the complex socio-economic and political mechanisms which are leading to the annihilation of this ‘living heritage’.

Who has the right to remain in place?

Mara Nogueira (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

How far can we stretch the concept of displacement? This paper discusses this question drawing on qualitative data collected during five months of fieldwork in the city of Belo Horizonte/Brazil regarding three cases of “displacement” connected to the World Cup. The first one concerns an informal settlement, evicted to give room for an urban mobility project. The second focuses on a group of informal workers displaced for the modernization of the local stadium. The third case discusses the struggle of a neighbourhood association to stop the construction of a hotel in their residential street. I argue that only the first case is rightfully considered a “displacement” case, in the sense that the State recognizes the right of the occupiers to be reallocated. I further discuss how the past historic struggle of the social movements for the right to dwell has engendered both legislation that acknowledges their rights and institutions that manage the process, guaranteeing some minimum rights. On the other hand, in the case of the stadium workers, their claims for the right to reallocation are based on weaker assumptions that are not covered by appropriate legislation and, therefore, not recognized by the State. In their struggle for the recognition of their rights, the workers have employed many strategies and alliances that are described in the paper. Finally, the paper raises the question of how appropriate is the use of the concept of displacement to categorize the processes unfolding in the third case. The neighbourhood association wants to keep their residential neighbourhood from changing. I argue that, although they’ve deployed a series of arguments (legal and political) to stop the hotel construction, what motivates their struggle is the desire to remain in place. However, the search for a place within the urban is a conflictive process. Who has the right to remain in place and who doesn’t? Is every claim against displacement equal through the lens of social justice? Does the concept of displacement become a-political once you stretch it too far?

Understanding multiple voices within the resistance movement of the Occupations of Izidora in Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Luciana Maciel Bizzotto (Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil)

Urban occupations stand out as a strategy to fight for the urban re-appropriation in the current political resistance scenario in Brazilian metropolis. What has been observed is the multiplication of horizontal occupations of empty or abandoned lands, with the support of social movements organized against the eviction of thousands of families that make up the current housing deficit in the country. This form of resistance comprises a series of discourses, considering the different actors that are activated by it. To illustrate this point, I present the case of the resistance movement of the Occupations of Izidora, located in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais. The network of supporters that formed the resistance process of these urban occupations – #ResisteIzidora movement – is inserted in a context of strengthening social mobilization in the city and has helped to prevent the eviction of about 8,000 families that now resist to a project that fits in strategic planning’s logic. Based on the methodology of Mapping Controversies, data were compiled through interviews, newspaper reports, blogs and Facebook pages, which were analyzed by the various discourses made by the actors of the resistance network settled – social movements, residents, universities, public institutions and others. The study has shown how even within a resistance movement, in which different actors fight jointly to the non-eviction of the occupations, they do, however, adopt different speeches, ultimately attributing the resistance process itself different meanings.

Abstracts of presentations – Session 2

Chair: Yimin Zhao
Time: Friday 02 September 2016, 16:50 - 18:30
Venue: TBC

The Revanchist Politics of Benevolent Disaster-Induced Evictions Across Metro Manila: Pasig City in the Post-Ketsana Moment

Maria Khristine Alvarez (University of the Philippines, The Philippines)

In this paper, I examine the discourse of disaster-induced evictions in Metro Manila using Pasig City as case study. I draw on critical discourse analysis of interviews and policy documents to discuss the peculiar portrayal of ‘danger zone’ evictions as both apolitical and political, and reflect on the political expediency of this particular configuration, to point to a nascent mode of enunciating and enforcing evictions. I demonstrate how portraying slum evictions as logical interventions and as “technical”, “neutral”, and “apolitical” acts of governance (Ferguson, 1994) de-problematizes the common wisdom of disaster risk management and depoliticizes ‘expert’ opinion in order to diminish the hostility at the heart of evictions. I argue that the deployment of benevolence, which materializes as performance of concern for safety, is instrumental in facilitating outward flows of unwanted bodies. Yet, I show that this benevolence is betrayed by the insistence on contested vulnerabilities and the persistence of eviction orders, by the harassment to self-demolish and ‘voluntarily relocate’ to off-city resettlement sites, and by stories of relocation that dispute the peddled promise of a safe future. I conclude that mobilizing the discourse of ‘apolitical’ yet ‘benevolent’ evictions conceals the revanchist politics of Metro Manila’s disaster resiliency program.

Gusur and Rusunawa: Rebuild Indonesia Cities from the Scratch

Syarifah Aini Dalimunthe (Indonesia Institute of Sciences, Indonesia)

Jakarta current inhabitant is 19 million and 5 million of them are occupied and clogged waterways. This has created flood, then frequently resulting in severe socioeconomic damage. City administrator is now looking for options to reduce the risk. Current city administration terms and operating procedures to reduce the risk are gusur (violent eviction) and rusunawa (low-cost apartment). By December 2015, the city administration conducted gusur program to 12,000 families occupying riverbanks in a single slum neighborhood namely Kampung Pulo in order to speed up its river normalization program. The victim of gusur is set to be relocated to the nearby rusunawa expected to be able to accommodate 4,500 families. While the rest has to survive on their own such as rented a house nearby or send their children back to hometown. Despite the housing backlog, the city administration pledged not to stop the gusur project. The term gusur is now a formula spread among city administration across Indonesia. Gusur claimed to change Indonesian cities to meet global standard, ensure public order, remove squatter settlement or clear land for infrastructure projects. However, the government has used excessive force to conduct gusur across Indonesia cities and failed to provide alternative housing or other assistance to the displaced. It has created discourses which emphasize the right of the poor in the city and their right to make a viable living.

(Re)location, Resistance and Memory: Narratives of displacement amongst earthquake relocatees in Christchurch, New Zealand

Simon Dickinson (University of Exeter, UK)

Forced relocation as a result of government initiative and intervention has received significant attention. Much of this work has focused on the entrepreneurial politics of market-orientated development (Wu, 2014) and discourses surrounding the deconcentration of the urban poor by way of clearing-the-way policy (Goetz, 2003). Yet, disasters, and the subsequent relocation of affected populations during ‘recovery’, has received less attention – presumably because the pre-text of chaos and ‘public safety’ seemingly obscures the need to examine how particular power relations/mechanisms play out under the context of ’emergency’. With this in mind, this paper develops an account of resistance and place-making amongst forced relocatees after the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010-11. Relocation was prompted following a government decision to compulsorily acquire property based on damage and future risk – the criteria for which have never been published. Arguing that local coverage has shaped discourses that speak of romanticised, homogenous forms of ‘pushing back’, I draw attention to the ephemeral and interminable acts of resistance that may not otherwise be observed during relocation. Pointing towards these alternative narratives, the paper highlights the various (and often illicit) ways in which movers sought to maintain connections with their earthquake-damaged community/property. Given the contentious process by which relocation was dictated, these acts of resistance derive from a complex interplay between exhibiting agency in ‘place-making’ and the perceived capacity to subtly undermine the power mechanisms at play in the post-quake environment. I contend that these acts have a distinct temporality and speak to motifs of absence, presence and memory.

