***Barbara Pizzo is the New TU Wien Visiting Professor for Summer Term 2018. She is a Research Professor at University La Sapienza in Rome, Italy. The course will be offered by Prof. Dr. Pizzo and Prof. Dr. Knierbein in Co-Teaching Fashion. This outline may become subject to change and amendments***

This lecture revisits the division between public and private space in the city. This division has been one of the key issues when addressing the qualities of public life and the urban fabric in urban history. Public space has been conceived of as being limited through different shades of private borders, boundaries and property lines, whereas urban planners state that in order to build real cities and not just dwelling units, private space needs to be interwoven with the urban fabric through the connective tissue that is public space. This dialectical relation has also been expressed through the shifting balance between tenants and owners of a city. A manifest change in these patterns has been induced by financial and speculative modes of housing production in which through subprime lending an increasing number of tenant households have been offered loans, in order to tempt them to become property owners and despite them being at high risk not to afford the loan.  This, for instance, has been the case in Spain in recent years. It is the aim of this lecture to explore to what extent the relation between public space and housing schemes (and related policies, research and activism) has changed over the last decade, particularly as regards the new urban extension areas. How are these new dwelling areas conceived as built environments, and for whom? Another set of questions that lie behind this investigative lecture-approach could be to find out to what extent traditional ‘tenant cities’ have been developing into ‘cities of home owners’, in which the manoeuvre particularly of cities as owners of public housing stocks for renting has been diminished? How have political and medial agendas been shaped in order to stimulate people to consider becoming property owners?

Main themes will include:

 

Lecture Unit 0: Introduction. The making of urban places: how, why and for whom? (Barbara Pizzo, Sabine Knierbein)

Among the many perspective to look at the making of urban places as an object of inquiry, we aim at focusing on urban transformations as they mirror the way in which public action (Comaille 2004, Lascoumes & Le Gales 2007) takes form, highlighting power relationships and inclusion/exclusion dynamics; and the way in which socio-spatial relationships are conceived and materialize, with a particular attention for public/private relations and the ever-changing meaning of this fundamental yet disputed dyad. This means also that urban transformations in their material outcomes are the entry point of theoretical reflection, which mobilizes concepts and theories related to urban studies, planning and policy analysis. In particular, in new urban extension areas the delicate balance between housing units and public space is at stake, and the very idea of a differentiation and delimitation of public and private realms (a need which shapes also rights) is often problematic.

 

Lecture Unit 1: Negotiating urban space_1: The capital can be patient, what about cities? (Barbara Pizzo)

One basic precondition of any urban transformation is land, being it green fields, or brown fields, or the built urban environment to be redeveloped, renewed, or regenerated. Land is a 'strange object', whose meaning and uses can be disputed, since it can be treated both as a thing and as a commodity (Li 2014). Nevertheless, its materiality, the form of the resource, matters. Urban transformations mirror, first of all, how land is actually assumed and treated, and the role it plays in accumulation processes related to city making. Finance is increasingly intertwined with the urban space and to city making (Lefebvre, Harvey), as the recent economic crisis unequivocally demonstrated. Capitals selectively land on land, choosing the more profitable city, or the more profitable site within one city, or even to wait, in order to get the most out of the investment. This strategy, which can be supported, or constrained by urban planning and policies, seems to fit rarely with city and people’s needs. What do we actually mean by ‘city for people and not for profit’ (Brenner, Marcuse and Meyer)? 

