Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2076668
Kate Shaw
Bravo Steve, for your fine take on a completely unreasonable topic. It’s just too big to meaningfully deal with, but your summary of the ills of the world is right-on and it is hard to have hope. The answers you proffer are good answers indeed, and their realisation will be so qualified that I’m not excited by their prospects. Our esteemed colleague Kurt Iveson, who is following me in this discussion, will say there are always instances of everyday equalities, inspiring practices, wonderful things happening in the interstices and reasons for hope, but they’re narrowing aren’t they? Always getting squeezed and built out. Yes of course they pop up elsewhere in different forms and expressions, but they are small and the spatial opportunities are becoming fewer. Sometimes I think we cling to this line of optimism because we have to believe, until it become almost religious in its fervour – we have to have hope. The theme of the RGS-IBG Urban Geography Research Group 2021 conference was Cities of Hope, 20 years after Harvey’s Spaces of Hope and some kind of tribute, but, really? With Harvey’s little epilogue manifesto even farther from most people’s lives than ever – except perhaps on the most intimate and privileged of scales – what is there hopeful to say? Tom Slater of the University of Edinburgh said to me years ago that if dancing around a tree and calling it transformative is the culmination of urban geography’s contribution to social change – my fine former PhD student Dr Prashanti Mayfield calls it happy clappy urbanism – he’s out (of the conference circuit, I think he meant. He’s certainly still present, thank goodness). We – by which I mean, urban, human, economic, cultural geographers, planners and social theorists, those listening to the streamed conference or reading this issue of UPR – have a serious problem. Not only are we talking more esoterically, but we’re talking more and more to ourselves. I’m by no means the first to observe this, but our increasingly arcane theorising is reaching fewer people, even as we know it. Many disciplines do this, speak internally in jargon – it is a way of measuring and establishing status amongst our peers – but we have to acknowledge it is not reaching the people who need to hear it, and it is clearly not changing anything that Steve is talking about. We have a bigger problem too of course, which is that even if we werewriting and speaking to the halls of power in language they understood, their occupants still wouldn’t want to hear. Steve’s argument for making the obvious economic case, and his perfectly rational plea for evidenced, consistent messages on inequality-busting policy reforms to swing political will, doesn’t address the depth of the entrenched social and sociopathic ideology. Let me draw one illustration of the difficulty of that task in the immediate term: The anti-vax/anti-lockdown/anti-authoritarian “freedom” fighters, supported by their strange bedfellows from QAnon and the far-right
史蒂夫，太棒了，你在一个完全不合理的话题上表现得很好。它太大了，无法有效地处理，但你对世界弊病的总结是正确的，很难抱有希望。你提供的答案确实是很好的答案，它们的实现将是如此的有限，以至于我对它们的前景并不感到兴奋。我们尊敬的同事库尔特·艾弗森(Kurt Iveson)，他也跟着我一起参加了这次讨论，他会说，每天都有一些平等的例子，鼓舞人心的做法，在空白中发生的奇妙的事情和希望的理由，但它们正在缩小，不是吗?总是被挤压和建造。是的，它们当然会以不同的形式和表达出现在其他地方，但它们很小，空间机会越来越少。有时我想，我们之所以坚持这种乐观主义，是因为我们必须相信——直到它变得近乎宗教般的狂热——我们必须抱有希望。RGS-IBG城市地理研究小组2021年会议的主题是“希望的城市”，这是在哈维的“希望空间”和某种致敬20年后，但是，真的吗?随着哈维的小小结语宣言比以往任何时候都离大多数人的生活更远——也许除了在最亲密和特权的尺度上——还有什么希望说的呢?爱丁堡大学(University of Edinburgh)的汤姆•斯莱特(Tom Slater)多年前曾对我说，如果绕着树跳舞并称之为变革，是城市地理学对社会变革贡献的顶点——我的优秀前博士生普拉珊蒂•梅菲尔德(Prashanti Mayfield)博士称之为快乐雀跃的城市主义——我想他的意思是，他已经退出了会议圈。他当然还在，谢天谢地)。我们——我指的是城市、人类、经济、文化地理学家、规划师和社会理论家，那些收听流媒体会议或阅读本期普遍定期审议的人——面临着一个严重的问题。我们不仅在更深奥地交谈，而且在越来越多地自言自语。我绝不是第一个观察到这一点的人，但即使我们知道，我们越来越晦涩的理论也越来越少的人接触到。许多学科都是这样做的，内部用行话说话——这是一种衡量和在同行中建立地位的方式——但我们必须承认，它并没有传达给需要听到它的人，而且它显然没有改变史蒂夫所说的任何东西。当然，我们还有一个更大的问题，那就是即使我们用他们能理解的语言写信和说话，他们的主人仍然不想听。史蒂夫提出的显而易见的经济案例，以及他对证据的完全理性的请求，关于打破不平等的政策改革以动摇政治意愿的一致信息，并没有解决根深蒂固的社会和反社会意识形态的深度。让我举一个例子来说明这项任务在短期内的困难:反疫苗/反封锁/反专制的“自由”战士，在他们来自QAnon和极右翼的奇怪同床异梦的支持者的支持下，获得了政治和媒体的关注，而那些同样截然不同的左翼人士只能做梦了。反强制令抗议活动是否比“黑人的命也是命”集会吸引了更多的人?谁知道这些数字——这里的困惑是显而易见的