Discussant

Hyun Bang Shin (The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)

 

Invisible green belts in Beijing

17 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Field

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Geography, Greenbelt, space

Invisible green belts in Beijing: From romantic landscape to businesses opportunity

 

The green belt may be a British idea imported to China, but the concept has worked out to be very different in practice. In the context of Beijing’s urbanisation, it turns out that the local state uses the ecological discourse of the green belt to legitimate its land businesses. Despite the differences, we suggest that there are lessons from China for Britain. In 1958, Beijing saw the approval of its first modern master plan (Beijing-Archives 1958). The municipal government of Beijing proposed in this master plan that “the layout of urban construction should not be concentrated in the city centre anymore, and that a new style is needed with green spaces planned between decentralised conglomerates” (ibid). This marks the birth of Beijing’s green belt as an idea (or, maybe more accurately, a feature on a map).

The idea of Green Belt in Beijing also corresponded to the heydey of a socialist campaign named “The Great Leap Forward” during which the Chinese people were mobilised by Mao Zedong to “surpass Great Britain and catch up with the United States.” Among many targets of this ambitious campaign, “gardening the Earth” was set as a socio-ecological goal to achieve (Chen 1996). In this moment, Sir Ebenezer Howard’s modernist imagination of urban space and Mao Zedong’s socialist modernist vision of the country encountered and blended with each other. Through this encountering, the British-born planning canon was embedded in Beijing’s urban planning practices, which in turn produced a view of landscape including the green belt that mixed the revolutionary and the romantic.

For Chen Gan, then director of Master Plan Office in Beijing Urban Planning and Administration Bureau, a decentralised city layout including green belts could be a flexible tool to deal with rapid urbanisation and could direct urban development in a well-planned way in the long future (Chen 1996, 13-17; originally written in 1959). This partly explains why green belt has been set as an essential part of the urban area in Beijing since 1958. In practice, however, Beijing’s green belt existed more as a part of the master plan than real space for nearly four decades. In a letter written by Chen Gan in 1967, he admitted that suburban vegetable plots (more than 153.33 km2) had covered a majority of the planned green belt area. Beijing’s green belt had not achieved a romantic landscape of open countryside but was full of rural communities, residents, and their cultivated fields.

In 1994, the Beijing municipal government (BMG) focused once again on the green belt. Their new aim, familiar to the UK, was to prevent the sprawl of urban areas and to make the 240km2 green belt “really green” (BMG 1994). The BMG gave the market and capital a key role as villages located within the green belt were required to “use green spaces to attract investments, and utilise these for the exploitation of land, build green spaces in the exploitation process, and cultivate green spaces through green industry” (ibid; my italics). These policies can be summarised in a simpler way: the green belt was to make acceptable the promotion of real-estate development in the urban fringe.

17 townships and villages were included in the city’s green belt, they covered 95.23 km2 in total (39.7% of the planned green belt as a whole). In the following three years, however, only 8.62 km2 of this land was ‘turned into green’, while another 11.16 km2were expropriated by BMG for land businesses and infrastructure construction (Beijing Municipal Committee of Urban Planning, 1999). On the other hand, the area of farmland and vegetable plots in this area decreased significantly between 1993 and 1999 (down from 130 km2 to 61.82 km2), and a majority of this decline can be explained by the development of real estate projects (ibid). In this same process, 1.33 million square metres of residential houses were built and sold. The green belt was not “really green,” but became a part of the city’s urbanisation process and turned out to be a “really expensive” area to live in.

These outcomes made clear to municipal officials the potential values of land plots in the planned green belt area. From 2000 to 2003, another set of policies were proposed by BMG to enhance its ‘land businesses’. The “General Headquarter for Building Beijing’s green belt” was established in 2000, headed by then-Mayor Mr Liu Qi (BMG 2000). In 2002, the “General Headquarter” commanded that “related townships and villages are strictly forbidden to attract any investments for land development in the Green Belt” (BMG 2002). “All construction land plots,” they said, “that have not been used in the Green Belt area should principally be expropriated by BMG before any kinds of land transactions” (ibid). BMG’s ambition of controlling more land resources was further practised by proposing the second green belt in 2003 (with a total area of 1,620 km2, see the dark green area in Figure 1) and establishing a “land reservation mechanism” (tudi chubei) in the same year (BMG 2003). These policies together enabled BMG to gradually achieve and practice a monopoly of land supply at the city level (Beijing Municipal Bureau of Land Resources, 2011).

Beijing green belts

Figure 1: A bird’s eye view of Beijing’s two green belts,  Source: BMCUP (2013). Note: (1) the purple line denotes the boundary of the city’s “core urban area”; (2) the light green area signifies the first green belt, proposed in 1958, while the dark green area indicates a small part of the second green belt, introduced in 2003; (3) the light yellow area around Tiananmen Square is set as the urban centre area (zhongxin chengqu), while the ten small yellow areas between first and second green belt are sub-centres (bianyuan zutuan).

There is a rising conflict between making green belts and making money through land resources. In the case of Sunhe (one of a number of areas I’ve studied; see Figure 2 below), the landscape has lost out. The socialist-modernist vision of the urban landscape has been subordinated to capital flow. Plenty of proposals and projects are now put forward, by local government and real estate developers together, to promote land and housing businesses in the green belt. The label of green belt is retained more as a mask to legitimise these booming land businesses, and the interconnection between ecological discourses and political economic concerns looms large in this process.

Sunhe landscape

Figure 2. The invisible green belt in Sunhe  Source: photo by the author, 29/12/2014. Note: according to the master plan and regulatory detailed plan, this area should be a part of Beijing’s Second green belt. It is temporarily discarded because no privileged policies can be sought to run land businesses– but it will not take very long before such policies being figured out.

I now conclude with a lesson from China for Britain. Before arguing for the revising of green belts it would be wise to ask about the political and economic ambitions underlying these proposals. Who is raising them? Who benefits – will changes benefit present and future residents more than real estate developers? And, what other general effects on social justice can and should be identified? These questions are fundamental, and other issues such as (the control of) housing prices can be examined better when put into this political economic process.