Foundations:

• Harvey, D., Chatterjee, L. (1974). Absolute rent and structuring of space by governmental and financial institutions, Antipode, 6 (1), pp. 22-36;
• Ball, M. (1985). The urban rent question, Environment and Planning A, 17, pp. 503-525;
• Haila, A. (1988). Land as a financial asset: the theory of urban rent as a mirror of economic transformation. Antipode, 20 (2), pp. 79-102;
• o   Haila, A. (1990). The theory of land rent at the crossroads, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 8, 275-296

Perspectives:

• Christophers, B. (2016). For real: Land as capital and commodity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers; Christophers, B. (2017). The State and Financialization of Public Land in the United Kingdom. Antipode, 49: 62-85

 

Lecture Unit 2 Post-Positivist Planning Theory (Sabine Knierbein)

European cities are changing rapidly due to processes of de-industrialization, European integration and economic globalization. Within those cities public spaces are the meeting place of politics and culture, social and individual territories, instrumental and expressive concerns. This lecture unit investigates how public spaces are used, instrumentalized and transformed into core catalysts of processes of urban transformation and capital accumulation in European cities. The ideal-type conception of the European city however, does not coincide with the empirical evidence found in 13 case studies where the seemingly authentic history meets the eclectic diversity of the present. A widening of the focus of the historical palimpsest from central public spaces to every day places situated in the urban peripheries allows a more nuanced understanding of the challenges that contemporary cities in Europe face. The lecture (1) addresses different interpretations of patterns of urban restructuring (e.g. postfordist, neoliberal), (2) offers a political science-inspired reading of Foucault’s theory of Governmentality as an explanatory frame for a historical analysis of urban restructuring led by rational and technocrat rationales as one facet of a historical analysis of different phases of capitalism, and (3) establishes a connection to post-positivist planning theories that seek to overcome rational choice models of planning.

Postfordist urban policies, birth of ‘neoliberal’ urban policies, growing urban inequalities

• Madanipour, Ali, Knierbein, Sabine and Aglaée Degros (2014) A Moment of Transformation. IN: Madanipour, Ali, Knierbein, Sabine and Aglaée Degros (eds) Public Space and the Challenges of Urban Transformation in Europe. London/New York: Routledge. Pp. 1-8.

Foucault’s theory of Governmentality

• Foucault, Michel (1991): Governmentality, in: Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin and Miller, Peter (eds.): The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, London (u.a.): Harvester Wheatsheaf. Pp. 87-104.

Post positivist planning

• Allmendinger, Philipp (2002) The Post-Positivist Landscape of Planning Theory. IN: Allmendinger, Philipp and Marc Tewdwr Jones (eds) Planning Futures. New Directions for Planning Theory. London/New York: Routledge. Pp. 3-17.

 

Lecture Unit 3: Negotiating urban space_2: Financialized, entrepreneurial, negotiated: which city is this? (Barbara Pizzo)

Cities and economy are constitutively interwoven: before being considered as the place where economic interests materializes, and as providing the space that the economy needs and shapes for its own purposes, cities have been considered in their very constitution as an outcome of economic change (see e.g. Pirenne 1956, Bairoch 1991) or, better, as the result of the co-production of socio-spatial relationships. As such, we may say that to any main economic change corresponds a main change in the city, both in terms of conceptualisations, and in the material forms it assumes. Contemporary economic changes are affecting our cities in a way that a claim for a fourth industrial revolution has been made. Changes related to economic globalization, financialization of the economy, its impact on cities and the related crisis, are challenging the role of state actors in orienting urban development. The urban space has been addressed as increasingly financialized, entrepreneurial and negotiated. What do these terms actually mean when referred to the city?

Foundations:

• Harvey, D. (1985). The urbanization of the capital: studies in the history and theory of capitalist urbanization. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press;
• Jessop, B. (1997). The entrepreneurial city: re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance, or restructuring capital. Transforming cities: Contested governance and new spatial divisions, 46, 28-41;
• Jessop, B. (1997). A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes: accumulation strategies, hegemonic projects, and governance. In Lauria M. (ed.). Reconstructing urban regime theory. London: Sage, pp. 51-73

Perspectives:

• Krätke, S. (2014). Cities in Contemporary Capitalism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(5), pp. 1660-1677;
• Mac Leod G. (2011), Urban Politics Reconsidered. Growth Machine to Post-democratic City? Urban Studies 48 (12), 2629-2660;
• Catney, P., & Henneberry, J. M. (2016). Public entrepreneurship and the politics of regeneration in multi-level governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(7), 1324-1343

 

Lecture Unit 4: Feminist Planning Theory (Sabine Knierbein)

Feminist critique of positivist and hegemonic planning practice has had a long tradition. This lecture unit offers a way to dive into the causes, reasons, motivations and mobilizations that feminist theory has evoked in planning theory. These feminist planning theory approaches have often been mediated and translated through other fields, e.g. human geography, political science, anthropology, sociology and cultural studies via the field of urban studies. As regards the urban fabric, feminist planning theorists and architectural critiques have raised concerns that the binary between public and private is reproduced in planning theory, architectural history and urban studies. In this reproduction of the public/private binary the public has been very often coined as male, heroic and rational whereas the private aspects have been ascribed to female, intimate and affective social ties. Such a banalization and misreading of the hybridity and mixture of facets of public and private life in the city (and their translation into urban design and planning schemes) have been recently challenged on the ground by housing activist groups. These groups have actively addressed and questioned social hardship faced by both home buyers and by tenants in coping with gentrification, foreclosure and eviction, and have brought this matter considered as private into the public. The tides have changed particularly, it seems, in countries and cities struck by fiscal crises and austerity measures. Nevertheless, there seem to be manifest shifts on the way in respect to how new urban quarters are produced in a decade characterized by a new faith in growth and by quite massive urban expansion and densification schemes in the wealthier cities (and countries).

• Tornaghi, Chiara (2015). Conceptual challenges. Re-addressing public space in relational perspective. In: Tornaghi, C. and Knierbein, S. (Eds.). Public Space and Relational Perspectices. London/New York: Routledge. Pp. 17-41.
• Huxley, Margo (2011) Governmentality, Gender, Planning: A Foucauldian Perspective
• Sandercock, Leonie and Forsyth (2007). A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning Theory. In: Journal of the American Planning Association. Volume 58, 1992 - Issue 1. pp. 49-59

 

Lecture Unit 5: Claiming urban space_1: Problematizing self-organization (Barbara)

There is a growing interest for self-organization, as an explanatory concept of how cities and societies actually function, and as a guiding concept for obtaining ‘better’ cities (e.g. more resilient cities). We will deconstruct, reconstruct and debate the origin of this concept, its meaning and implications related to its translation into different fields, as well as its meanings and implications for urban studies and planning.

Foundations:

• Allen, P. M. (1997). Cities and regions as self-organizing systems: models of complexity. London: Taylor & Francis;
•  Portugali, J. (1999). Self-organization and the city. Springer Verlag

Perspectives:

• Savini, F. (2016). Self-Organization and Urban Development: Disaggregating the City-Region, Deconstructing Urbanity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(6), 1152-1169;
• Iveson, K. (2013). Cities within the city: Do-it-yourself urbanism and the right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 941-956;
• Rauws, W. (2017) Embracing Uncertainty Without Abandoning Planning, disP - The Planning Review, 53:1, 32-45, DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2017.1316539;
• Karadimitriou, N. (2010). Cybernetic spatial planning: Steering, managing or just letting go? In: Hillier, J and Healey, P. (eds.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory. Ashgate Pub Co.

 

Lecture Unit 6: Planning Theory, Performativity and Affect (Sabine Knierbein)

The lecture will (1) offer an understanding of embodied protest as an affective form of staging dissent and thereby shaping ‘the political’ in the city. By taking on a particular perspective from the field of radical anthropology on the embodied dimension of protest, different examples of bodily protest in public spaces will be explored and discussed. Does it make a difference to expose your body on a public street or to twitter your claims into the virtual worlds that social networks make use of? In a successive part (2) the lecture will deal with the concept of ‘politics of affect’: How does embodied action, or, as Setha Low coins it: embodied space, relate to an (analytical, interpretative) understanding of the relevance of feelings, experience and affect that is very much inscribed in theories dealing with urban cultures. How do both embodied and affective experience relate to the shaping of the political in contemporary European cities? Finally (3) a transfer will be established between considerations linking embodied space conceptions, politics of affect and a new strand in post-positivist planning, that is, performative planning.

