THEMATIC GROUPS
- Details
- Parent Category: THEMATIC GROUPS
- Category: Public Spaces and Urban Cultures
Call for abstracts
What’s going on in public spaces and urban cultures?
Updates on current research, policy and practice
AESOP Thematic Group Public Space and Urban Culture’s Special Session #44 at the Regions in Recovery. Building Sustainable Futures - Global E-Festival, 2-18 June 2021
Session Organisers
Christine Mady | Notre Dame University-Louaize, Lebanon,
Stefania Ragozino | National Research Council of Italy, Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development, Naples, Italy,
Tihomir Viderman | Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus - Senftenberg, Germany,
Description
Regions and cities appear to have been shaped through responses to a series of challenges and crises, including health or climate hazards, interruptions in economic growth, political upheavals or social transformations. Urban scholars and policy-makers frequently observe and engage with public spaces as arenas which embody both the challenges and responses. The challenges have been articulated in themes such as accessibility, healthy living, democracy, justice, social movements. Against a seemingly bleak outlook, public spaces and urban cultures also nurture optimistic responses. ‘The New Urban Agenda’, adopted by the UN-Habitat Conference, Habitat III, promotes public space as a key ingredient of ‘inclusive, connected, safe and accessible’ cities (UN Habitat, 2016).
This special session on “What’s going on in public spaces and urban cultures? Updates on current research, policy and practice” asks how public spaces can inform research, policy and practice towards creating ‘inclusive, connected, safe and accessible’ cities.
Contributions are invited, but are not limited to address one of the following topics:
- Changing typologies and roles of players and actors: multiplicity of publics and public space cultures, arenas for rebuilding participation
- Public spaces and changes: climate change, social movements, circular economy;
- Changing needs and roles: homelessness, refugees, immigrants and integration, age, gender, social, cultural, ethnic and religious considerations and urban justice;
- Questioning the global north-south divide and public space dynamics;
- Changing role of public spaces in political conflict zones;
- Changing environmental awareness: public space as a buffer zone, contribution to public health (mental and physical well-being);
- Changing intangible cultural heritage: adapting the genius loci to multiple and dynamic cultural identities;
- The impact of technological innovation on public space research and practice.
This session is organized by the AESOP Thematic Group Public Spaces and Urban Cultures, which gathers an international and interdisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners, who contribute a plurality of perspectives. The group was established in 2010 under the umbrella of the Association of European Schools of Planning Education (AESOP). Since then, it promotes a dialogue between practitioners, academics, governmental and non-governmental professionals, and further interest groups through virtual and physical meetings, workshops, conferences and roundtables.
Deadline abstract submission 31 March 2021
Click here to submit https://members.regionalstudies.org/lounge/Meetings/Meeting?ID=307
*AESOP ExCo will cover the speaker fees (up to a maximum of 5 speakers)*
Links
Regions in Recovery Building Sustainable Futures - Global E-Festival
https://www.regionalstudies.org/events/rinr2021/
2021 Regions in Recovery Special Sessions
https://www.regionalstudies.org/news/202-ssrinr/
AESOP Thematic Group Public Spaces and Urban Cultures
- Details
- Parent Category: THEMATIC GROUPS
- Category: Ethics, Values and Planning
The AESOP thematic group on ETHICS, VALUES AND PLANNING has been recently renovated.
After several years of excellent work and passionate discussions, we would like to thank Claudia Basta and all the other members for their active contribution. From now on, we (Stefano Cozzolino and Arend Jonkman) have the pleasure and the responsibility to trigger fruitful interactions within our community which, we hope, can be joined by many new members.
- Details
- Parent Category: THEMATIC GROUPS
- Category: Public Spaces and Urban Cultures
Annual Report for 2020
Organized by Christine Mady and Ceren Sezer, in collaboration with further TG PSUC members
Introduction
Public Spaces and Urban Cultures (PSUC) is a thematic group established in April 2010 with the initiative of Sabine Knierbein (Associate Professor, TU Vienna, Austria), Ceren Sezer (Architect and urban planner, TU Delft) and Chiara Tornaghi (Reader, Coventry University, United Kingdom). The main aim of the group is to generate an international and interdisciplinary exchange between the research and practices on public spaces and urban cultures. By doing so, it aims to support research, planning and a design agenda within the AESOP community, and beyond.