{"title":"Perhaps Hope is Not What We Need","authors":"Kate Shaw","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2076668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2076668","url":null,"abstract":"Bravo Steve, for your fine take on a completely unreasonable topic. It’s just too big to meaningfully deal with, but your summary of the ills of the world is right-on and it is hard to have hope. The answers you proffer are good answers indeed, and their realisation will be so qualified that I’m not excited by their prospects. Our esteemed colleague Kurt Iveson, who is following me in this discussion, will say there are always instances of everyday equalities, inspiring practices, wonderful things happening in the interstices and reasons for hope, but they’re narrowing aren’t they? Always getting squeezed and built out. Yes of course they pop up elsewhere in different forms and expressions, but they are small and the spatial opportunities are becoming fewer. Sometimes I think we cling to this line of optimism because we have to believe, until it become almost religious in its fervour – we have to have hope. The theme of the RGS-IBG Urban Geography Research Group 2021 conference was Cities of Hope, 20 years after Harvey’s Spaces of Hope and some kind of tribute, but, really? With Harvey’s little epilogue manifesto even farther from most people’s lives than ever – except perhaps on the most intimate and privileged of scales – what is there hopeful to say? Tom Slater of the University of Edinburgh said to me years ago that if dancing around a tree and calling it transformative is the culmination of urban geography’s contribution to social change – my fine former PhD student Dr Prashanti Mayfield calls it happy clappy urbanism – he’s out (of the conference circuit, I think he meant. He’s certainly still present, thank goodness). We – by which I mean, urban, human, economic, cultural geographers, planners and social theorists, those listening to the streamed conference or reading this issue of UPR – have a serious problem. Not only are we talking more esoterically, but we’re talking more and more to ourselves. I’m by no means the first to observe this, but our increasingly arcane theorising is reaching fewer people, even as we know it. Many disciplines do this, speak internally in jargon – it is a way of measuring and establishing status amongst our peers – but we have to acknowledge it is not reaching the people who need to hear it, and it is clearly not changing anything that Steve is talking about. We have a bigger problem too of course, which is that even if we werewriting and speaking to the halls of power in language they understood, their occupants still wouldn’t want to hear. Steve’s argument for making the obvious economic case, and his perfectly rational plea for evidenced, consistent messages on inequality-busting policy reforms to swing political will, doesn’t address the depth of the entrenched social and sociopathic ideology. Let me draw one illustration of the difficulty of that task in the immediate term: The anti-vax/anti-lockdown/anti-authoritarian “freedom” fighters, supported by their strange bedfellows from QAnon and the far-right","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"40 1","pages":"190 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41941818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2058483
Kurt Iveson
It’s wonderful to have someone of Steve Dovers’ calibre provoke us to think about both the big picture of inequality in Australia, and the measures and movements that might be powerful in addressing it. The picture of growing wealth inequality that Steve paints for us in his Patrick Troy lecture is certainly grim. And as he notes, more could have been said about other inequalities that intersect with wealth inequalities – not the least gendered inequalities (so stark in the impacts of COVID on lost income and employment, for instance) and racialised inequality (certainly a feature of the housing market and public space policing during COVID here in Sydney, where I live and work). In responding to his provocation, I want to say something about the relationship between this crisis of inequality and what we might call a crisis of equality, and suggest that our work has to attend to both of those related but distinct crises. Steve’s indignation about inequality – an indignation that was also characteristic of Patrick Troy – is accompanied by a sense of frustration. He points out that inequality seems to persist in the face of widespread knowledge about its extent, and in the face of oft-repeated proposals for reform that struggle to get traction despite mountains of evidence that supports them. This disconnect is itself worthy of interrogation, as both Steve and Kate do in their contributions. Rosanvallon (2013) made a similar point a few years ago in his book The Society of Equals. That book tried to grapple with that fact that “inequalities have never before been so widely discussed while so little was being done to reduce them” (2013, p. 2). Pointing out inequality, he says, loses its power in part because there is now a widespread acceptance of inequalities as natural or inevitable. It’s not so much that we deny the existence of inequality, it’s that we deny any injustice in that inequality. Instead, inequality is explained as a result of just deserts and moral failure of the poor, or of the incapacity for the autonomy of the colonised and