 

(First appeared on LSE Green Belt Blog, see: http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/GreenBelt/Green-Belt-Blog/Green-Belt-Blog-Home/Invisible-green-belts-in-Beijing.aspx)

 

References

Beijing-Archives. 1958. No. 1-5-253: Report on the Preliminary Urban Plan of Beijing. edited by Beijing Archives. Beijing.

BMBLR. 2011. The plan for protecting and utilising land resources in the 12th-Five-Year-Plan peirod. published by Beijing Municipal Bureau of Land Resources. Beijing.

BMCUP. 1999. Survey report on the planned Green Belt area around Beijing’s city centre. published by Beijing Municipal Committee of Urban Planning. Beijing.

BMCUP. 2013. Evaluation report on the implementation of Green Belt policies in Beijing’s urban core area. published by Beijing Municipal Committee of Urban Planning. Beijing.

BMG. 1994. Ordinance on greening the planned Green Belt area. published by Beijing Municipal Government. Beijing.

BMG. 2000. Ordinance on speeding up the construction of Green Belt. published by Beijing Municipal Government. Beijing.

BMG. 2002. Announcement on making unified arrangement of remaining construction land plots in the Green Belt area. published by Beijing Municipal Government. Beijing.

BMG. 2003. Ordinance on speeding up the construction of the Second Green Belt. published by Beijing Municipal Government. Beijing.

Chen, Gan. 1996. Rethinking Beijing: a memoir [Jinghua Daisilu]. Beijing: Beijing Academy of Urban Planning and Design.

 

 

2016 LSE-PKU Summer School Course Introduction (LPS-GY201)

07 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Geography, lecture

LSE-PKU Summer School

Beijing, 8-19 August 2016

 

【课程介绍】 LPS-GY201: Speculative Urbanisation in Asia

转型中的中国和其他亚洲国家城市已经成为社会科学研究的热门领域,相关研究正日益深入,并从早期的现象描述逐渐演进到对内在机理的探索。本课程立足于相关学术讨论,力图把中国和其他亚洲国家的城市变迁放置到投机性的空间生产这一脉络里进行批判性地审视。一方面,课程将深度运用相关文献,从后社会主义城市转型、城市空间生产的政治经济机制、大型赛会的尺度政治、绅士化和遗产保护中的权力关系、进入城市的权利等角度剖析当前亚洲城市日益突出的问题与挑战;另一方面,课程将在大量案例分析的基础上构造若干比较的范畴,在中国与其他亚洲国家、东亚与“西方”等维度上反思比较城市主义的研究视角,强调运用西方理论所需的语境关切,以及借助亚洲经验改造相关理论的可能路径。

假如你想弄明白……

  • 大量的鬼城和空置楼盘何以出现
  • 房地产投机如何在最近/一线城市愈演愈烈
  • 北京的南锣鼓巷和新加坡的 Little India 的变迁有何异同
  • 东亚四小龙的住房政策如何彼此迥异(植根于各自的政治经济基础)
  • 如何把中国的城市问题与东亚、亚洲和全球议题加以勾连
  • “绅士化”问题的最新理论进展
  • 作为方法的比较城市主义如何加以实践……

那么本课程将能提供足够多、足够深入的理论和案例信息,并将有气氛热烈的研讨班 (seminar; 80 min/day) 作为增进讨论的有效平台。

详情请戳:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/study/summerSchools/LSEPKUProgramme/courses/gy201.aspx

 

About the summer school:

LSE and Peking University have collaboratively run the LSE-PKU Summer School in Beijing every summer since 2004. The twelfth SE-PKU Summer School will run from 8-19 August 2016. The two-week English-language international programme offers university-level courses all with a focus on China and Asia in subjects including economics, management, international relations, geography, the media, big data and NGOs.

The LSE-PKU Summer School provides a unique opportunity to learn about China from within China, but with a truly international perspective. The programme is taught in English by outstanding faculty from LSE and PKU – two of the world’s leading institutions for teaching and research.

In 2015, the LSE-PKU Summer School was attended by 283 participants from more than 50 countries across Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas, one third of whom were graduate professionals from different industries, governments and NGOs. This enriches class discussions, social events and networking opportunities.

Each course totals 48 contact hours (usually 36 hours of lectures and 12 hours of classes), and is formally assessed to allow the award of an official transcript. Whilst neither LSE nor PKU formally award credit for the programme, many previous participants have been able to receive credit from their home institutions – we are very happy to provide any information to assist with this.

 

Course information:

The course “Speculative Urbanisation in Asia” (LPS-GY201) explores the contemporary dynamics of urbanisation in Asia, with special emphasis on cities in China and other East and Southeast Asian economies, which share the experiences of rapid urban development with strong state intervention in the context of condensed industrialisation. The course will benefit from the geographical advantage of taking place in Beijing and make use of a number of China case studies to examine the differences as well as similarities of urban development between Chinese and other Asian cities.

Applying interdisciplinary and comparative perspectives, the course encourages students to develop critical knowledge and comparative understanding of how urban space is transformed in different social, economic and political settings, and what socio-spatial implications are made in a differentiated way upon local populations.

Throughout the course, we ask whether the concepts and theories born out of the (post-)industrial Western urban experiences can be applicable to the understanding of urban Asia. We also ask what are the challenges that cities in East and Southeast Asia face, given its current development trajectory.

We do this by examining a set of carefully selected themes that address (1) the integration of Asian cities with the global economy, (2) the distinctive characteristics of Asia’s urban development,(3) the place-specificities of state intervention in forming urban growth strategies, and (4) socio-political implications of urbanisation processes in the region.

 

About the Instructor:

Dr Hyun Bang Shin is an Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Studies in the Department of Geography and Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Dr Shin is a specialist in urban Asia. His research includes the critical analysis of the political economic dynamics of urban (re-)development and covers Asian urbanisation, urban politics, displacement and gentrification, the right to the city, and mega-events as urban spectacles.

