SOCIAL CHALLENGES OF MODERN CITIES.Visions and models

Cities of TomorrowSeminar 25 & 26 October 2010

Jan VrankenCentre OASeS

2

• While cities have always been the main centres for ideas and innovation in Europe, the Manchester Declaration stresses that they must continue to ensure their position at the forefront of the knowledge economy by taking strong measures in the fields of education and business support, but also in the areas of the environment and social cohesion

(Manchester Declaration of Eurocities, 22-25.11.2006).

3

Fragments d’un discours urbain?(Barthes)

• To present some social issues in a more normative vision and models perspective

• Very relevant questions that we couldn’t yet answer• What models are being promoted? • By whom? • How are they being constructed, what are their basis and rationale? • How universal or differentiated are they, geographically and/or ideologically?

• A discussion on the relevance and usefulness of social models: more questions instead of answers

• Which principles could be applied by future cohesion policy focus in this presentation

4

A complex force fieldSocietal structures and processes

Governance

Opportunities

Threats

Sustainable social order Gentrification

Transition zonesSocial cohesion leads to social

exclusion Conflict is productiveWaterbed effect Top-down or bottom-up solidarity?Middleclass bias in participation Different temporalities

Sustainable social order Gentrification

Transition zonesSocial cohesion leads to social

exclusion Conflict is productiveWaterbed effect Top-down or bottom-up solidarity?Middleclass bias in participation Different temporalities

5

Visions? Models?

• Visions- Perspectives? Prospective thinking? ‘Futurology’? Concrete utopia’s

(Bloch)?• Models

- Ideal types (Weber)?- Scientific models with relations between core variables? (Theoretical

constructs? Empirically tested?)- Real existing models?

6

One approachthe European Social Model

• Could the European Social Model also provide the basis (or the framework) for developing social models at the city level?

• “Modernizing the European social model, investing in people and combating social exclusion” was identified as one of the main strategies for achieving the Lisbon Agenda’s goals.

• Later, this ESM was specified in an annex of the Presidency Conclusions of the Nice European Council meeting.

• “The European social model, characterized in particular by systems that offer a high level of social protection, by the importance of the social dialogue and by services of general interest covering activities vital for social cohesion, is today based, beyond the diversity of the Member States’ social systems, on a common core of values”.

7

What with cohesion?

• EU/EC definitions- to reduce economic and social disparities between Member States and to

stabilise their economies- not strictly speaking a regional policy, certainly not an urban policy - Cohesion Fund < definition of cohesion

• The Barca report opens up this definition- ‘place-based development strategy’ is important

• ‘a place-based strategy is the only policy model compatible with the EU’s limited democratic legitimacy’

- Objectives: • reducing persistent underutilization of potential (inefficiency)• reducing persistent social exclusion (relation with cohesion?)

- Unit of intervention: places or functional regions, set through the policy process

8

What with cohesion?

• EU/EC definitions- to reduce economic and social disparities between Member States and to

stabilise their economies- not strictly speaking a regional policy, certainly not an urban policy - Cohesion Fund < definition of cohesion

• The Leipzig Charter (2007) – in full the “Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities" - emphasizes

- the importance of integrated urban development policy approaches (cities should be compact in urban form, complex in functions, cohesive in social terms)

- the need for interventions specifically in deprived neighbourhoods.

9

What with cohesion (2)?

• The Barca report opens up this definition- ‘place-based development strategy’ is important

• ‘a place-based strategy is the only policy model compatible with the EU’s limited democratic legitimacy’

- Objectives: • reducing persistent underutilization of potential (inefficiency)• reducing persistent social exclusion (relation with cohesion?)

- Unit of intervention: places or functional regions, set through the policy process

10

What with cohesion (3)?

• The Toledo Declaration highlights the importance of integrated urban development and the urban dimension of cohesion policy. After 2014 there will be more focus on:

- cities as key driver for delivery of EU2020- more responsibilities to cities for programme delivery - the use of cohesion policy to support programmes for experimental

solutions

11

What with cohesion (4)?

• We reduced Kearns & Forrest’s (2001) five elements to three dimensions - relational dimension (social networks, social capital, social order and

social control, social solidarity) - cultural dimension (common value pattern and a civic culture)- spatial dimension (not only place attachment but also the spatial

dimension of social networks and capital, social order and social control, solidarity and wealth disparities)

• Could social cohesion be defined as the social dimension of sustainability, besides the traditional economic & ecological ones?

- The political dimension could then be forms of direct and indirect democracy (unbiaised forms of participation)

- The cultural dimension: cultural heritage

12

Diversity?

• Diversity was, is and will be a fundamental characteristic of cities• Creating a discourse on the positive aspects of diversity is far more

difficult in a context of recession than in a context of economic prosperity.

