Suchergebnisse

AbstractDuring the years following the second world war, an urban development model—dispersed suburbanism (DS)—came to predominate in North America. The low‐density functional specialization and all‐out automobile orientation of this new urban form were ideally suited to the circumstances of the time, thus accounting for its rapid adoption. DS also proved to be adaptable to changing societal circumstances, which explains its predominance as an urban development model under both Fordism and neoliberalism. The adaptability of this urban form also contributed to its spread across much of the world, including Europe. This essay contends that powerful path dependencies maintain DS in place, despite planning efforts to achieve more compact, public‐transit oriented urban development. It also argues that the persistence of DS is a source of hardship for low‐income households forced to live in suburban environments, and entrenches conservative political values.

Much attention has been given to increasing dominance of the post-war suburbs, and the concomitant rise of 'suburbanism' in ways of life in the 'post-metropolis'. However, the meaning of suburbanism is rarely specified and there have been insufficient attempts to theorise its relationship to the urban. Drawing on the dialectical analyses of Henri Lefebvre, this article presents a theory of suburbanism as a subset of urbanism, with which it is in constant productive tension. Six distinct dimensions of the urbanism–suburbanism dialectic are identified, derived from extrapolating Lefebvre's urban theory into second- and third-order analyses. These aspects of suburbanism are conceptualised not as static characteristics but as qualities that dynamically flow through, rather than define, particular places. Suburbanism is thus conceptualised separately from those places often termed suburbs, opening up the potential for interaction between these dimensions and the lived realities of everyday urban life and politics.

International audience ; The suburban way of life is tending towards a rejection of tangible confrontation with otherness so that other people – should they be different – become politically invisible. This is at any rate what the critical literature surmises about the growing desire of suburbanites to live amongst their own and sometimes even behind the safe and reassuring walls of gated communities. However appealing this analysis might be, it seems nonetheless rather partial. Suburban populations are increasingly mobile and their everyday horizon is less and less reduced to the immediate perimeter of the neighbourhood. Indeed, how can one interpret the social specialization of residential areas as a sign of "enclavism" when all the statistics available indicate that mobility has become a constitutive factor of people's way of life and the neighbourhood has all but lost its existential weight? Based on exploratory work, this paper aims to deconstruct the criticism articulated around the opposition of "suburbanism" and "urbanism" by emphasising the effects of the various forms of mobility and showing that they complement the proliferation of homogeneous neighbourhoods. In order to achieve this goal, the paper analyses the culture of people living at the periphery of two large French cities (Paris and Lyon). The arguments given are based both on the existing literature and on research the author carried out in France (Charmes, 2005). As a result of the analysis conducted, it becomes apparent that the increase in mobilities and the social homogenisation of neighbourhoods can be linked in other ways than the one suggested by the critical literature. On the one hand, contemporary residential areas are not as neutral and sterile as they appear to be. Relationships between neighbours and interactions with people from the surroundings constitute at least an embryonic experience of otherness. Residential areas can therefore be conceived as "transition spaces" between the protected space of the home and the relatively ...

International audience ; The suburban way of life is tending towards a rejection of tangible confrontation with otherness so that other people – should they be different – become politically invisible. This is at any rate what the critical literature surmises about the growing desire of suburbanites to live amongst their own and sometimes even behind the safe and reassuring walls of gated communities. However appealing this analysis might be, it seems nonetheless rather partial. Suburban populations are increasingly mobile and their everyday horizon is less and less reduced to the immediate perimeter of the neighbourhood. Indeed, how can one interpret the social specialization of residential areas as a sign of "enclavism" when all the statistics available indicate that mobility has become a constitutive factor of people's way of life and the neighbourhood has all but lost its existential weight? Based on exploratory work, this paper aims to deconstruct the criticism articulated around the opposition of "suburbanism" and "urbanism" by emphasising the effects of the various forms of mobility and showing that they complement the proliferation of homogeneous neighbourhoods. In order to achieve this goal, the paper analyses the culture of people living at the periphery of two large French cities (Paris and Lyon). The arguments given are based both on the existing literature and on research the author carried out in France (Charmes, 2005). As a result of the analysis conducted, it becomes apparent that the increase in mobilities and the social homogenisation of neighbourhoods can be linked in other ways than the one suggested by the critical literature. On the one hand, contemporary residential areas are not as neutral and sterile as they appear to be. Relationships between neighbours and interactions with people from the surroundings constitute at least an embryonic experience of otherness. Residential areas can therefore be conceived as "transition spaces" between the protected space of the home and the relatively ...