New publications:

(2015) (eds.) Global Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement. Bristol: Policy Press

(2016) Planetary Gentrification. Cambridge: Policy Press

(2016) Special issue: Locating Gentrification in the Global East. Urban Studies 53(3)

 

城市化的 “绿隔”:一个变形的寰宇主义想象

05 Sunday Jul 2015

Posted by Yimin in Academic, Field

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Beijing, Geography, Greenbelt, land, urbanisation

城市研究领域向来不缺乏论争的话题,更何况是在“城市化”正如火如荼的中国。

最近最令人瞩目的一个系列论战,当属周其仁和华生两位教授之间围绕土地用途管制和农地入市问题所展开的。华生教授的论点是,土地利用不仅是私权的行使,也涉及到公共利益,土地所有者的权利理应受到土地利用和城市规划政策的管制。周其仁教授则旗帜鲜明地反对这个立场,强调私权和市场机制应该在土地交易和使用的整个过程中发挥基础性作用,尚未装进笼子里的公权力这只老虎不足为信,所以土地用途管制和城市规划政策并不具有充足的限制私权的正当性。

尽管立场相左,两人在论辩中所援引的却大多都是英美两国的例子。可英美的情形到底佐证了哪一方的论点?2015年4月4日《经济学人》 (The Economist) 发表了一篇处于同一论域的封面报道。虽然文章被冠以 “Space and the City” 的标题,真正处理的却也是土地利用问题。文章中归纳了英美城市发展的两股潮流,第一股是在十九世纪晚期以前的无管制扩张,第二股是十九世纪晚期以降逐渐完善的土地和规划管制对城市扩张的限制,比如分区规划 (Zoning) 和修建绿化隔离带 (Green belt)。

《经济学人》文章的核心观点是,现有的(英美)土地利用管制手段和城市规划政策已经造成了地价、房价高昂等不经济的后果,亟须重新思考如何在社会公义与私人成本之间构建更健康的平衡。作为应对,政府应当考虑一方面将规划/分区的权力收回到更高层级(以防止社区为了私利损害城市整体的公共利益),另一方面开征(或者加征)土地价值税,以鼓励对未充分利用土地的开发。

与之相应和的是伦敦政治经济学院 (LSE) 经济地理教授 Paul Cheshire 近期发表的一系列文章。光看标题就能猜想出他的核心论点了,比如 “绿化隔离带迷思已经成为伦敦房价上涨的幕后推手”,以及 “在绿化隔离带上建房子吧:现在的问题只是建在哪一片而已”。看起来,“绿化隔离带” 这一英国规划界的骄傲成就(有时甚至被提高到不列颠民族身份认同的高度)俨然成了众矢之的。

有了这一系列背书,我们仿佛可以很快得出结论:土地利用管制和城市规划政策往往不仅无法实现目的,反而会造成经济上的无效率,因此周其仁教授的论点才是为事实所验证的那个。但是且慢,英美的故事在何种程度上能够成为解答我们自己问题的线索,这个问题本身就很关键。

在周华之争中,无论二者观点如何迥异,相同的特征是涂改和工具化地使用地理知识:周教授在种种保护私权的判例之外选择性忽视了公权力在城市空间变迁中的地位,而华教授为了论证公权力的意义也不得不转向东亚四小龙所表征的“发展型国家”的案例,而不管中国与“发展型国家”这个概念之间的距离。

对地理知识的投机性引用就是大卫哈维所界定的“地理意义上的平庸之恶” (the geographical banality of evil) 的典型样态。在这里,种种普世主张都宣称自己可以跨越历史和文化,超脱任何空间和时间的局限;当宣称的实际结果不奏效时,只需要怪咎于某地的特殊性即可,那普遍规则是不可能出错的——就如同世界银行贷款在非洲修建的许多表征着“现代性”的水坝,以及奋战在智利的芝加哥学派经济学家等案例所表明的那样。

为了躲开这个陷阱,我们就得更加关注空间概念和在地知识,在批判性地审视种种看起来美好的 “寰宇主义” (cosmopolitanism) 的同时,更深入地认识当下的、关系性的时空。在周华两位教授的论域之中,核心的关切并不是不列颠的民族认同会否受损,或者美国的分区应该由哪一级政府负责,而是正在“城市化”的我国广大 “城乡结合部” 应该如何处理土地和规划问题(因为将要入市的农地大多位于此处);为此就需要把焦点转移到 “城乡结合部” 及其规划问题上来,看一看在这里空间与国家/社会是如何相互作用的。

意识到“寰宇主义”和在地知识的潜在张力之后,很快就会发现普世的诱惑无处不在。就比如,在北京的城市规划和土地用途管制体系中,有一个核心的部分也叫“绿化隔离带”。看见这个名字,诸位大概也不禁会问:北京的 “绿隔” 是怎么来的?与伦敦的 “绿隔” 又有什么异同?简单说来,“绿隔” 这个理论 “旅行” 的起点确实是伦敦,后来经由1930年代的莫斯科辗转来到1950年代的北京,最后在1990年代被落实到图纸上和实践中。

这些城市的 “绿隔” 同源,并因此有相似的定位:建立在城市中心区周边,作为控制城市空间扩张的工具;以绿色空间构建生态屏障,缓解污染问题,提供景观休闲场所。但是同源并不意味着北京的 “绿隔” 有着和伦敦类似的地位和效果;而且恰恰是其间的差异具有异乎寻常的重要性:这些差异所蕴含的在地知识不仅构成了反思普世方案的条件,而且是揭示关系性时空的重要线索。

也正因此,“浙江村” 这个曾经在学界被热烈讨论的名字就(重新)进入了视野之中。

上世纪九十年代,北京城南的一片村落开始吸引学界的目光。因为大量的浙江籍移民落户于此,这些村庄后来被统称为“浙江村”。这一区域在当时令人瞩目的特点有二:一是浙江商人以此为据点发展起来大规模的成衣加工和批发生意,二是流动人口们在事实上“占领”了城市化进程中的空间,通过租用集体土地(违法)建设大院,形成了一种“外在于城乡二元模型的国家-社会动态关系” (具体可参见张鹂和项飚的相关著作)。在学者们对这些村子进行田野调查的同时,北京市政府对它们(尤其是其中数不清的违法建设)的“清理整顿”也如火如荼地进行,并在1995年底实现了大范围的彻底拆除。

自此之后,学界对 “浙江村” 故事的关注逐渐让位于对更大尺度的流动人口问题的关切,而与之相关的空间焦点也随之转移到 “城中村” 这一更宽泛的表述之中。但当时和后来的文献都鲜有提及的是,“浙江村” 所指代的五个行政村大多都在1993-94年被列入到规划待建的北京市 “绿化隔离带” 之中。因此,1990年代前半段的五次大规模拆除违建行动(尤其是1995年的 “彻底拆除”),都需要与 “绿隔” 工程联系起来才能得到更好的理解。而在另一方面,这五个村子最近二十年的变与不变,也提供了一个极好的视角来观察 “绿隔” 工程自身的 “城市化”,和相应的变迁中的国家空间 (state space).