the racialised and the differently abled, or of the inexorable logic of some process (globalisation, neoliberalisation, etc.) over which we have no power, and which it’s just not realistic to challenge. So for Rosanvallon, the problem is not just that we’ve got a crisis of inequality, it’s that “we face a crisis of equality”. What’s at the heart of that crisis? “The word has somehow become detached from experience, so that it no longer clearly indicates battles that must be fought or goals that need to be achieved” (2013, pp. 7–8, emphasis added). Hence, our job is not only to catalogue inequalities. He argues that “there is no more urgent task than that of restoring the idea of equality to its former glory” (2013, p. 8). Importantly, the “restoring” the idea equality is not just a “looking back” to the meanings of equality that were established in history. No, “we must also go further and rethink the whole ide
能有像史蒂夫·多弗斯这样有能力的人来激发我们思考澳大利亚的不平等问题，以及解决这个问题的有力措施和运动，真是太好了。史蒂夫在帕特里克·特洛伊(Patrick Troy)的演讲中为我们描绘的财富不平等日益加剧的图景无疑是严峻的。正如他所指出的，关于与财富不平等相交的其他不平等，还有更多可以说的——不仅仅是性别不平等(例如，COVID对收入和就业损失的影响如此明显)和种族化的不平等(这当然是我生活和工作的悉尼在COVID期间住房市场和公共空间警务的一个特点)。在回应他的挑衅时，我想谈谈这种不平等危机和我们所谓的平等危机之间的关系，并建议我们的工作必须关注这两种相关但不同的危机。史蒂夫对不平等的愤慨——这种愤慨也是帕特里克·特洛伊的特点——伴随着挫败感。他指出，尽管人们对不平等的程度有广泛的了解，但不平等似乎仍然存在，尽管有大量的证据支持，但人们经常提出改革建议，但这些建议很难获得支持。这种脱节本身就值得探究，就像史蒂夫和凯特在他们的贡献中所做的那样。几年前，Rosanvallon(2013)在他的著作《平等社会》(The Society of Equals)中提出了类似的观点。这本书试图解决这样一个事实，即“不平等从未得到如此广泛的讨论，而减少不平等的措施却如此之少”(2013年，第2页)。他指出，不平等之所以失去力量，部分原因是现在人们普遍认为不平等是自然的或不可避免的。我们并不是否认不平等的存在，而是否认不平等中的任何不公正。相反，不平等被解释为穷人的正义和道德失败的结果，或者是被殖民化、种族化和能力不同的人无法自主的结果，或者是某些进程(全球化、新自由主义化等)的无情逻辑的结果，而我们对这些进程没有权力，挑战它们是不现实的。所以对Rosanvallon来说，问题不只是我们面临着不平等危机，而是“我们面临着平等危机”。这场危机的核心是什么?“这个词在某种程度上已经脱离了经验，因此它不再清楚地表明必须进行的战斗或需要实现的目标”(2013,pp. 7-8，强调添加)。因此，我们的工作不仅仅是对不平等现象进行分类。他认为，“没有比恢复平等理念昔日辉煌更紧迫的任务了”(2013,p. 8)。重要的是，“恢复”平等理念不仅仅是对历史上确立的平等意义的“回顾”。不，“我们还必须更进一步，重新思考平等本身的整个概念”(2013年，第10页)。我们怎么做呢?女权主义者、酷儿、反种族主义和反资本主义学者们令人难以置信的工作为我们提供了灵感和指导，他们一直在重新思考平等的真正含义，特别关注平等在多样性和财富不平等的背景下如何改变。像Iris Marion Young, Nancy Fraser, Paul Gilroy, Stuart Hall这样的人吸引我的地方是什么
{"title":"The Crisis of Inequality and the Crisis of Equality","authors":"Kurt Iveson","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2058483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2058483","url":null,"abstract":"It’s wonderful to have someone of Steve Dovers’ calibre provoke us to think about both the big picture of inequality in Australia, and the measures and movements that might be powerful in addressing it. The picture of growing wealth inequality that Steve paints for us in his Patrick Troy lecture is certainly grim. And as he notes, more could have been said about other inequalities that intersect with wealth inequalities – not the least gendered inequalities (so stark in the impacts of COVID on lost income and employment, for instance) and racialised inequality (certainly a feature of the housing market and public space policing during COVID here in Sydney, where I live and work). In responding to his provocation, I want to say something about the relationship between this crisis of inequality and what we might call a crisis of equality, and suggest that our work has to attend to both of those related but distinct crises. Steve’s indignation about inequality – an indignation that was also characteristic of Patrick Troy – is accompanied by a sense of frustration. He points out that inequality seems to persist in the face of widespread knowledge about its extent, and in the face of oft-repeated proposals for reform that struggle to get traction despite mountains of evidence that supports them. This disconnect is itself worthy of interrogation, as both Steve and Kate do in their contributions. Rosanvallon (2013) made a similar point a few years ago in his book The Society of Equals. That book tried to grapple with that fact that “inequalities have never before been so widely discussed while so little was being done to reduce them” (2013, p. 2). Pointing out inequality, he says, loses its power in part because there is now a widespread acceptance of inequalities as natural or inevitable. It’s not so much that we deny the existence of inequality, it’s that we deny any injustice in that inequality. Instead, inequality is explained as a result of just deserts and moral failure of the poor, or of the incapacity for the autonomy of the colonised and the racialised and the differently abled, or of the inexorable logic of some process (globalisation, neoliberalisation, etc.) over which we have no power, and which it’s just not realistic to challenge. So for Rosanvallon, the problem is not just that we’ve got a crisis of inequality, it’s that “we face a crisis of equality”. What’s at the heart of that crisis? “The word has somehow become detached from experience, so that it no longer clearly indicates battles that must be fought or goals that need to be achieved” (2013, pp. 7–8, emphasis added). Hence, our job is not only to catalogue inequalities. He argues that “there is no more urgent task than that of restoring the idea of equality to its former glory” (2013, p. 8). Importantly, the “restoring” the idea equality is not just a “looking back” to the meanings of equality that were established in history. No, “we must also go further and rethink the whole ide","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"40 1","pages":"192 - 194"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46330946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2104441
