Unbundling Stockholm: The networks, planning and social welfare nexus beyond the unitary city
Unbundling Stockholm: The networks, planning and social welfare nexus beyond the unitary city
复制标题
斯德哥尔摩的分拆：单一城市之外的网络、规划和社会福利关系
DOI：
10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.05.002
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Jonathan Rutherford
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jonathan Rutherford
本文的重点是斯德哥尔摩近期以基础设施为导向的城市发展在多大程度上符合格雷厄姆和马文的“分裂的城市主义”命题的各个方面。这种情境化使我们能够从经验和概念上扩展他们的工作。首先，我们研究了一个单一网络城市衰落的特殊案例(在他们的书中基本上没有提到的城市背景下)。在第二个例子中，我们发展了他们的“非捆绑”概念，不仅是为了捕捉基础设施提供组织的核心变化，也是为了抓住城市网络、规划和社会福利之间业已建立的联系的总体脱节。这种脱节通过相互关联的转变来运作，例如，网络服务的私有化和外包、基础设施规划与更广泛的城市规划的分离、基础设施的环境和社会任务之间的矛盾，以及(预期的)削减基本网络服务提供的再分配的社会作用。尽管如此，我们的结论是，到目前为止，更明确的“创造性”城市碎片化战略还没有追求这一“破坏性”的拆分时刻，这主要是由于基于再分配和平等的社会政治共识的残余。在这方面，斯德哥尔摩案主张将“分裂”视为一个动态和多阶段的过程，这个过程不仅总是持续、不稳定和不完整的，而且是非线性的，对阻力/管制是开放的。
This paper focuses on the extent to which recent infrastructure-oriented urban developments in Stockholm concord with various aspects of the ‘splintering urbanism’ thesis of Graham and Marvin. This contextualisation allows us to extend their work empirically and conceptually. In the first instance, we study a particular case of the decline of a unitary networked city (in an urban context largely absent from their book). In the second instance, we develop their notion of ‘unbundling’ to capture not just core changes in the organisation of infrastructure provision, but an overarching disjunction of the established nexus between networks, planning and social welfare in the city. This disjunction operates through interlinked transformations concerning, for example, privatisation and outsourcing in network services, separation of infrastructure planning from broader urban planning, contradictions between the environmental and social mandates of infrastructure, and a (prospective) curtailment of the redistributive, social role of essential network service provision. We conclude nonetheless that this ‘destructive’ moment of unbundling has not so far been pursued by more explicitly ‘creative’ urban fragmentation strategies, due largely to the vestiges of a socio-political consensus based around redistribution and equality. In this respect, the Stockholm case pleads for a conception of ‘splintering’ as a dynamic and multi-stage process which is not only always ongoing, unstable and incomplete, but also non-linear and open to resistance/regulation.