北京的绿化隔离带最早在1950年代便已提出。当时的城市规划思路大体上有两个来源,一个是苏联专家(以巴兰尼可夫和莫辛为代表),另一个是英美留学归国的城市规划专家(以梁思成、陈占祥为代表)。但事实上这两个路径的核心理念是相似的,基本上都遵循着分散组团的布局思路,通过种种空间单元及其区隔实现有机疏散的目标;这个思路也规定了当时乃至今日北京市空间规划的具体形态。

绿化隔离带在这个蓝图中起着隔离不同功能区、规范空间形态、减轻工业污染的重要作用。但是建国后初期的实际情况决定了绿化隔离带只能是一个设想。建设生产性城市的思路使得大量资源向工业区及其配套设施倾斜,而绿化方面的标准和要求就相应搁置了,甚至导致这一 “绿化隔离带” 并没有正式出现在城市规划图纸上。

1994年前后北京市开始考虑把这个 “构思” 了几十年的 “绿化隔离带” 搬到现实中,并出台了具体的实施方案,正式启动了 “绿隔” 工程。”浙江村” 所涉及到的行政村,多数都有土地被划入 “绿隔” 范围,这也就意味着,村庄的土地需要被(部分)征收,村民需要被重新安置,腾退的土地在理论上则要全部被拿去绿化。也正是在这个背景下,北京市开展了对 “浙江村” 地区的专项整治。

在《城市里的陌生人》中,张鹂将这个专项整治行动解读为高层重新聚拢政治权力的尝试:一方面,”外地人” 或 “流动人口”,以及表征着脏乱差的 “城中村”, 事实上进入了官方进行社会排序 (social odering) 的话语之中,并被视作大多城市问题的渊薮;另一方面,也是更关键的,外来人口社区代表着一种全新的空间化权力,并对既有权力体系构成了威胁。

社会排序和权力话语确实构成了专项整治的因果机制的重要一环,但并不是全部。在这里,空间也出场了。

“浙江村” 的空间转型不仅改变了权力的面貌,也彻底重塑了村民的生活。一方面,“绿化隔离带” 工程的实施,给地方政府和村委会提供了一条新的运作空间的路径。在这个路径里,“绿隔” 只是成为一种话语;借这种话语所要实施的工程本身,和 “绿化” 的目标渐行渐远。而在另一方面,曾经以 “种房子” 或者出租土地为生的村民/居民,也日渐被裹挟进入地方政府的土地逻辑之中,从当年对 “浙江村” 拆迁的抗拒,转而变为对拆迁和安置房的期待,并且在这个过程中出现了因户口而导致的利益分化和钉子户现象——只是这里选择当钉子户的,大多是拥有城市户口的居民。

“绿隔” 的实施政策在过去二十年中调整过多次,从1994年的7号文,再到2000年的20号文,最后演进到2008年的17号文。虽然具体的政策内容多有变化,但是核心关切是相似的:一方面要把规定了的绿地实施出来,另一方面要把农民转变为市民,把 “城乡结合部” 转变为 “城市” 空间。为了实现这些目的,财政并不拨款,所需资金由各实施单位(也就是乡或者村)按照政策规定筹集。

那么政策具体是如何规定筹资事宜的呢?前面已经说了,理论上看,各个村子里征收了的绿化用地自然要全部变绿;但是为了让整个工程成为可能,这个理论设想只能放在一边,允许实施单位拿出一块地来经营,通过利润填补整个项目的成本。接下来的两个问题是:谁来经营、如何经营?二十年间的政策变了又变,没有变的是村集体的核心地位,以及土地和房地产开发带动绿化实施的核心思路。

渐渐地,村委会变成了房地产开发公司。张鹂书中曾经提到,在1995年的大拆迁之后不久,大红门服装商贸城正式开门营业。她没有提到的是,这个商贸城的真正投资人和受益人,正是商贸城所在的那个村庄。村庄们并不满足于此。借助村庄改制的浪潮,他们在2000年代纷纷成立股份公司,把以前的集体经济组织升格,成为村庄所有集体资产的统一经营者,这包括了所有集体土地,也包括了(为了实施绿隔建设)经政策允许的房地产开发项目。

Picture1

市政府也并没有袖手旁观。他们不停地更新政策,不停地寻找切入到这一空间改造的最佳途径,最终发现 “土地储备” 制度是一个很好的 “抓手”。于是接下来的结果大概就耳熟能详了,在2010年之后的那几年里,城乡结合部的村庄里(相当一部分都是绿隔的实施单元)时不时地传出来土储中心拍卖地块、新 “地王” 诞生的讯息,给火热的房地产市场加上了一把又一把柴薪。

“土地财政” 的表述在学界早已不新鲜,吸引人的是去观察它的具体操作过程。在后-“浙江村” 的这二十年时间里,大红门地区所经历的空间变革是显著的, 这不仅是物理意义上的显著,更是政治经济意义上的显著。这里的变化,事实上是由城市规划项目包装而成的土地财政导致的,空间的变迁不仅是目的,而且成了原因。

除去少数较具规模的公园以及边河边的矮小树林外,我在这里几乎没再见到绿色。说好的 “绿化隔离带” 去了哪里?分散组团是否还能成立?有机疏散是否还是目标?规划界的反思正日渐深入。除了规划部门的工作人员之外,学界也开始对与这一现象相似的很多故事进行归纳。

最新的一个成果,是把这样的空间工程视为一个更宏大的政治经济机制的具体表现,这个机制则被命名为 “Planning for Growth” (Wu Fulong, 2015): 在中国,城市规划并不是如西方同行那样限制市场之手的运作,而是成为市长青睐的工具,在城市经济增长和政府的企业化行为 (entrepreneurialism) 中发挥着举足轻重的作用。

也正是在这样的机制里,北京的绿隔与伦敦的绿带分道扬镳。绿隔在北京不再成其为规范空间布局的工具,而是城市空间的扩张和蔓延本身。换句话说,绿隔不是城市化的边界,它自己正在被 “城市化”。

村民的日常生活也在这个空间变迁的过程里被重塑,这尤其鲜明地体现在他们对待拆迁的态度变化之中。在1990年代的拆迁之时,大红门的村民或多或少都有抵触情绪,因为他们当时基本都是靠 “种房子” 为生。清理违建的行动一旦推进,流动人口一旦被扫地出门,他们的生计也就会立刻受到影响。但是后来呢?在大规模的清理之后,大红门的村民逐渐地进入到一个新的状态,那就是盼望着再次拆迁——不是拆违建,而是拆自己家的房子。