Abbas Shieh
Although the chapters are valuable and informative, the book editors have not compiled the content structure thematically to connect the book structure and the conceptual framework presented in the early chapters (Chapter 2). The breadth of advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and new Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and their diverse applications in cities make it difficult to identify a coherent smart city concept. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Urban Policy & Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
{"title":"Smart cities for technological and social innovation: case studies, current trends, and future steps","authors":"Abbas Shieh","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2104441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2104441","url":null,"abstract":"Although the chapters are valuable and informative, the book editors have not compiled the content structure thematically to connect the book structure and the conceptual framework presented in the early chapters (Chapter 2). The breadth of advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and new Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and their diverse applications in cities make it difficult to identify a coherent smart city concept. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Urban Policy & Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"40 1","pages":"281 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47934440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2119382
W. Steele, J. Dodson
This special issue sheds new light on critical questions of justice in transition, whether from settlercolonial relations to just decolonisation, to relationships of care with nature, the mediation of equitable urban foodscapes, or to the creation of technological configurations. This issue is one of two to emerge from the 2021 State of Australasian Cities Conference (SOAC) where the theme focused on how just urban and regional transitions can be mobilised to support more sustainable futures. The SOAC conferences (2003–2021) under the aegis of the Australasian Cities Research Network (ACRN) seeks to promote, foster, champion and disseminate new urban scholarship which is made available and free to access online through the Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO). This is a biennial forum which brings together academics, policy makers and practitioners to report and appraise the social, spatial, and economic consequences for equity, inclusion and justice. When the Journal of Urban Policy and Research (UPR) was launched by former Australian Prime Minister GoughWhitlamACQC in 1983, the focus was on the role of national government in urban development and regional cooperation in areas of critical infrastructure such as power, transport and water. The UPR journal invited researchers, practitioners and “interested persons” to submit policyrelevant articles that highlighted the contributions to contemporary practice. The ambition was to address the need to “take research to the streets” in what was described then, as a critical time for Australian cities characterised by: growing uncertainty, pessimism and inequity; patchwork and uncoordinated government responses; and cynicism about the usefulness of urban research when most needed (see UPR Editorial 1982, p. 1). Sound familiar? Track forward to the end of the 1990s, and a review article of the state of urban research inAustralia by Graeme Davison and Ruth Fincher (1998) emphasised the interdisciplinary nature, intellectual diversity and vibrancy of scholarship that was emerging. In key areas such as gender and feminist inquiry, housing policy, suburbanisation, urban history, socio-spatial equity, environmental planning issues and cultural studies, urban research was successfully pursuing approaches that were ‘open, critical and pluralist’ rather than managerial or ‘narrowly instrumental’. However, they cautioned that as ‘cities become larger and more complex and the need for high-quality urban research grows, creating policy impact through urban research is challengedwithin a context of rapidly contracting public funding’ (p. 195).Whilst a similar surveywas not undertaken forNewZealand researchmany of the themes identified by Davison and Fincher were also relevant to that context. Still familiar? Roiling twentyfirst century crises of the climate emergency, systemic racism,wealth inequalities and global health pandemics such as Covid-19, are putting pressure not just on what urban researchers focus on, b