• Recent stigmatising of the concept of diversity, which has been defined in terms of a social problem rather than as a bundle of opportunities

• Does diversity imply ruptures between social units (fragmentation) or does differentiation suffice?

• What about the overlapping of those ruptures (ethnic, social, economic, spatial)?

13

Four forms of social differences

No hierarchy Hierarchy

No fault lines Differentiation• differences without societal impact (on one’s position)

Inequality

Fault lines Fragmentation• Ethnic villages• Multicultural society

Exclusion• poverty• discrimination• inaccessibility• spatial isolation

14

Newcomers (high number and the

majority from non-diverse context)

Learning how to live in a diverse city (tolerance, respect)

diverse interpretations of diversity a two-sided process

diversity = as well differentiation as fragmentation (model Vranken)

URBAN POLICIES

GATEWAY TO DIVERSITYTransitory neighbourhoods:

Characteristics and relations with cityCharacteristics of and relations with residents

Economic and learning function

‘To have social cohesion, social exclusion in inevitable’

‘Social cohesion supports and restricts social mobility’

15

The enterprising city?

The participating city?

The cohesive city?

Single focus?

The built-up city?

The diverse city?

The public city?

16

The cohesion dimension of the enterprising city

• Current policy agendas at every level have two main concerns: competitiveness versus cohesion

• They aim at promoting the economic competitiveness in the globalizing system of urban regions. At this point two questions arise:

- To what extent it is true that socially cohesive societies have a competitive advantage

- What is the role of (social and ethnic) diversity in this relationship? • Hypothesis: social and ethnic diversity foster creativity and dynamism in

cities; through innovations, entrepreneurship, and spatial dynamism they contribute to economic competitiveness. By focusing on the dynamism that (social and ethnic diversity) creates in urban economy, we can shed a light on the relationship between social cohesion and economic competitiveness.

17

Illustrations

18

The cohesion dimension of the public city

• The public city refers to the presence of public spaces • Public spaces are meeting places in the broadest sense: from just

observing each other to physical meetings, interaction & communication and further to (political) forums

• Public places create the opportunity for a developing feeling of belonging (‘monuments’).

• Efforts to restore some of these spaces …• versus mediocre development of the space, erosion by dispersal

of functions (shopping malls?), privatisation of their management, privatisation of public spaces by groups (from gentrification to ‘semi-public places’)

19

Illustrations

20

The cohesion dimension of the participating city

• Participating city refers to the provision of adapted frameworks for diverse forms of participation, which means not only the traditional indirect democracy – which has developed (degenerated) into a client relationship with the administration in stead of a community of citizens taking up social responsibility

• Needs to improve this traditional form of participation with direct forms

• The cohesion dimension is that through processes of participation people come to formulate common goals, discover common interests and develop common actions.

• The constructive use of conflicts is important here.

21

Illustrations

22

The cohesion dimension of the built-up city

• One way: the built-up city refers to its built structure, which may separate its residents or facilitate their interaction and communication – in the first place of its residents, but also its other users (visitors, workers, …)

• The other way: how do the different users of the city perceive the city: the built structure (streets, public places) comes alive only through the way people use it. Shifts in functionality, etc

• Threats to the importance of density, due to - Importance of virtual networks and meetings places?- City centres developing into Disney World- Urban sprawl

23

Illustrations

24

The cohesion dimension of the diverse city

• Diversity refers to the fact that - almost by definition - a multitude of different groups are living together in a city; groups with a different social, cultural & religious, political, and ethnic background.

• This diversity can be considered a threat or a capital (a bundle of opportunities)

• Will urban diversity lead to increasing economic competitiveness?• And to more understanding between different social and ethnic

groups? • Or – will greater diversity produce enhanced inequalities,

misunderstandings, racism, intolerance and xenophobia between the different groups that make up the urban?

25

Illustrations

26

The cohesion dimension of the cohesive city

• Use cohesion or diversity as the ‘transversal perspective’ to look at those different models?

• Question: how do those single models relate with each other?• How do they contribute to social cohesion or diversity – our long

term perspectives?• What with social and spatial mobility and their interrelation?• We didn’t mention social & ethnic mix yet…• An illustration: Urban health?

27

Illustrations • The Dublin City Development Plan (2011-2017) proposes a flexible

framework to:- draw together the many diverse regeneration initiatives taking place in

different locations- nurture the development of a modern knowledge economy and work with

its capacity to develop economic clusters in local areas- embrace the emergence of cultural clusters which are seen to be

increasingly important in underpinning quality of life and developing depth in our international profile

- foster a sense of place and develop community identity in the city core and suburbs.

• http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Pages/CityDevelopmentPlan.aspx