Based on interview material relating to the current wave of housing renovation in Swedish cities,this article will analyse the profit-driven, traumatic and violent displacement in the wake ofcontemporary large-scale renovation processes of the so-called Million Program housingestates from the 1960s and 1970s. We maintain that the current form of displacement(through renovation) has become a regularized profit strategy, for both public and privatehousing companies in Sweden. We will pay special attention to Marcuse’s notion of‘displacement pressure’ which refers not only to actual displacement but also to the anxieties,uncertainties, insecurities and temporalities that arise from possible displacement due tosignificant rent increases after renovation and from the course of events preceding the actualrent increase. Examples of the many insidious forms in which this pressure manifests itself will begiven – examples that illustrate the hypocritical nature of much planning discourse and rhetoric ofurban renewal. We illustrate how seemingly unspectacular measures and tactics deployed in therenovation processes have far-reaching consequences for tenants exposed to actual or potentialdisplacement. Displacement and displacement pressure due to significant rent increases (which isprofit-driven but justified by invoking the ‘technical necessity’ of renovation) undermines the ‘rightto dwell’ and the right to exert a reasonable level of power over one’s basic living conditions, withall the physical and mental benefits that entails – regardless of whether displacement fearsmaterialize in actual displacement or not.
The idea of cohousing is alive in many industrialized countries today. It is seen as an interesting alternative way of living in late modern cities, here a majority of people live in families, couples or single households, but since there is a general lack of knowledge of what it means to live in a cohousing unit there are also prejudices. In cohousing units, the members are bound up to each other not by family ties but as separate persons with different relations. The inhabitants are living in different households and flats and with common spaces. Architecture is important as well as the organization of cooperation and everyday life. This article presents results from a study on “cohousing for second half of life” in the capital city of Sweden. The main question is: What does it mean to live in a cohousing unit and who is living here? Through in-depth interviews, we found that the residents in this type of dwelling underscore the possibility of both autonomy and dependency, privacy and togetherness. Theoretically, the relations in a cohousing unit can neither be characterized as Gemeinschaft nor Gesellschaft but at the same time it could be both/and. This evokes a third social relationship of the Bund – a theoretical concept beyond the dichotomy of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft.
Det behövs ett nytt ord: renovräkning. Hyresvärdar renoverar så mycket att hyresgästen inte har råd att flytta tillbaka efteråt. Man kan se det som en form av indirekt vräkning. En effekt av att allmännyttiga bostadsföretag - enligt en ny lag ska drivas med »affärsmässiga principer«.
Creating urbanism – a paradox?
Creating urbanism is an increasingly frequent ambition in planning, reflecting a desire for vibrant city life, pulsating around the clock. At the same time, planning is still heavily influenced by modernist ideals—ideals inherited from previous generations that have become as natural as the air we breathe. For example, detailed planning is still regarded as “the” solution for resolving what is regarded as chaotic conditions in the city: planning is the tool for reaching the goal of urbanity. However, according to Jane Jacobs, modernist planning has a detrimental effect on city life, since it hampers its foundation for growth, which is natural spontaneous development. In light of Jacob’s reasoning, the will to create urbanism through planning appears as a paradox—it is impossible to create something that grows by itself. The Stockholm districts of Hammarby Sjöstad and Södra Station are two projects where this paradox is apparent.
Inom den samhällsvetenskapliga forskningen talas det ofta om "det urbana". Någon tydlig definition av begreppet ges däremot sällan. Detta väcker en rad frågor: Vad betyder det urbana? Vad är det urbanas motsats? Och framförallt: vilken är det urbanas relation till ”staden”? Inom arkitekturdisciplinen pågår ett ihärdigt arbete med att besvara dessa frågor; den av Bill Hillier utvecklade space syntax-teorin tillför innovativa insikter om relationen mellan stadens liv, å den ena sidan, och stadens form, å den andra. Syftet med artikeln är därför att diskutera teorin utifrån ett samhällsvetenskapligt perspektiv och härigenom argumentera för varför det urbana kan förstås som inget annat än ett ”ting/icke-ting”.
Why is it that modern architects and planners – these benevolent and socially visionary ‘experts’ – have created environments that can make one feel so uneasy? Such is the question that eventually grew into this thesis, where the aim is to enter into and understand the gap between ideals and realities in planning and architecture, with particular focus on projects that try to create an ‘urban atmosphere’. As a starting point the author returns to the feelings she felt when she first visited one of these expertly planned areas; what the architects had described as an attractive, urban environment was to her a ghost town without life. Drawing on Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of perspectivism the study locates the gap to the area between two fixed points, each representing different attitudes towards the urban: the Eye of the Architect and the Body of the Flâneur. Moreover, by using insights from Sigmund Freud and his followers, the study sees the planner as a divided self, an individual capable of oppressing – not so much other groups of people – as herself. The general conclusion is that urban planning during the 20th century is a neurotic activity prone to produce the type of alienation that the author felt in her own body. An important factor behind this process is the tendency of the planner to regard city building as a finite rather than an infinite game.
Besides being a critique of urban planning and of expert knowledge the study is preoccupied with the phenomenon of urbanity, more specifically with the question of how this multidimensional concept can be defined. In dealing with this problem the author juxtaposes different knowledge traditions, especially the positivistic theory of space syntax and various poetic-dialectical approaches; a core issue concerns the relation between form and process. The conclusion is that while the urban is a thing/not-thing impossible to pin down, it is never without a physical morphology – a dimension relatively understudied within human geography.