{"title":"Just Transitions: New Urban Research and Policy Perspectives","authors":"W. Steele, J. Dodson","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2119382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2119382","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue sheds new light on critical questions of justice in transition, whether from settlercolonial relations to just decolonisation, to relationships of care with nature, the mediation of equitable urban foodscapes, or to the creation of technological configurations. This issue is one of two to emerge from the 2021 State of Australasian Cities Conference (SOAC) where the theme focused on how just urban and regional transitions can be mobilised to support more sustainable futures. The SOAC conferences (2003–2021) under the aegis of the Australasian Cities Research Network (ACRN) seeks to promote, foster, champion and disseminate new urban scholarship which is made available and free to access online through the Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO). This is a biennial forum which brings together academics, policy makers and practitioners to report and appraise the social, spatial, and economic consequences for equity, inclusion and justice. When the Journal of Urban Policy and Research (UPR) was launched by former Australian Prime Minister GoughWhitlamACQC in 1983, the focus was on the role of national government in urban development and regional cooperation in areas of critical infrastructure such as power, transport and water. The UPR journal invited researchers, practitioners and “interested persons” to submit policyrelevant articles that highlighted the contributions to contemporary practice. The ambition was to address the need to “take research to the streets” in what was described then, as a critical time for Australian cities characterised by: growing uncertainty, pessimism and inequity; patchwork and uncoordinated government responses; and cynicism about the usefulness of urban research when most needed (see UPR Editorial 1982, p. 1). Sound familiar? Track forward to the end of the 1990s, and a review article of the state of urban research inAustralia by Graeme Davison and Ruth Fincher (1998) emphasised the interdisciplinary nature, intellectual diversity and vibrancy of scholarship that was emerging. In key areas such as gender and feminist inquiry, housing policy, suburbanisation, urban history, socio-spatial equity, environmental planning issues and cultural studies, urban research was successfully pursuing approaches that were ‘open, critical and pluralist’ rather than managerial or ‘narrowly instrumental’. However, they cautioned that as ‘cities become larger and more complex and the need for high-quality urban research grows, creating policy impact through urban research is challengedwithin a context of rapidly contracting public funding’ (p. 195).Whilst a similar surveywas not undertaken forNewZealand researchmany of the themes identified by Davison and Fincher were also relevant to that context. Still familiar? Roiling twentyfirst century crises of the climate emergency, systemic racism,wealth inequalities and global health pandemics such as Covid-19, are putting pressure not just on what urban researchers focus on, b","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"40 1","pages":"173 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43556866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-09DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2076214
Caitlin Buckle, Nicole Gurran, P. Harris, T. Lea, Rashi Shrivastava
ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed complex connections between housing and health vulnerabilities. By investigating the share housing market in Sydney, Australia during the COVID-19 period, this paper examines these connections, highlighting health risks associated with shared facilities, overcrowding, and rental insecurity. Using data from Flatmates.com.au, Australia’s dominant share housing platform, the paper analyses advertisements offering or seeking share housing in April and August 2020. The analysis highlights health risks, vulnerabilities and risk management strategies employed by those looking for share accommodation or new household members during the pandemic period as well as wider implications for housing and health policy.
