It is not a new development that scholarly priorities are, regrettably, shaped by policy priorities (and by the strategies of big business and worries of the mainstream media) and therefore it is no coincidence that an entire cottage industry on “resilient cities” has emerged at a time of global austerity — openDemocracy
Tom Slater examines the latest urban policy and think tank buzzword which he argues, operates as an insidious alias to dispossession and territorial stigmatisation.
h/t @demilit
3 Comments
"scholarly priorities are, regrettably, shaped by policy priorities"
Can we even name any architects who are articulating a viable alternative vision for cities?
"Neoliberal urbanism has proved to be extraordinarily resilient, and the most “resilient community” of all appears to be that of a cartel of politicians and financial executives, aided by think tanks and philanthropic organisations, who have“bounced back” (to take the language used in the Guardian) from a crisis they created with even more violence and venom towards marginalised citizens (who they treat as the culprits). "
The culprits of what?
"resiliency" basically means that redundancy and variety are built into the city's infrastructure systems (and economies) - that you aren't completely reliant on one thing (like cars for mobility). It's that simple - and it's mostly about social justice. I think where this author is having trouble is the unfortunate fact that you have to convince business interests that this is worthwhile policy.
I don't see how this is insidious.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.