随着城市空间的逐渐扩张,大红门的区位优势日益凸显(换一个表述就是那儿的土地越来越值钱)。村委会们充分利用这个机遇,纷纷建起了服装商贸城等交易场所,借房租获取收入。而村民们并无资格通过个人行动来利用上升的地价,事实上他们也并不真正关心采取什么特别的行动,因为他们知道:只要村庄宅基地上的拆迁能够得以实施,那么(日益上涨的)补偿和安置的费用已经足够他们维持(优渥的)生计。

虽然早已在1994年即已被列入 “绿隔” 工程的实施名单,但是大红门地区很多村庄的拆迁和改造却迟迟推行不了。这其中的阻力因素自然很多,比如国有大院零散分布在集体土地上,比如村集体自己出租土地给企业作厂房或仓库,合同尚未到期,等等。但更重要的原因,是盼着拆迁的村民对补偿款的期待与最初的方案能够给予的数量并不吻合。在一轮又一轮地价上涨的大背景下,讨价还价也无休无止。

DSC03258

大红门村拆迁之后

直到最后,双方终于在新政策(四万亿催生的 “重点村” 改造工程)的引领下顺利达成一致,安置房动工,村庄拆迁开始。就在这时,一个新鲜又伤感的故事冒了出来:村子里还住着六七百户拥有城市户口的 “居民”(以区别于农村户口的 “村民”),他们的拆迁应该如何操作?这些居民不是 “村集体” 的一员,所以自然不会得到如同村民那样高的补偿和安置待遇;但是居民和村民都是邻居,他们之间有关补偿的比较也就很容易进行。结果就是:居民能获得的补偿远远低于村民,不满因此而生发出来,并最终落地,变成了 “钉子户” 现象。

地理学理论对 “空间” 概念的关系性思考正在逐步深入。其中一个重要的论点就是:“空间被我们表征和概念化的方式,也许会影响我们物质感知这个空间的方式,以及我们生活于其中的方式。这些日常实践将进一步引导我们为自己建立特定的 ‘生活空间’,一方面承载、另一方面形塑我们的生活”。开心地搬进了安置房小区的村民,和倔强地守着自己租住公房的 “居民” – “钉子户” 们,其实都在(表征层面)构建和更新自己的 “生活空间”,并通过这一空间实践自己 “城市化” 了的生活。

空间的意义不止于此,它还成为地方政府掌控社会变迁的新渠道。通过协助构建村集体自己的开发公司,原先濒于解体的 “集体” 又重新获得了权力——由经济而传导至政治层面的权力。而村庄里那些被重新安置、被 “城市化” 了的村民,则在村集体的公司之中重新获取饭碗、按月领取补贴。在这个过程之中,曾经主宰着 “浙江村” 地区的社会排序话语 (the discourse of social ordering) 退场,让位给了空间排序 (spatial ordering),并经由后者组织了一套新的 “治理术” (govermentality).

在关系性的时空中,普世方案所宣称的 “普世性” 需要我们重新审视。如果你支持周教授的观点,认为市场机制是配置城乡土地与空间资源的最有效手段,因此农地应当被允许直接入市,那么你将如何处理权力日盛的作为房地产开发公司的村集体?他们作为集体土地的所有者的法律地位和事实状态是否应当取消、要如何才能取消?如果你支持华教授的观点,认为土地利用应当受规划管制,那么你如何看待中国的 “Planning for Growth” 的政经机制?规划与公权力之间的联结该如何对待、如何改造、如何更新?一个更无奈的问题是:改造和更新是否可能?

在我看来,与其从一个寰宇主义想象(”绿化隔离带”)的陷阱跳到另一个寰宇主义想象(万能的和不言自明的自由市场或者规划管制)的陷阱,我们其实有别样的选择。这就是重新观察空间,尤其是观察空间与国家/政治经济的接口,观察经由空间生产并反向重塑空间的种种社会关系,然后再立足于这种对关系性时空及其在地性的理解来重新想象其他可能。

在这个过程中,我们需要一种对地方的全局感 (a global sense of place), 而不是全盘接受已被证明具有虚幻性的那些 “寰宇主义” 的 “普世方案”。

 

(本文发表于澎湃新闻 “市政厅”,未经许可,请勿转载。)

对跖点与中央公园

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by Yimin in Reading

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Geography, space

DSC04589

地理学界有本杂志,名字叫Antipodes (对跖点). 很多人搞不明白,一本以批判为导向的左翼地理学杂志为什么要起这个名字,包括我在内。但是业内人士都知道一点,如果写的文章很——也就是在主流观点里“过于”——激进,那么这本杂志大概是最合适的发表渠道。

纽约,“全球城市” (Global City),“世界资本之都” (Capital of world capital)。它最让人难忘的地景是什么?除掉那些摩天大楼以外,恐怕就是中央公园了吧。可是为什么一个处在全球城市体系最顶端的城市(让我们假设这个体系真的存在,而这很可能不是——不应该是——事实),反倒是以”乡土”景观而让人记住的?

坐在中央公园喝啤酒的那个下午,我看着摩天大楼倒影里的公园,突然就理解了Antipodes这个名字里的潜台词。故事有点绕,让我试着看能不能给说圆了吧。

曾经,大家常以为一个标签/符号/名称就意味着一个整体,被归置在此一名词之下的一群人或物自然有着事实上的同质性,无须其他说明。后来,这个看法变了,“边缘”逐渐被放置在讨论的更核心位置上:如果当我们需要给自己的身份做一个界定的话,最应该构建的就是这个身份的边缘形态。换句话说,要想解释一个对象是什么,其实等价于解释什么不是这个对象——也就是界定那个“边缘”(比如王明珂所著《华夏边缘》)。

但是边缘又是什么呢?在这里我们先把文化或历史的讨论放在一边,专注于空间。毕竟,“边缘” 在(地理专业学生的)直觉上首先是一个空间概念。直观来看,中央公园的四围就是城市绿地的边缘,它框起来的绿色景观(边缘之内)与环绕其外的高楼大厦(边缘之外)构成了发人深省的对比。那么问题来了:一个以高楼大厦林立所表征的“现代性”为自己精神内涵的城市,哪门子神经搭错了要把这么一大片土地划出去建公园?那可是白花花的银子呐。

我喝完酒在公园里继续蹓跶,不期然地走到一个类似小型水库闸门的地方,看见了一块石碑。作为一个(伪)历史爱好者,我认认真真地把碑文读了一遍,然后发现了中央公园的一个奥秘:它原来是被当作水库修建起来的!