{"title":"Intersections Between Housing and Health Vulnerabilities: Share Housing in Sydney and the Health Risks of COVID-19","authors":"Caitlin Buckle, Nicole Gurran, P. Harris, T. Lea, Rashi Shrivastava","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2076214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2076214","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed complex connections between housing and health vulnerabilities. By investigating the share housing market in Sydney, Australia during the COVID-19 period, this paper examines these connections, highlighting health risks associated with shared facilities, overcrowding, and rental insecurity. Using data from Flatmates.com.au, Australia’s dominant share housing platform, the paper analyses advertisements offering or seeking share housing in April and August 2020. The analysis highlights health risks, vulnerabilities and risk management strategies employed by those looking for share accommodation or new household members during the pandemic period as well as wider implications for housing and health policy.","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"41 1","pages":"22 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43602702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2079626
G. Searle, K. O'Connor
ABSTRACT The paper critically assesses the 2018 Greater Sydney Region Plan which proposes a polycentric metropolis of three cities, one a new city around the second airport. In implementing the polycentric form as a metropolitan structure, transport priority given to promoting the new western city's self-containment has reduced the emerging potential of the existing second centre. In responding to climate change, the strategy's new rail lines and transit-oriented development are compromised by a major inner/middle suburb motorway program and extensive greenfield expansion into the hottest part of the Sydney basin. Weak housing affordability measures conflict with high income knowledge job proposals.
{"title":"Flawed Vision? Sydney’s Three Cities Metropolitan Strategy","authors":"G. Searle, K. O'Connor","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2079626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2079626","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper critically assesses the 2018 Greater Sydney Region Plan which proposes a polycentric metropolis of three cities, one a new city around the second airport. In implementing the polycentric form as a metropolitan structure, transport priority given to promoting the new western city's self-containment has reduced the emerging potential of the existing second centre. In responding to climate change, the strategy's new rail lines and transit-oriented development are compromised by a major inner/middle suburb motorway program and extensive greenfield expansion into the hottest part of the Sydney basin. Weak housing affordability measures conflict with high income knowledge job proposals.","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"40 1","pages":"369 - 388"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42068820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-25DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2076213
J. Verdouw, Richard E. Eccleston
ABSTRACT The ubiquitous and rapid growth of Airbnb is shifting urban and policy landscapes across the globe, creating urgent need for new and effective regulation. Few studies map and analyse the evolution of regulatory regimes over time in order to identify the barriers to effective longer-term regulation. This is a case study of how the Tasmanian state government has responded to the rapid growth of short-term rentals (STRs) over four years, in the face of challenging housing market impacts. The identification of a range of hidden barriers to regulation demonstrates that even when governments appear to be pro-active, new legislation may fail to deliver desired outcomes and meaningful reform.