Embodied space: role of civil society, role of embodied action, body-politics

• Moore, Sheehan (2013) Taking Up Space: Anthropology and embodied protest. Radical Anthropology. Vol. 7/2013. Pp. 6-16. URL: http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/journal/ra_journal_nov_2013_6-16.pdf (latest access 05/02/16)

Politics of affect

• Hardt, Michael (2007): Foreword. What Affects Are Good For. In: Clough, Patricia T./Halley, Jean (eds.): The Affective Turn. Theorizing the Social. Duke Univ. Press. Pp. Ix-xiii

Performative planning

• Altrock, Uwe and Sandra Huning (2015) Cultural interventions in urban public spaces and performative planning: Insights from shrinking cities in Eastern Germany. In: Tornaghi, Chiara and Sabine Knierbein (eds) Public Space and Relational Perspectives. New Challenges for Architecture and Planning. London/New York. Routledge. Pp. 148-166.

 

Lecture Unit 7: Claiming urban space_2: Self-organization and public policies

Culture-led public policies and private initiatives related in various ways to culture drive an important part (quantitatively and qualitatively) of urban transformations in contemporary ‘Global-North’ cities. This means also that, at least in this sector, institutional initiatives, and spontaneous, informal, self-organized initiatives, although unintentionally, can be considered as co-contributing to the turn towards a culture-led urban economy. For this reason, culture-led policies and initiatives, although their (possible) different origins and (declared) orientations, are a very peculiar field of inquiry that permit us to understand: a) which is the relationship between self-organization and public institutions? b) How the different initiatives conceive (embed) the relationship of culture and economy in the city, and which idea of urban economy they address and sustain? c) How and for whom do they contribute to the making of urban places, and which kind of urban places do they actually produce?

Foundations:

• Allen, P. M., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization, and decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A, 13(2), 167-183

Perspectives:

• Rauws, W. (2016). Civic initiatives in urban development: self-governance versus self-organisation in planning practice. Town Planning Review, 87(3), 339-361;
• DeFillippi, R., Grabher, G., & Jones, C. (2007). Introduction to paradoxes of creativity: managerial and organizational challenges in the cultural economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 511-521;
• Lange, B., Kalandides, A., Stöber, B., & Mieg, H. A. (2008). Berlin's creative industries: governing creativity? Industry and Innovation, 15(5), 531-548;
• Salone, C., Bonini Baraldi, S., & Pazzola, G. (2017). Cultural production in peripheral urban spaces: lessons from Barriera, Turin (Italy). European Planning Studies, 25(12), 2117-2137

 

Lecture Unit 8: Planning Theory and Everyday Life (Sabine Knierbein)

Cities of the Global North witness an increase in urban inequalities which is visible and can be analyzed both through public space and housing research. With a combined dialectical focus on city publics and city dwellers, their spatial practices and patterns of acting space, urban researchers can try to understand patterns of increasing precarious living conditions, poverty and discrimination. This public evening lecture starts from the hypothesis that dialectical ways of enquiry that seek to overcome the public/private distinction need to be (re)established in order to analyze the absences and silences from public space in private space and the relations between them (and vice versa). Three ‘crossovers’ between the fields of public space and housing research (developed from former) will be offered:

• Public Space and Housing Activism Combined. The case of Spain.
• Silences and absences from public space and housing research. A feminist critique.
• Reestablishing spatial dialectics: Public space as relational counter space.