International audience ; The suburban way of life is tending towards a rejection of tangible confrontation with otherness so that other people – should they be different – become politically invisible. This is at any rate what the critical literature surmises about the growing desire of suburbanites to live amongst their own and sometimes even behind the safe and reassuring walls of gated communities. However appealing this analysis might be, it seems nonetheless rather partial. Suburban populations are increasingly mobile and their everyday horizon is less and less reduced to the immediate perimeter of the neighbourhood. Indeed, how can one interpret the social specialization of residential areas as a sign of "enclavism" when all the statistics available indicate that mobility has become a constitutive factor of people's way of life and the neighbourhood has all but lost its existential weight? Based on exploratory work, this paper aims to deconstruct the criticism articulated around the opposition of "suburbanism" and "urbanism" by emphasising the effects of the various forms of mobility and showing that they complement the proliferation of homogeneous neighbourhoods. In order to achieve this goal, the paper analyses the culture of people living at the periphery of two large French cities (Paris and Lyon). The arguments given are based both on the existing literature and on research the author carried out in France (Charmes, 2005). As a result of the analysis conducted, it becomes apparent that the increase in mobilities and the social homogenisation of neighbourhoods can be linked in other ways than the one suggested by the critical literature. On the one hand, contemporary residential areas are not as neutral and sterile as they appear to be. Relationships between neighbours and interactions with people from the surroundings constitute at least an embryonic experience of otherness. Residential areas can therefore be conceived as "transition spaces" between the protected space of the home and the relatively unknown spaces of the large metropolis. On the other hand, the paper defends the hypothesis that mobilities tend to reinforce the need for stability and control of one's immediate space. Mobilities have lead city dwellers out of the reassuring cocoon of the neighbourhood in which almost everyone was swathed only a few decades ago. This growing uncertainty of life enhances the need to withdraw to a home "base". However, this need is temporary and only concerns isolated moments of everyday life. The general tendency remains one of dispersal of spatial practices and individualisation of experience. ; La vie périurbaine contemporaine semble tendre vers le rejet de toute confrontation concrète avec l'altérité et, au-delà, vers l'invisibilité politique de l'autre (du moins lorsqu'il est différent). C'est dans ces termes que la littérature critique interprète la spécialisation sociale des quartiers résidentiels et la volonté croissante des périurbains de fermer leurs rues par des barrières. Ce discours paraît quelque peu partial, ne serait-ce que parce que les périurbains sont de plus en plus mobiles et que leur horizon quotidien se réduit de moins en moins à l'environnement immédiat de leur domicile. Comment comprendre en effet la recherche de l'entre-soi dans l'espace résidentiel comme un « repli communautaire » lorsque tous les indicateurs statistiques disponibles indiquent que la mobilité est devenue un élément constitutif des modes de vie et que le lieu d'habitation a perdu une large part de son poids existentiel ? A partir de recherches de terrain et d'une réflexion exploratoire, cet article tente de déconstruire la critique axée sur la dissolution de l'urbanité dans le périurbain en insistant sur les effets de la mobilité et en montrant leur complémentarité avec l'homogénéisation sociale des quartiers résidentiels. Pour ce faire, le propos s'appuie, d'une part sur la littérature existante, d'autre part sur des enquêtes menées par l'auteur auprès d'habitants des périphéries de deux grandes villes françaises (Charmes, 2005). A l'issue de ces analyses, il apparaît que la recherche de l'entre-soi peut être analysée d'une autre manière que celle proposée par la littérature critique. D'une part, les espaces résidentiels ne sont pas aussi aseptisés qu'il y paraît. Les rapports entre voisins constituent au minimum un embryon d'expérience de l'altérité et il est possible de concevoir les espaces résidentiels comme les lieux d'une « transition » entre l'espace protégé du logement et les espaces publics des grandes métropoles. D'autre part, l'article suggère que les mobilités tendent à renforcer le besoin de stabilité et de contrôle de l'espace proche. Elles ont entraîné les citadins bien loin du cocon rassurant du quartier, dans lequel la quasi-totalité d'entre eux baignaient il y a encore quelques décennies. L'incertitude croissante de la vie sociale qui a accompagné ce mouvement a renforcé le besoin d'une « base » de repli. Ce besoin est toutefois temporaire et ne concerne que des moments limités de la vie quotidienne. La tendance générale reste à l'éclatement des pratiques spatiales et à l'individualisation des expériences.