{"title":"Airbnb and the Hidden Barriers to Effective Regulation: A Case Study of Short-Term Rentals in Tasmania","authors":"J. Verdouw, Richard E. Eccleston","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2076213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2076213","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The ubiquitous and rapid growth of Airbnb is shifting urban and policy landscapes across the globe, creating urgent need for new and effective regulation. Few studies map and analyse the evolution of regulatory regimes over time in order to identify the barriers to effective longer-term regulation. This is a case study of how the Tasmanian state government has responded to the rapid growth of short-term rentals (STRs) over four years, in the face of challenging housing market impacts. The identification of a range of hidden barriers to regulation demonstrates that even when governments appear to be pro-active, new legislation may fail to deliver desired outcomes and meaningful reform.","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"41 1","pages":"195 - 209"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48357943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-18DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2022.2076845
M. Spiller
Historically, the Commonwealth has involved itself haphazardly in matters of urban planning and development. These forays have ranged from the visionary, such as the Whitlam Government’s national urban policy of the 1970s, to the ludicrous where Commonwealth Ministers, no less, decide where to put toilet blocks and suburban car parks. With the federal election looming, what do we want from the next Commonwealth Government on urban policy? This is a case of careful what you wish for. To greater or lesser degrees, Australian Government involvement in cities over the decades has misunderstood or wantonly ignored the first principle of sound national urban policy – subsidiarity. Subsidiarity requires that policy making and taxation should be left with the most decentralised sphere of governance “competent” to carry out the function in question. This is not a question of technical competence or the skills of politicians and bureaucrats. A subsidiary sphere of governance, such as State, regional or local government, is deemed competent to make policy decisions in line with the preferences of their constituents when these decisions do not infringe policy choices reserved for a higher order constituency, such as that of the nation represented by the Commonwealth. For example, regardless of the merits of their thinking, State Governments are not competent to make decisions about going to war or international trade treaties, because these are the defined province of the Commonwealth Government. If subsidiarity were set aside, and we focussed solely on technical competence, all urban policy – from the making of planning schemes to the granting of development approvals – could be theoretically run out of Canberra (heaven forbid). The Commonwealth has the financial capacity to do so. The Whitlam Government pursued a highly centralised model of urban policy along these lines. Some might even cheer on this approach today; what could be wrong with nationally uniform practices on all matters to do with strategic and statutory planning? The problem with ignoring subsidiarity is that it weakens democracy and stifles innovation in public policy. If local constituencies are allowed to make decisions on development control and infrastructure which affect only them – and they are prepared to wear the fiscal cost of these decisions – community welfare will be improved. This is because the shape of neighbourhoods and towns will be more closely aligned to citizen preferences compared to a one size fits all. In addition, the fact that different local communities will do local things differently means that communities will learn from each other about how best to tackle certain urban issues. Subsidiarity strengthens democracy because accountability lines are clear. If decision making for local things is shared across the spheres of government – local, State and Commonwealth – in a “partnership” arrangement, who is to be held responsible if things don’t work? Local, State and
{"title":"National Urban Policy – Careful What You Wish For","authors":"M. Spiller","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2076845","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2076845","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, the Commonwealth has involved itself haphazardly in matters of urban planning and development. These forays have ranged from the visionary, such as the Whitlam Government’s national urban policy of the 1970s, to the ludicrous where Commonwealth Ministers, no less, decide where to put toilet blocks and suburban car parks. With the federal election looming, what do we want from the next Commonwealth Government on urban policy? This is a case of careful what you wish for. To greater or lesser degrees, Australian Government involvement in cities over the decades has misunderstood or wantonly ignored the first principle of sound national urban policy – subsidiarity. Subsidiarity requires that policy making and taxation should be left with the most decentralised sphere of governance “competent” to carry out the function in question. This is not a question of technical competence or the skills of politicians and bureaucrats. A subsidiary sphere of governance, such as State, regional or local government, is deemed competent to make policy decisions in line with the preferences of their constituents when these decisions do not infringe policy choices reserved for a higher order constituency, such as that of the nation represented by the Commonwealth. For example, regardless of the merits of their thinking, State Governments are not competent to make decisions about going to war or international trade treaties, because these are the defined province of the Commonwealth Government. If subsidiarity were set aside, and we focussed solely on technical competence, all urban policy – from the making of planning schemes to the granting of development approvals – could be theoretically run out of Canberra (heaven forbid). The Commonwealth has the financial capacity to do so. The Whitlam Government pursued a highly centralised model of urban policy along these lines. Some might even cheer on this approach today; what could be wrong with nationally uniform practices on all matters to do with strategic and statutory planning? The problem with ignoring subsidiarity is that it weakens democracy and stifles innovation in public policy. If local constituencies are allowed to make decisions on development control and infrastructure which affect only them – and they are prepared to wear the fiscal cost of these decisions – community welfare will be improved. This is because the shape of neighbourhoods and towns will be more closely aligned to citizen preferences compared to a one size fits all. In addition, the fact that different local communities will do local things differently means that communities will learn from each other about how best to tackle certain urban issues. Subsidiarity strengthens democracy because accountability lines are clear. If decision making for local things is shared across the spheres of government – local, State and Commonwealth – in a “partnership” arrangement, who is to be held responsible if things don’t work? Local, State and","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":"40 1","pages":"259 - 261"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48406075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：