Public space and housing activism combined

• Garcia-Lamarca, M (2017) Reconfiguring the Public through Housing Rights Struggles in Spain. In: Hou, J. and Knierbein, S. (Eds.) City Unsilenced. Urban Resistance and Public Space in the Age of Shrinking Democracy. London/New York: Routledge. pp. 44-55.

Dialectics private-public (feminist critique of public/private divide or of public space)

• Susan Ruddick (2004) Domesticating Monsters, Cartographies of Difference and the Emancipatory City. In: Lees, Lorretta (eds) The emancipatory city. London. Sage. Pp. 23-39

Relational planning

• Knierbein, Sabine (2015) Public Space as Relational Counter Space: Scholarly Minefield or Epistemological Opportunity? In: Tornaghi, Chiara and Sabine Knierbein (eds) Public Space and Relational Perspectives. New Challenges for Architecture and Planning. London/New York. Routledge. Pp.42-63.

 

Lecture Unit 9: Contesting urban space_1: Uneven development, unexpected. Conflict and unintentional outcomes (Barbara Pizzo)

‘Uneven development’, as deepened by N. Smith in his fundamental book with the same title in the mid ‘80ies, refers to the outcomes and results of a much contested understanding of the (capitalist) economy, the environment (built and natural, considered as resources) and their relationships (exploitation, extraction of value). Although Smith introduced factors (such as that of scale) to be taken seriously into consideration in order to understand the complexities of those dynamics, there is a risk to interpreting their outcomes and results as, so to say, linear and fully intentional, meaning that the actors who obtain them were pursuing them (linear causality), while their results always derive from intricate trajectories of interests and goals. However, what eventually prevails mirrors actual power relationships and the very values that shape decision-making, so this is the perspective that will be explored. In this perspective, the Gramscian concept of hegemony will be put to work, together with those of agonism (and antagonism) as conceptualized by Adorno, Foucault, and then by Laclau and Mouffe. 

Foundations:

• Smith, N. (1990). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. 2nd Ed. Athens: University of Georgia Press [1^st ed. 1984]
• Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(3), 303-314

Perspectives:

• Gualini, E. (Ed.). (2015). Planning and conflict: Critical perspectives on contentious urban developments. Routledge; Rydin, Y. (2003). Conflict, consensus, and rationality in environmental planning: an institutional discourse approach. OUP Oxford; Safransky, S. (2017). Rethinking land struggle in the postindustrial city. Antipode, 49(4), 1079-1100;

 

Lecture Unit 10: City Unsilenced (Sabine Knierbein)

Cities have long been sites of social and political struggles. As the manifestation of social organization, power, and politics, urban settings are also places in which those relationships are contested and sometimes overthrown. In 2011, urban resistance returned to the headlines of global news media through global incidents such as the Arab Spring protests and the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In Brazil, rounds of Free Fare Movement protests joined by thousands of young people, students repeatedly forced the local governments to cancel the increase of bus fare. In Taipei, university students took over the country’s Parliament building and occupied it for 24 days in protest against the passage of a trade pact with China that would further erode the nation’s economy and democratic institution. Yet as well cities in Europe increasingly witnessed the resurgence of emancipatory struggles and practices of resistance: In Greece, Portugal, and Spain, the indignados movements organized demonstrations against austerity policies. In Stuttgart, protestors demonstrated against the redevelopment of the city’s main railway station by occupying the public park that would be vastly destroyed by the redevelopment. In Istanbul, citizens protested against the proposed urban design project foreseen for Gezi Park near Taksim Square by setting up encampment on the park. These recent acts of urban resistance share many things in common. In addition to the popular use of social media and the adoption of a horizontal structure for mobilization, many of the protests have re-introduced public space, in forms of streets, squares, parks, and parliament buildings, as the stage for political struggle. This re-centering of focus on public space is particularly significant as it comes at a time when public space, understood as the embodied geography of the public sphere (Low and Smith 2005) have been undermined after decades of corporatization, privatization, commodification, enforcement of hyper-security in many parts of the world. This lecture is an attempt to better understand that the current waves of urban protests are inherently linked to rapidly changing structural conditions and the decline of (national) democracies. It (1) offers an insight into the post-occupy struggles in public space against a new tech-led gentrification (San Francisco), (2) emphasises recent political theory accounts that seek to explain the omnipresent democratic deficits of state governance and (3) establishes a link to what Sandercock (1998, p. 169) has coined as ‘counter(hegemonic) planning. Here, (3) a critique of communicative planning and initial thoughts on the relation of planning and design disciplines and counter-hegemonic movements will be developed.