International audience ; The suburban way of life is tending towards a rejection of tangible confrontation with otherness so that other people – should they be different – become politically invisible. This is at any rate what the critical literature surmises about the growing desire of suburbanites to live amongst their own and sometimes even behind the safe and reassuring walls of gated communities. However appealing this analysis might be, it seems nonetheless rather partial. Suburban populations are increasingly mobile and their everyday horizon is less and less reduced to the immediate perimeter of the neighbourhood. Indeed, how can one interpret the social specialization of residential areas as a sign of "enclavism" when all the statistics available indicate that mobility has become a constitutive factor of people's way of life and the neighbourhood has all but lost its existential weight? Based on exploratory work, this paper aims to deconstruct the criticism articulated around the opposition of "suburbanism" and "urbanism" by emphasising the effects of the various forms of mobility and showing that they complement the proliferation of homogeneous neighbourhoods. In order to achieve this goal, the paper analyses the culture of people living at the periphery of two large French cities (Paris and Lyon). The arguments given are based both on the existing literature and on research the author carried out in France (Charmes, 2005). As a result of the analysis conducted, it becomes apparent that the increase in mobilities and the social homogenisation of neighbourhoods can be linked in other ways than the one suggested by the critical literature. On the one hand, contemporary residential areas are not as neutral and sterile as they appear to be. Relationships between neighbours and interactions with people from the surroundings constitute at least an embryonic experience of otherness. Residential areas can therefore be conceived as "transition spaces" between the protected space of the home and the relatively unknown spaces of the large metropolis. On the other hand, the paper defends the hypothesis that mobilities tend to reinforce the need for stability and control of one's immediate space. Mobilities have lead city dwellers out of the reassuring cocoon of the neighbourhood in which almost everyone was swathed only a few decades ago. This growing uncertainty of life enhances the need to withdraw to a home "base". However, this need is temporary and only concerns isolated moments of everyday life. The general tendency remains one of dispersal of spatial practices and individualisation of experience. ; La vie périurbaine contemporaine semble tendre vers le rejet de toute confrontation concrète avec l'altérité et, au-delà, vers l'invisibilité politique de l'autre (du moins lorsqu'il est différent). C'est dans ces termes que la littérature critique interprète la spécialisation sociale des quartiers résidentiels et la volonté croissante des périurbains de fermer leurs rues par des barrières. Ce discours paraît quelque peu partial, ne serait-ce que parce que les périurbains sont de plus en plus mobiles et que leur horizon quotidien se réduit de moins en moins à l'environnement immédiat de leur domicile. Comment comprendre en effet la recherche de l'entre-soi dans l'espace résidentiel comme un « repli communautaire » lorsque tous les indicateurs statistiques disponibles indiquent que la mobilité est devenue un élément constitutif des modes de vie et que le lieu d'habitation a perdu une large part de son poids existentiel ? A partir de recherches de terrain et d'une réflexion exploratoire, cet article tente de déconstruire la critique axée sur la dissolution de l'urbanité dans le périurbain en insistant sur les effets de la mobilité et en montrant leur complémentarité avec l'homogénéisation sociale des quartiers résidentiels. Pour ce faire, le propos s'appuie, d'une part sur la littérature existante, d'autre part sur des enquêtes menées par l'auteur auprès d'habitants des périphéries de deux grandes villes françaises (Charmes, 2005). A l'issue de ces analyses, il apparaît que la recherche de l'entre-soi peut être analysée d'une autre manière que celle proposée par la littérature critique. D'une part, les espaces résidentiels ne sont pas aussi aseptisés qu'il y paraît. Les rapports entre voisins constituent au minimum un embryon d'expérience de l'altérité et il est possible de concevoir les espaces résidentiels comme les lieux d'une « transition » entre l'espace protégé du logement et les espaces publics des grandes métropoles. D'autre part, l'article suggère que les mobilités tendent à renforcer le besoin de stabilité et de contrôle de l'espace proche. Elles ont entraîné les citadins bien loin du cocon rassurant du quartier, dans lequel la quasi-totalité d'entre eux baignaient il y a encore quelques décennies. L'incertitude croissante de la vie sociale qui a accompagné ce mouvement a renforcé le besoin d'une « base » de repli. Ce besoin est toutefois temporaire et ne concerne que des moments limités de la vie quotidienne. La tendance générale reste à l'éclatement des pratiques spatiales et à l'individualisation des expériences.

