Plans, Buildings and Other City 'Things'

The Reading: Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form by David Harvey (1997)

David Harvey is a very well renowned geographer, political scientist and general social theorist. He has worked with multiple universities during his career, such as Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science. I was very impressed to know he is one of the most referenced scholars of the 20^th century.

The complexity surrounding the definition of community was an interesting concept presented by Harvey. He states that by associating oneself with a certain community, it can often serve to ‘other’. People use the word to mean so many different things or even to fill a gap that it no longer represents the ideas of connectedness, structure and organisation. I can see how confusing the definition of ‘community’ could affect the outcomes of a community. Needs may not be addressed and people may become marginalised.

This links to the ‘right the city’, a concept first presented by French planner Henri Lefebvre. He defined the term as “demand...[for] a transformed and renewed access to urban life”. Harvey suggest that people have lost their connection to their city. The city has become another thing. However, the city is not a thing, it is a dynamic and constantly changing environment that requires citizens to be engaged. Harvey, and the ‘right to the city’ concept, promote active citizenship. People need to avoid the trap of hiding from the problems in gated communities, neglected the needs of disadvantaged citizens. Resources must be redistributed to those who cannot help themselves. There should be no marginalisation of the poor through the indifference of the rich, as Harvey suggests. Harvey’s  concept of ‘things’ is supported by Robert A. Beauregard his 2012 piece Planning with Things. He further references John Forester, who’s reading was the subject of my previous blogpost. Beauregard acknowledges how planners must plan for ‘things’, whether realised or not. Planners don’t always theorise, there must be some practical application, which takes place in the form of planning for, designing and constructing ‘things’.

In relation to contestation, much like the previous reading by Forester, Harvey suggests planning is rife with conflict. Ideas will be contested and concepts will be contested, but more importantly, on a professional level, bids for development applications will be fought. Bargains will be made and political allies and rival will be carved out amongst the planning community, developers and local government. Harvey suggests that contestation ensures the best process is achieved. Through professional competition and tendering of offers, planners can create new developments which satisfy political and economic requirements but also improve the spatial form of a city.