Political movements against rising urban inequality

• Maharawal, M (2017) San Francisco’s Tech-led Gentrification: Public Space, Protest, and the Urban Commons. In: Hou, J. and Knierbein, S. (Eds.) City Unsilenced. Urban Resistance and Public Space in the Age of Shrinking Democracy. London/New York: Routledge. Pp. 30-43.

Resistance, alternative public space, concept of “presentist democracy”

• Lorey, Isabell (2014): The 2011 Occupy Movements: Rancière and the Crisis of Democracy. In: Theory, Culture & Society, December 2014, vol. 31, 7-8: pp 43-65.

Counter planning, planning in support of counter (hegemonic) movements

• Purcell, Marc (2009) Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-Hegemonic Movements? Planning Theory May 2009 vol. 8 no. 2, Pp. 140-165.

 

Lecture Unit 11: Contesting urban space_2: Who plans? (Barbara Pizzo)

Throughout the course, we assumed and explored an understanding of the making of urban places as the historical result (never fully intentional) of local-specific structure/agency interplays. With the aim of understanding ‘Who plans’ (paraphrasing the well-known Dahl’s question, 1961), we tried to understand and to unveil the intricate landscape of values and interests which shape our cities.  We define decision-making processes related to city making as public action with increasingly uncertain and unstable distribution of powers and voice, competences and efficacy capacity between the different actors, and we assumed a range of cases of planning processes and urban transformations as our field of exploration. In a context of increasing uncertainties and the pluralisation of views and approaches to tackle them (within the broad yet ‘bounded’ field of urban studies and planning), I propose to restart considering results (material results when possible) in order to understand who actually plans (how, why and for whom), problematizing also what do we mean by ‘results’ in city and place making, and relating them to the concept of citizenship.

Foundations:

• Dahl, R. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press

Perspectives:

• Brenner, N., Jessop, B., & Jones, M. G. Macleod (Eds.).(2003). State/Space—A Reader, Blackwell Publishing;
• Purcell, M. (2016). For democracy: Planning and publics without the state. Planning Theory, 15(4), 386-401;
• Savitch, H. V., Kantor (2002). Cities in the international marketplace: The political economy of urban development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton University Press

 

Lecture Unit 12: Public Space Unbound. Post-foundational thought and planning theory (Sabine Knierbein)

Debates over emancipation, albeit not always explicitly outlined as the subject of planning and design discourses, have been providing valuable impetus to both urban research and practice, ever since the linkages between emancipation and the city have been affirmed in the philosophical foundations of social sciences. Throughout the 20th century a series of emancipatory spatial practices as well as accompanying scientific debates rendered urban spaces a liberating ground of opportunity and possibility, cosmopolitanism and freedom from a multitude of political, cultural, social and economic constraints. Although design and planning disciplines have been revising their practices to render the making of cities a more emancipatory process, the city as an artefact was to a great extent dominated by the Eurocentric narrative of modernism. Following the critique of the modernist approaches to conceiving, perceiving and living urban spaces raised in urban theory, the turn of the century witnessed the final rejection of the grand narrative of modernism as a mere relic of Western imperialism. This paradigm shift has freed up space for a plurality of responses carved along different strands aiming at the production of places of emancipation, which equally rely upon theoretical and practice-based approaches to the making of cities. This lecture (1) introduces the concept of the “post-political” thought in urban theory, (2) links it back to earlier thinkers who have stressed the importance of dissent and agonism to constantly revive democracies in practice and (3) outlines current strands in planning theory that work in the line of these new positions in contemporary social theory. The lecture will give insights into a new book project that has been initiated through new innovative forms of transdisciplinary teaching the practice and theory of urban emancipation at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Urban Culture and Public Space in 2014.