事情是这样的,十九世纪上半叶,纽约市的人口翻了好几番。为了避开噪音和其他很多不便,很多人从布鲁克林北上,逃到曼哈顿这个小岛上,即便周围大多都是坟地。可以想见,在迁移潮流开始之前制定的1811年纽约市规划是不会考虑在曼哈顿这个人烟荒芜的地方建设公园的。建设这个公园至少需要有两个前提:第一,有公共绿地及其他市政设施之需求;第二,地方偏远,机会成本不能太高。到了十九世纪中叶,随着越来越多的人口迁移到岛上,就近取水所需的天然湖泊逐渐不堪重负;同时大多数人口都分布在曼哈顿南端,岛屿北部依然荒草丛生,前述两个条件都迅即得到了满足。

这一切的发生现在只欠东风了,而东风来自欧洲。那个时期具有影响力的文学家和社会活动家们纷纷摇旗呐喊,说我们需要像伦敦海德公园 (Hyde Park) 以及巴黎布洛涅森林 (Bois de Boulogne) 那样的开敞绿地,以供市民休憩;更何况,我们现在真的需要一个新的水源地。现在看起来“异质”的中央公园,在开建的年代竟然是如此顺理成章。那时候的中央公园四周大多也是原生态绿地的模样,今日让人讶异的中央公园的边界,也就根本没有什么让十九世纪纽约人觉得惊奇的点了。

但是中央公园并非一直如此深得纽约居民的喜爱。事实上,就在它建成之后不久,因为管理机构的撤销,园务近乎瘫痪;再加上当时高涨的犯罪率,以及逐渐兴起的汽车为中心的生活方式……公园的吸引力逐渐下降,名声也慢慢变差。直到1930年代,著名的莫斯市长 (Robert Moses,简.雅各布斯那本名著的主要抨击对象) 开始了对公园的大规模翻新和改造,构筑众多休闲健身场所,修建大马路,在公园内部创造了众多与“公共绿地”这个意象截然不同的东西,并重新吸引了大众的兴趣。

而这,才是我真正想描述的那个“边缘”,以及某种超脱了 “边缘” 的东西。为了说明这一点,需要借用“异托邦” (或者叫异质空间,heterotopia) 这个略显晦涩的概念。

福柯在1967年曾经对一群建筑师发表过一场以 “论另类空间” (Of Other Spaces) 为题的讲演,但是文本迟至1984年才正式发表。这篇演说的核心思路,按照大卫.哈维的解释,就是借助 “异托邦” 这个概念的 “在地性” (placefulness) 来摆脱乌托邦的 “非地方” (no-place) 特征,从而在后现代语境中重新思考乌托邦问题。通过墓地、殖民地、妓院、监狱等例证,福柯试图表明历史流传给我们的 “异托邦” 无法被纳入规整的空间系统和主流社会秩序之中,而异托邦的最直观特征,就是其内容(与该空间之外的事物)完全不同。

今日中央公园给人们留下的最直观感受——大概也是最震撼人心的感受——就是彻彻底底的与周遭不同:在沉沉暮霭中,漫步在垂柳依依里,看水面的波纹一圈圈荡开去,摩挲着池塘对面芦苇的摇曳;旁边的小径上,三三两两的人群不疾不徐地走过,小跑者有之,骑行者亦有之,纷纷在花香中穿行。这样的景象,恐怕距离江南的园林春色更近,而离南边不远的帝国大厦或洛克菲勒中心更远。

是不是因此可以说,即便在“资本之都”,超脱于“日常生活”之外的乌托邦依然有存在的可能,只要能够它赋予充分的 “在地性”?这样的概括有点过于迅速了。的确,上面描述的公园景象与周围的建筑环境之间着实迥异,但是边缘真得如同我们所见的那样确凿吗?事实上,这个“边缘”是充满了孔隙的:波纹荡漾的池塘和湖泊,在公园存在的大部分时段(1993年以前),都主要因其作为供水基地而具有存在的意义;行人漫步的道路,有很大一部分至今可以(在规定时间内)行车;依依垂柳的下面,有若干条城市主干道下穿公园而过,在曼哈顿中部和北部构成了汽车东西向交通的关键环节;更不用提散布其间的美术馆,运动场,小餐馆……

在二十世纪以降日益高耸的曼哈顿为何能够容忍看起来如此异质的中央公园继续存在?这不是因为(或者说主要不是因为)它的“与众不同”,而恰恰是因为公园能够被纳入“规整的空间系统和主流社会秩序之中”。中央公园,表面上隐喻着“异托邦”的空间,事实上并不具有与帝国大厦们截然对立的边缘和界限:在物理上,输水管道和汽车道路连接着这两点;在表征上,规模宏大的公共绿地与体量巨大的建筑物之间相得益彰(傍晚慢跑的人们,有多少不是刚从这些建筑物中走出?),绿地所占用的土地之价值亦可以通过周围这些建筑物迅速上升的地租加以弥补。

于是问题来了:如果边缘是有孔隙的,那么我们如何还能清晰地界定一个对象?在中央公园这个案例里,如果空间内含的绝对性遭受质疑,我们该怎样定义空间?

在这个问题的烛照之下,列斐伏尔与福柯的分歧被迅速放大。在1967年那篇演讲最后,福柯提到了 “小船”。作为异托邦言说的最后一个意象,福柯意欲指称的是如何能够借助这样的途径来寻求对主流秩序的超越;然而在大卫.哈维看来,福柯所追求的不过是丢盔弃甲式的“逃跑” (escape) 而已,因为他把 “空间” 这个概念狭窄(而且错误)地绝对化了。

据哈维的考证,福柯的演说很快就影响到了列斐伏尔。在后者于1968年出版的《城市革命》(La révolution urbaine) 里,“异托邦” 亦成为一个关键词汇。但是,列斐伏尔笔下的异托邦不是一个内蕴着逃离的地方,而是失范 (anomie) 及潜在转型的空间,它不仅与同位性 (isotopy,也即理性化的资本主义的与国家的空间秩序) 保持着张力,而且与作为表现性欲望的 “乌托邦” 概念保持着张力。

