Indigenous Modernities: Negotiating Architecture and Urbanism
Indigenous Modernities: Negotiating Architecture and Urbanism
复制标题
本土现代性：建筑与城市化的谈判
DOI：
10.1111/j.1531-314x.2010.01088.x
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
0.2
通讯作者：
W. Glover
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Glover
商业街仍然受到直接监督和监视。其他的文章研究了法律的或行政指导方针，这些指导方针对清真寺、首尔广场和Sanam Luang等不同场所的使用进行了管理。据Merlyna Lim说，Hi环形交叉路口和Monas广场分别用高栅栏进行“翻新"，减少了大批人进入它们的机会，从而防止了潜在的政治活动。Pornpan Chinnapong对Sanam Luang的案例研究也揭示了城市空间如何受到旨在吸引国际投资者和企业注意力的特大城市项目的威胁。针对“公民社会正在崛起，而公民空间仍然很低甚至正在减少”的悖论，本书为理解东亚和东南亚当代城市化的进程做出了至关重要的贡献。尽管这样一个项目仍然具有相关性，然而，这本书并没有解决同样重要的问题，即如何为更宜居的未来回收公民空间，尽管编辑们承认，随着公民社会的扩大，对绿色和包容性空间的普遍需求也在扩大。但是，在新自由主义经济改革和私有化蔓延之下，对公共空间的丧失提出质疑是不够的;我们还必须努力促进公共生活危机的替代方案。尽管公园和广场的重要性不可否认，但简单地提供公共空间并不一定能保证一个更加民主的未来。这并不是重申这些空间可以被国家或公私企业利益的组合控制、监管或殖民成一个仅仅是“名义上”或“伪”的公民空间。相反，有必要强调的是，提供公共空间与其说是对企业家城市空间生产的挑战，不如说是在新自由主义全球化时代实施这种生产的有效战略。首尔市中心的清溪川公园就是一个很好的例子，它出现在书的封面上，尽管文章中没有讨论它。该地区是20世纪60年代大规模城市重建项目的所在地，该地区在21世纪初被恢复为公园。修复项目以“历史保护”、“环境友好”和“生活质量”等“公民”口号推广，在功能上服务于中产阶级化的过程，通过驱逐居住在该地区的低收入群体，为城市精英恢复城市中心。通过主要通过历史研究来考察太平洋亚洲城市空间的形成和转变，这本书为我们如何开始想象新的城市空间提供了一个有用的基础和起点。它仍然是其他卷，包括迈克道格拉斯的新发布的政治在亚洲的公民空间：建设城市社区（2009年），考虑我们如何可能提出替代的公民空间，更民主，更本地化，并反映在日常生活中的城市治理更高水平的社区参与。
commercial streets remain under direct supervision and surveillance. Other essays examine the legal or administrative guidelines regulating the use of sites as diverse as Mosque, Seoul Plaza, and Sanam Luang. According to Merlyna Lim, the ‘‘renovation’’ of the Hi roundabout and Monas Square with high fences, respectively, reduces accessibility to them by large groups of people, thereby preventing potential political activities. Pornpan Chinnapong’s case study of Sanam Luang also reveals how civic spaces are threatened by mega-urban projects designed to attract the attention of international investors and businesses. Addressing the paradox that ‘‘civil society is rising while access to civic space remains low or is even diminishing,’’ this book makes a crucial contribution toward understanding the process of contemporary urbanism in East Asia and Southeast Asia. Despite the continued relevance of such a project, however, the book does little to address the equally critical question of how civic spaces can be reclaimed for a more livable future, even though the editors acknowledge that as civil society expands so does a popular demand for green and inclusive spaces. But contesting the loss of public spaces under neoliberal economic reforms and creeping privatization is not enough; we also must work to promote alternatives to the crisis of public life. Despite the undeniable importance of public parks and plazas, the simple provision of public spaces does not necessarily guarantee a more democratic future. This is not so much a matter of reiterating that those spaces can be controlled, regulated, or colonized into a merely ‘‘nominal’’ or ‘‘pseudo’’ civic space by the state or combinations of state-private enterprise interests. Rather it is necessary to emphasize that the provision of public spaces can be less a challenge to the production of space in an entrepreneur city than an effective strategy to implement that production in the era of neoliberal globalization. Cheonggyecheon Park in downtown Seoul, which appears as the book’s cover image though it is not discussed in the essays, is a case in point. The site of a massive urban renewal project of the 1960s, the area was restored to use as a public park in the early 2000s. The restoration project was promoted with such ‘‘civic’’ slogans as ‘‘historical preservation,’’ ‘‘environmental friendliness,’’ and ‘‘quality of life’’ that functionally served a process of gentrification, restoring the city center for an urban elite by dislodging low-income groups living in the area. By examining the formation and transformation of civic spaces in Pacific Asia mainly through historical studies, this book provides a useful foundation and a starting point for how we might begin to imagine new civic spaces. It remains for other volumes, including Mike Douglass’s newly released The Politics of Civic Space in Asia: Building Urban Communities (Routledge, 2009), to consider how we might propose alternative civic spaces that are more democratic, more local, and reflect a higher level of community participation in urban governance in everyday life.