The Post-Political and its Discontent

• Wilson and Swyngedouw (2015) Seeds of dystopia: Post-Politics and the Return of the Political. In: Wilson and Swyngedouw (eds) The Post-Political and its Discontents. Edinburgh. Edinburg University Press. Pp.1-24.

Politics of dissent

• Mouffe, Chantal (2013): Agonistics. Thinking the world politically. London: Verso. Pp. 1-18.

Agonistic/antagonistic planning

• Hillier, Jean (2002) Direct action and agonism in democratic planning practice. In: Philip Allmendinger and Mark Tewdwr-Jones (eds), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London: Routledge. Pp. 110-135.

 

Lecture Unit 13: Summary of lecture units, debate (Barbara Pizzo and Sabine Knierbein)

We will briefly summarize the content of all lecture units offered and briefly explain again how they are related, in order to allow for all the students to grasp the bigger.

 

The lecture (VO) "Concepts and Critique of the Production of Space" is part of the module 11 "Urban culture, public space and housing" (consisting of three courses, VO 280.534, SE 280.535 and UE 280.536) which is offered during three five-days intensive teaching blocks (ITB) by the Interdisiciplinary Centre for Urban Culture and Public Space (SKuOR). Module 11 compiles a set of integrated courses at the interface of the fields of urban studies, urban planning and urban design. In 2018, the main focus will be on "Urban culture, public space and housing".

The courses mainly address master students (late Bachelor or early PhD) from the fields of  spatial planning, architecture, urban studies, urban design, geography, sociology, social design, landscape architecture, cultural studies. The course language is English. We support students’ active participation in debates and interactive teaching formats, and encourage you to bring in and develop your own ideas and critical perspectives. We seek to create an international level of debate and exchange and welcome students from all countries and cultures. Just contact us (info@skuor.tuwien.ac.at).

Students interested in this course are recommended to take part in the seminar (TISS no 280. 535) and the exercise (TISS no 280.536).

To take part in all three courses of the module 11 please register for module 11 until 26^th February 2018 (20:30) via TISS registration for the course, VO 280.534. Further course registration will be carried out directly at the kick-off meeting on 5^th of March 2018, 10:00 in Augasse 2-6, 2^nd floor, Seminar room 3/4.

 

Dates of the Module 11

The main body of teaching will be delivered during three intensive teaching blocks (ITB), preceded by an organisational kick-off meeting.

Module kick-off meeting: 5^th of March 2018, 10:00 in Seminar room 3/4, Augasse 2-6 ('alte WU'), 2^nd floor. 

ITB 1.  12 - 16 March 18

ITB 2.  16 - 20 April 18

ITB 3.  4 - 8 June 18

The evaluation of the course will be based upon the following activities:

_ Participation in group oral exam; or

_ Writing of individual essay 4-6 pages, 4000-5000 words, combining one lecture input by Prof. Dr. Pizzo with one lecture unit of Prof. Dr. Knierbein.

Students interested in this course are recommended to take part in the seminar (TISS no 280. 535) and the exercise (TISS no 280.536).

To take part in all three courses of the module 11 please register for module 11 until 26^th February 2018 (20:30) via TISS registration for the course, VO 280.534. Further course registration will be carried out directly at the kick-off meeting on 5^th of March 2018, 10:00 in Augasse 2-6, 2^nd floor, Seminar room 3/4.

Es wird kein Skriptum zur Lehrveranstaltung angeboten.