同样的一个词汇,为何在两个人的理论里显现出如此迥异的面目?究其根源,在于两个人对 “空间” 有着不同的认识。在福柯那里,就如同他后来跟Hérodote这本地理学杂志的编辑对谈时承认的那样,空间只是从其表面加以理解的一个浅显术语:它是日常生活和权力关系的容器,具有绝对化的特征,偶尔才会参与生活与权力关系中去——但也只是作为一种桥梁和中介而已。换句话说,福柯意义上的空间,就是物理空间;处于这种论域之中的 “异托邦”,自然也就被取消了在保持在地性的同时超越主流社会秩序/空间秩序的可能。

列斐伏尔意义上的 “空间” 则具有关系性的潜力,或者说,对空间的最贴切理解只可能通过其蕴含的关系来完成——这里的空间所指称的是我们非物质但客观的“生活之道”,也是社会与权力关系的时空性的适当再现。如果用他后来发表的更具体系化的说法(《空间的生产》),可以说空间的概念需要同时从三个层次加以把握:物质空间 (physical space) -日常生活的物质境遇;空间的表征 (representation of space)-借助抽象表征来呈现我们的感知的空间(比如梦境和绘画);和表征的空间 (space of representation)-亦可用段义孚的说法称为 “生活的空间” (lived space),意指在我们所遭遇的空间中生活,并在此同时经由空间在物质和情感上重塑我们的生活。

当空间本身成为关系性的,边缘的多孔隙亦是意料之中。这里的孔隙不再是主流社会秩序和空间系统用以收编中央公园所使用的那些物质实体(道路,运动场,输水管道,等等),而是我们自身在日常生活中对空间和时间的各自不同的感知和体验。空间被我们表征和概念化的方式,也许会影响我们物质感知这个空间的方式,以及我们生活于其中的方式。这些日常实践将进一步引导我们为自己建立特定的“生活空间”,一方面承载、另一方面形塑着我们的生活。

你是曼哈顿岛上的一个上班族。在一天的工作结束之后,你换上运动服,跑进了中央公园。沿着大大小小的湖泊池塘慢跑时,你目光所及尽是沉沉暮霭和依依垂柳,新鲜的空气把一天的劳累一扫而尽。迎面走来的遛狗老人微笑着提醒你系紧鞋带。在池塘边踯躅的游人们让你更觉这座城市所拥有的无穷魅力。中央公园,在这个时刻,在你的生活里,不是理性化的资本主义的与国家的空间秩序的一个组成部分,而只是让自己的纽约成为纽约的那个关键元素。

我是一个流浪汉。在一天的漫游之后,带着菲薄的收入,我走进了中央公园。尽管这座城市充满了冷漠,但是傍晚的夕阳和中央公园的景色对每个人都是公平的。我静静地坐在长椅上,看着远处运动场上被父母引领着玩耍的儿童,还有旁边小径上纷纷飘过的慢跑的人群。没有人抛来白眼,没有人驱逐出境。慢慢变冷了,我裹一裹身上的破棉絮,蜷缩在长椅角落,目送最后一缕夕阳落下。这个时刻的中央公园,让我的漫无目的的飘荡有了短暂的归属。

生活和空间的界限,在关系性的视角下,变得模糊。在某些时刻 (moments),空间甚至就成了生活本身。如果在这个时候,著名的莫斯市长重回岗位,决定把不再具有供水功能的湖泊夷为平地,甚至修建摩天大楼,那么不论是你,还是我,肯定都会立刻采取行动来保卫空间/生活。在绝对化了的时空里,中央公园不是“异托邦”,但是在关系性的视角之下,中央公园绝对拥有成为真正的异托邦的潜力——异托邦这个概念所体现出来的差异性,并非是针对区分或隔离而言的,而是针对其与其他空间之间潜在的转型关系而言的。

回到Antipodes。

对跖点,是指通过地心与某地呈轴心对称的点(比如近似意义上的上海之于乌拉圭萨尔托,或者青岛之于布宜诺斯艾利斯),因此对跖点也是在地球上距离该地最远的点。这个概念首先是在空间的表征层面借由地球仪完成的一个思维过程的结果表达。但是它更重要的意味,是在充满想象的过程背后所隐藏着的改变当下——彻底地改变当下——的渴望:当我此时此刻所在的地点/空间/生活不如人意,我便会渴望对空间性做一彻底的改变。对于文艺青年而言,也许就是去看看远方(这个世界的另一面);对于左翼地理学家而言,则是去寻找和构建与理性化的资本主义的与国家的空间秩序完全不同的别样空间 (other spaces)。

对跖点就是字面意义上的异托邦。能否成功,端赖相应的主体如何看待空间本身。文艺青年们的看世界大多都会无疾而终,甚至因为纷纷的效仿而成为被嘲笑的“刻奇”,因为他们眼里的远方真的就只是开车/坐车/骑车上路越走越远的那个地方。地理学家们呢?也许,他们在意识到空间的关系性之后,能够在某个“时刻” (moment) 穿越那本就是虚构的、充满了孔隙的边缘与界限,让乌托邦真正具有在地性,让空间转型成为可能。

这大概就是那本叫做“对跖点”的地理学杂志想要传达的态度。

(当然,这样的实践不可能如想象地那般轻松。就比如说,格林尼治的对跖点在新西兰,名字就叫 Antipodes Islands. 已经日落——在夏天的伦敦这可真不容易——的大英帝国和它曾经的殖民地之间的权力关系,在这个命名里就昭然若揭。那么对跖点作为另类空间、异质空间的可能性,到底能有几何呢?感兴趣的读者,可以自己去这本杂志里探索一下,看看是否有蛛丝马迹。)

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Time

May 2022
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
« Mar    

Space

  • March 2022 (1)
  • December 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • March 2020 (2)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (1)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • October 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • May 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • March 2014 (1)
  • October 2013 (3)

Spacetime

  • Academic (23)
  • Events (14)
  • Field (6)
  • London (4)
  • Publication (2)
  • Reading (12)
  • Teaching (3)
  • Travel (1)

Moments

  • About
  • Events
  • Publication
  • Urban Poetry Society

Articulation

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

The right to the city

  • 21,237 rights

Keywords

Beijing central-park conference critical displacement encounter ethnography event Geography Greenbelt identity infrastructure jiehebu land lecture Lefebvre London LSE materiality method metropolitan migration modernism modernity neoliberalism notes nyc PKU political economy politics property Quito-papers research rights Sociology space state summer syllabus Teaching theory urban urbanisation waste

Seminars

Professor Hyun Bang… on About
Enid on 大卫·哈维的黄金时代
Yimin on Urban Poetry Society
Follow Read Cities on WordPress.com

Join!

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

Encounters

No upcoming events

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Read Cities
    • Join 27 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Read Cities
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...