In this paper I will return to Michael Balint’s psychoanalytic concepts of ocnophilia and philobatism and use them as tools for understanding different attitudes towards the city. Related to the two notions of agoraphobia and claustrophobia, Balint’s concepts show how our relations to space are intertwined with emotional attitudes. I have recently explored these connections in my thesis ‘Planned, All Too Planned. A Perspectivistic Study of the Paradoxes of Planning’ (Uppsala 2010), where I tried to understand the gap between ideals and realities in planning and architecture, especially when it comes to the creation of “urban atmospheres”. My starting point is my own feelings when I first visited one of these expertly planned areas: reality was not what it was said to be. What in the eyes of the architects had appeared as an attractive environment was to me a ghost town. Drawing on Nietzsche’s perspectivism I located the gap to the area between two fixed points: ‘the Eye of the Architect’ and ‘the Body of the Flâneur’. As these labels demonstrate, the first perspective is primarily visual, the latter more embodied. In order to unmask the seemingly neutral expertise of the architect, I turn to Balint’s theory of primary attitudes. In my mind the modern architect behaves like a philobat (a person to whom objects are hazardous and who seeks the friendly expanses), and the flâneur is an ocnophil (an individual who fears empty spaces and therefore clings to objects). On these connections I will elaborate in the paper.
There are an increasing number of city building projects, which in the wake of modernistic planning are trying to create an “urban atmosphere”. However, these planned environments are in general too one-sided in terms of their functional diversity, too neat in their creation of public spaces, and too empty of people to meet the various definitions of urbanity. Still, the architects behind these projects portray their creations as urban. The problem is well captured by the theory of perspectivism and in this paper I introduce how I philosophically explore this gap between ideals and realities in my forthcoming thesis. In short, I am moving back and forth between two fixed points – the Body of the Walker and the Eye of the Architect – all with the hope of eventually reaching a synthesis. The problem is well captured by the opposed forces of Apollo and Dionysus, where the first represents planning and architecture, while the latter symbolizes urbanity. By highlighting the Apollonian nature of planning – which implies an emphasis on order and on form, on the visual and on the tangible – the paper points to the paradoxical nature of the aim of “creating urbanity”.
There are an increasing number of city building projects, which in the wake of modernistic planning are trying to create an “urban atmosphere”. However, these planned environments are in general too one-sided in terms of their functional diversity, too neat in their creation of public spaces, and too empty of people to meet the various definitions of urbanity. Still, the architects behind these projects portray their creations as urban. What we encounter is in fact a problem that is well captured by the theory of perspectivism. In particular there is a wide gap between how I as a city dweller experience and relate to the built environment, on the one hand, and how practicing architects understand the concept of urbanity, on the other. In this paper I introduce how I explore this gap between ideals and realities in my forthcoming thesis. In short, I am moving back and forth between two fix- points – one the Body of the Walker, the other the Eye of the Architect – all with the hope of eventually reaching a synthesis. The problem is well captured by the opposed forces of Apollo and Dionysus, where the first perspective represents planning and architecture, while the latter symbolizes urbanity. The outcome will be a number of paradoxes related to the task of “creating urbanity”: a/ planning the unplanned; b/ creating dynamic social processes through the manipulation of physical form; and c/ generating chaos through order.
What are the relations between urban form and social and economic processes in the city? Or more importantly: How can we come to terms with these relations? These questions — fundamental not only for social scientists across the disciplines, but indeed also for architectural theorists — make up the underlying themes of this interview with Bill Hillier, professor of Architectural and Urban Morphology, Bartlett School, University College London. The interview was conducted at his office in the spring of 2008 and the purpose was to discuss Professor Hillier’s ideas on space, urbanity and the theory of space syntax put forward in his well-known book Space is the Machine from 1996. The conversation also provides interesting insights into Professor Hillier’s thoughts on the relation between the human mind and her material surroundings.
This paper reflects upon the theory and method of space syntax from the perspective of the discipline of human geography. It does so in order to address the question: what is problematic about space syntax from a social scientific point of view? In this context the paper seeks to answer a second question: what is new – indeed revolutionary – about space syntax? The discussion contrasts space syntax with mainstream architectural/planning practice, with examples taken from current urban planning projects in Sweden.
This paper is an investigation into the psychological aspects of displacement, where displacement is understood as a form of un-homing that severs the connection between people and place. Extending the human-geographical discussion begun by Mark Davidson and Rowland Atkinson on the possibility of being displaced while staying put, I argue that words and narratives – here exemplified by the Swedish (neo-classical) economic discourse on market rents – can displace people, and that this particular kind of un-homing is best understood as alienation. A theoretical underpinning is psychoanalyst Paul Verhaeghe’s work on identity and language and on the effects of neoliberal political economy on our psychological well-being. I analyze texts by and interviews with economists arguing for the abolishment of the ‘rent regulation system’ and find that their use of the terms ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ frames (current) tenants as undeserving and in the way. Economists encourage displacement (of people who lack the means to pay market rents), they gentrify with their words. By being told they are a ‘welfare loss’, tenants with affordable housing in attractive parts of the city are pushed to become critical on-lookers onto themselves, thereby dis-placed from the spontaneous act of dwelling and alienated from their original insideness. A larger conclusion is that the famous economist Milton Friedman was right: neo-classical economic theory, and homo neoliberalismus, in particular, does not respect geography. This disrespect, I explain, should be interpreted as a philosophical negligence towards human situatedness in place, and as an ethical carelessness towards people’s need for home.