Towards Cosmopolis
Towards Cosmopolis
复制标题
迈向大都会
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2000
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Davey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Davey
阿兰·利皮茨 (Alain Lipietz) 提供了一个激动人心的章节：“反思沙漏社会中的社会住房”。这是他在《La Société en salier: le parage du travail contre la déchirure Sociale》（《沙漏社会：工作共享与社会解体》，1996 年，迈克尔·邓福德在《城市 8》中评论过的）中对不安全和住房问题的分析的后续。在《欧洲城市的社会排斥》一章中，他回顾了三个观点，其中两个显然是不可持续的：第一个是新自由主义、极简主义方法是在城市周边建造更多的活动板房，并辅之以其他劣质住房；第二种选择，即寻求回到 1970 年代的目标和成就的竞选方法，当时社会住房被视为一项权利，也是不现实的。这需要提高补贴水平，政府提供个人租金补贴，以补充低薪工人的收入。第三种选择，一种替代的、更乌托邦的方法也很困难。它寻求新的社会住房行动。利皮茨神父表示，“如果拒绝以较低标准为穷人提供住房，我们最终根本就没有为他们提供住房”，活动人士和官员被迫重新考虑“正常住房”的概念。存在一些棘手的问题：“如何以最少的繁重工作而不购买土地来创造体面的住房？”如何为收入不稳定或没有收入的人保证租金？人们怎么能感觉到他们正在参与改善自己的生活条件呢？这种“悲伤、谦虚和崇高的抱负”涉及到制定一条棘手的道路，要么将体面标准降低到绝对最低限度，要么被迫满足不切实际和过时的标准，例如包括停车场。这些都是重要的问题，没有简单的答案，但随着城市变得更大、更不稳定，必须紧急解决这些问题。虽然哈洛为我们提供了背景，但欧洲城市种族灭绝和社会排斥时代的难民开始提出一些问题，不仅是为什么，而且是接下来会发生什么？重要的是，城市的未来问题继续探索下一步需要做什么。
Alain Lipietz provides a stimulating chapter, ‘Rethinking Social Housing in the Hour Glass Society’. This follows up his analysis of insecurity and housing in La Société en salier: le partage du travail contre la déchirure sociale (The hour-glass society: the sharing of work versus the disintegration of society, 1996, which was reviewed by Michael Dunford in City 8.) In his chapter in Social Exclusion in European Cities, he reviews three perspectives, two of which are clearly unsustainable: first a neo-liberal, minimalist approach which involves building more prefabricated housing on the periphery of cities supplemented by other poor-quality housing; the second option, a campaigning approach which seeks to return to the aims and achievements of the 1970s where social housing was seen as a right is also unrealistic. This would require increased levels of subsidy, with government providing personal rent subsidies to supplement low-paid workers’ earned income. The third option, an alternative, more utopian approach is also difficult. It seeks renewed social housing action. Following the words of the Abbe Pierre, ‘By refusing to house the poor at lower norms, we end up not housing them at all’, Lipietz states that activists and officials are forced to reconsider the notion of ‘normal housing’. There are difficult questions ‘How can decent accommodation be created with a minimum of heavy work and without buying land? How can rent be secured for people with precarious or nonexistent incomes? How can people feel they are participating in the improvement of their own living conditions?’ This ‘sad, modest and noble ambition’ involves charting a tricky path between reducing standards of decency to an absolute minimum or being forced to meet unrealistic and outdated standards, including car parking, for instance. These are important questions, with no easy answers, but ones which must be addressed urgently, as cities become larger and more precarious. While Harloe gives us the background, Refugees in an Age of Genocide and Social Exclusion in European Cities begin to ask some of the questions not just of why, but of what next? It is important that future issues of City continue to explore what needs to come next.