Alternative creative spaces and neo-liberal urban transformations
Alternative creative spaces and neo-liberal urban transformations
复制标题
另类创意空间和新自由主义城市转型
作者：
R. Hollands
几乎所有城市都存在另类创意空间的例子，这些空间出现在不同的历史时期，现在所有城市都经受住了新自由主义城市化和融合创意城市政策的近期腐蚀影响。本文研究了三个这样的空间：柏林墙倒塌后立即形成的“艺术之家”KuLe；另类文化中心 OT301 于 1999 年在阿姆斯特丹诞生，当时正值“创意城市转向”开始之际；澳门是继 2008 年金融危机对创意工作不稳定的影响后，于 2012 年在米兰兴起的城市文化运动/空间。本文对城市抵抗和融合文献的主要贡献是对存在于三个不同欧洲城市的三种另类创意空间进行多层次的历史分析，这些空间出现在与新自由主义创意城市发展相关的三个略有不同的时期。本文的第一部分从概念上概述和批评了新自由主义和创意城市转型的结合，提供了另类创意空间含义的类型学，并探讨了历史和地点因素的重要性。文章的其余部分分析性地探讨了上述三个替代空间的具体“场所历史”，并揭示了它们在当代时期挣扎着生存时共同面临的困境。这些空间如何应对房地产开发、中产阶级化和文化融合日益增加的压力？当今生存以及与其他城市社会运动联系起来以创造更广泛的政治变革的主要困难和障碍是什么？有人认为，虽然这里面临的挑战相当大，但这三个空间提供了所有类型的另类创意空间所共有的微妙教训和困境。
Examples of alternative creative spaces exist in nearly all cities, arising at different historical periods, with all now weathering the recent corrosive effects of neo-liberal urbanisation and incorporative creative city policies. This paper examines three such spaces, the ‘art house’ KuLe which formed immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall; the alternative cultural centre OT301 which came about in Amsterdam in 1999 just around the beginnings of the ‘creative city turn’; and MACAO an urban cultural movement/ space which emerged in Milan in 2012, following the effects of the 2008 financial crash on creative work precarity. The key contribution this article makes to the literature on urban resistance and incorporation, is to provide a multi-layered historical analyses of three alternative creative spaces, existing in three different European cities, which emerged in three slightly varying time periods in relation to the development of the neo-liberal creative city. The first section of the paper conceptually outlines and critiques the coming together of neo-liberal and creative city transformations, provides a typology of what is meant by alternative creative spaces, and examines the importance of historical and place factors. The remainder of the article analytically explores the specific ‘place histories’ of the three alternative spaces mentioned above, as well as unveils their common current dilemmas, as they struggle to exist in the contemporary period. How have such spaces coped with the increasing pressures of property development, gentrification, and cultural incorporation, and what are the main difficulties and barriers today to surviving, and linking up to other urban social movements to create wider political change? It is argued that while the challenges here are considerable, these three spaces provide nuanced lessons and dilemmas common to all types of alternative creative spaces.