International audience ; The suburban way of life is tending towards a rejection of tangible confrontation with otherness so that other people – should they be different – become politically invisible. This is at any rate what the critical literature surmises about the growing desire of suburbanites to live amongst their own and sometimes even behind the safe and reassuring walls of gated communities. However appealing this analysis might be, it seems nonetheless rather partial. Suburban populations are increasingly mobile and their everyday horizon is less and less reduced to the immediate perimeter of the neighbourhood. Indeed, how can one interpret the social specialization of residential areas as a sign of "enclavism" when all the statistics available indicate that mobility has become a constitutive factor of people's way of life and the neighbourhood has all but lost its existential weight? Based on exploratory work, this paper aims to deconstruct the criticism articulated around the opposition of "suburbanism" and "urbanism" by emphasising the effects of the various forms of mobility and showing that they complement the proliferation of homogeneous neighbourhoods. In order to achieve this goal, the paper analyses the culture of people living at the periphery of two large French cities (Paris and Lyon). The arguments given are based both on the existing literature and on research the author carried out in France (Charmes, 2005). As a result of the analysis conducted, it becomes apparent that the increase in mobilities and the social homogenisation of neighbourhoods can be linked in other ways than the one suggested by the critical literature. On the one hand, contemporary residential areas are not as neutral and sterile as they appear to be. Relationships between neighbours and interactions with people from the surroundings constitute at least an embryonic experience of otherness. Residential areas can therefore be conceived as "transition spaces" between the protected space of the home and the relatively unknown spaces of the large metropolis. On the other hand, the paper defends the hypothesis that mobilities tend to reinforce the need for stability and control of one's immediate space. Mobilities have lead city dwellers out of the reassuring cocoon of the neighbourhood in which almost everyone was swathed only a few decades ago. This growing uncertainty of life enhances the need to withdraw to a home "base". However, this need is temporary and only concerns isolated moments of everyday life. The general tendency remains one of dispersal of spatial practices and individualisation of experience. ; La vie périurbaine contemporaine semble tendre vers le rejet de toute confrontation concrète avec l'altérité et, au-delà, vers l'invisibilité politique de l'autre (du moins lorsqu'il est différent). C'est dans ces termes que la littérature critique interprète la spécialisation sociale des quartiers résidentiels et la volonté croissante des périurbains de fermer leurs rues par des barrières. Ce discours paraît quelque peu partial, ne serait-ce que parce que les périurbains sont de plus en plus mobiles et que leur horizon quotidien se réduit de moins en moins à l'environnement immédiat de leur domicile. Comment comprendre en effet la recherche de l'entre-soi dans l'espace résidentiel comme un « repli communautaire » lorsque tous les indicateurs statistiques disponibles indiquent que la mobilité est devenue un élément constitutif des modes de vie et que le lieu d'habitation a perdu une large part de son poids existentiel ? A partir de recherches de terrain et d'une réflexion exploratoire, cet article tente de déconstruire la critique axée sur la dissolution de l'urbanité dans le périurbain en insistant sur les effets de la mobilité et en montrant leur complémentarité avec l'homogénéisation sociale des quartiers résidentiels. Pour ce faire, le propos s'appuie, d'une part sur la littérature existante, d'autre part sur des enquêtes menées par l'auteur auprès d'habitants des périphéries de deux grandes villes françaises (Charmes, 2005). A l'issue de ces analyses, il apparaît que la recherche de l'entre-soi peut être analysée d'une autre manière que celle proposée par la littérature critique. D'une part, les espaces résidentiels ne sont pas aussi aseptisés qu'il y paraît. Les rapports entre voisins constituent au minimum un embryon d'expérience de l'altérité et il est possible de concevoir les espaces résidentiels comme les lieux d'une « transition » entre l'espace protégé du logement et les espaces publics des grandes métropoles. D'autre part, l'article suggère que les mobilités tendent à renforcer le besoin de stabilité et de contrôle de l'espace proche. Elles ont entraîné les citadins bien loin du cocon rassurant du quartier, dans lequel la quasi-totalité d'entre eux baignaient il y a encore quelques décennies. L'incertitude croissante de la vie sociale qui a accompagné ce mouvement a renforcé le besoin d'une « base » de repli. Ce besoin est toutefois temporaire et ne concerne que des moments limités de la vie quotidienne. La tendance générale reste à l'éclatement des pratiques spatiales et à l'individualisation des expériences.