Urban Theory Lab-GSD, “Visualizing an urbanized planet—materials,” in Neil Brenner (ed.), Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Berlin: Jovis, 2013, 460-475. (original) (raw)
Related papers
On the Geographical Organization of World Urbanization
This article is a preliminary attempt to examine the interplay between urbanization and geography in the context of contemporary debates on world urbanization. The first part traces the shifting expressions of the persistent dichotomy between geography and the social dynamics of urbanization, from environmental determinism to contemporary debates on the anthropocene. In these more recent discussions, geography is no longer considered a shaping agent; rather, it is thought to be itself shaped by the expanding activities of humanity. Building upon such perspectives, including those being developed in the Urban Theory Lab-GSD, the second part of the paper points towards alternative conceptualizations of the “urbanization fabric” that supersede the boundaries of agglomerations, as they have traditionally been understood. A series of cartographic representations, based on contemporary global datasets, sketch the various layers of this fabric. It is the increasingly hybrid and sclerotic nature of the urbanization fabric – both physical and sociotechnical – that today defines the geographical organization of world urbanization. Originaly published in MONU 20, April 2014, 4-11.
Urban Geography I: Locating Urban Theory in the "Urban Age"
In the midst of what has been termed the "urban age," two divergent approaches to understanding life in cities have emerged. In this first of three urban geography Progress Reports, I engage these two strands of urban theory, identifying key differences in their intellectual, political and geographical genealogies, and consider their political and epistemological implications. Borrowing from Chakrabarty's concept of History 1 and History 2, I name these approaches "Urbanization 1" and "Urbanization 2." Urbanization 1 is exemplified by the planetary urbanization thesis that posits the complete urbanization of society, whereas Urbanization 2 is characterized by a more diverse set of interventions, united by a political and epistemological strategy of refusing Eurocentrism and "provincializing" urban theory.
In our engagement with Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid's thesis on planetary urbanization we argue that, while they have successfully marked some important limits of mainstream thinking on the urban, their privileging of epistemology cannot produce an urban theory for our time. Engaging in a symptomatic reading of their work, and with a focus on the implications of their limited mobilization of social ontology—or Lefebvre's ontology of the everyday—we ask what is occluded in planetary urbanization. In particular, we explore three areas of concern: the urban as the grounds for difference, centrality and the everyday; the omission of subjects of and occlusion of subjectivity; and the occlusion of a constitutive outside and its political capacities to remake the urban. The changing geographies and pace of urbanization over the past half century have been recasting urban theory, governance, and policy on a global stage. The second decade of the 21st-century is proving to be an especially momentous time for urban knowledge production in which the political stakes are enormously high, with the urban figuring as both cause and consequence of many contemporary planetary issues: the urban is both the instigator of and the solution to global climate change; it is the site of increasing inequality and the urbanization of poverty even as it is also a crucible for innovation and creativity; and it is ground zero for a new era of global governance. 1 Within this climate of different political possibilities for the urban, a number of competing, conflicting, and complementary geographical imaginaries have emerged to make sense of contemporary urbanization.
A new concept is animating debates on the urban question: planetary urbanization. What was only a few years ago no more than a preliminary hypothesis, significantly inspired by Henri ) conception of a worldwide 'urban revolution,' has now become a vibrant theoretical approach that is being applied across divergent terrains of urban research around the world. It is also provoking some intense, sometimes polemical debates on the appropriate conceptualization, methodology, site, scale and focal point for urban research today..
The Nature of Cities: The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory
There has been a growing debate in recent decades about the range and substance of urban theory. The debate has been marked by many different claims about the nature of cities, including declarations that the urban is an incoherent concept, that urban society is nothing less than modern society as a whole, that the urban scale can no longer be separated from the global scale, and that urban theory hitherto has been deeply vitiated by its almost exclusive concentration on the cities of the Global North. This paper offers some points of clarification of claims like these. All cities can be understood in terms of a theoretical framework that combines two main processes, namely, the dynamics of agglomeration/polarization, and the unfolding of an associated nexus of locations, land uses and human interactions. This same framework can be used to identify many different varieties of cities, and to distinguish intrinsically urban phenomena from the rest of social reality. The discussion thus identifies the common dimensions of all cities without, on the one hand, exaggerating the scope of urban theory, or on the other hand, asserting that every individual city is an irreducible special case
Current debates in urban theory: a critical assessment
Urban studies today is marked by many active debates. In an earlier paper, we addressed some of these debates by proposing a foundational concept of urbanization and urban form as a way of identifying a common language for urban research. In the present paper we provide a brief recapitulation of that framework. We then use this preliminary material as background to a critique of three currently influential versions of urban analysis, namely, postcolonial urban theory, assemblage theoretic approaches, and planetary urbanism. We evaluate each of these versions in turn and find them seriously wanting as statements about urban realities. We criticize (a) postcolonial urban theory for its particularism and its insistence on the provincialization of knowledge, (b) assemblage theoretic approaches for their indeterminacy and eclecticism, and (c) planetary urbanism for its radical devaluation of the forces of agglomeration and nodality in urban-economic geography.