Despite logistical difficulties due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the Group continued its endeavors to involve practitioners, academics, governmental and non-governmental professionals, and further interest groups into the TG’s activities and exchange of knowledge across disciplines and domains of action through meetings, workshops, conferences and roundtables mainly conducted online. During 2020, the group’s membership rose to over 120 professionals working with public space, including practitioners and researchers, from both Europe and beyond.
Internal organization of the group
A collective made up of group members organizes the activities of the PSUC. Some of the tasks of the core group are: to establish the Group’s agenda (working topics, calls, meetings); to manage communication via various media (homepage, blog, Facebook, mailing list, newsletter) among the Group’s members; to prepare meeting and annual reports; to disseminate scientific results; to promote a strong involvement into research and publication affairs; as well as towards a broader audience and the AESOP Secretary General.
The internal organization of the group is structured as follows:
Group Coordination: 2019-2021 Ceren Sezer (Main Coordinator, The Netherlands), Christine Mady (Second Coordinator, Lebanon).
Active members: Patricia Aelbrecht (UK), Nadia Charalambous (UK), Gabriella Esposito De Vita (Italy), Sabine Knierbein (Austria), Christine Mady (Lebanon), Matej Niksic (Slovenia), Stefania Ragozino (Italy), Nikolai Roskamm (Germany), Mohamed Saleh (The Netherlands), Sara Santos Cruz (Portugal), Ceren Sezer (The Netherlands), Socrates Stratis (Cyprus), Tihomir Viderman (Germany), Burcu Yigit Turan (Sweden).
Advisory Board: Ali Madanipour (University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK); Sophie Watson (Open University, UK); Sabine Knierbein (TU Vienna, Austria); Gabriella Esposito De Vita (CNR-IRISS National Research Council of Italy).
The list of members who (co-)organized meetings in 2020
Sabine Knierbein (Austria), Webinar ‘Power to co-produce: Careful power distribution in collaborative city-making Practices/Pedagogies/Policies’, 14th September 2020, TU Vienna, Austria.
Ceren Sezer (Germany), Christine Mady (Lebanon), Roundtables (1) Public Spaces - Knowledge Transition Between Research, Policy and Practice and (2) Moving Around our Cities in the Times of Epidemics – the Changed Demand for Public Spaces, 23rd-24th September 2020, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia as a part of City Street Conference Series, Slovenia.
Gabriella Esposito De Vita (Italy), Nadia Charalambous (UK), Roundtable Making Room, Social innovation in urban planning, 22nd October 2020, IUAV of Venice, Italy
Group’s activities in 2020
This year was entirely dedicated to the working theme Public Spaces: Knowledge transition between Research, Policy and Practice.
Developing the umbrella topic “Public Spaces: Knowledge transition between Research, Policy and Practice”
Public space has received increasing attention in urban research, policy and public debate. This is evident in the growing academic literature on the themes related to public space, including accessibility, healthy living, inclusiveness, democracy, urban justice, self-organization, social movements and other. The 2016 UN Habitat Conference, Habitat III, adopted what is called The New Urban Agenda, which focused on public space as a promoter of ‘inclusive, connected, safe and accessible’ cities (UN Habitat, 2016). UN Habitat’s public space programme operates in various countries to promote the design and management of public spaces through participatory approaches engaging different stakeholders. Other initiatives include the Project for Public Space (PPS) Placemaking approach, which has been adopted in several cities. The contributors to public space provision go beyond state actors to include panoply of residents, activists and different combinations of interest groups.
Within this context, one realises the shifting boundaries and roles of public spaces that include: self-organization in reclaiming public spaces on the one hand and market-led celebration for economic attractiveness as well as political manipulation of the public realm for undemocratic purposes on the other hand, with several shades in the middle. This complexity requires relational perspectives to analyse these spaces as well as further proposals for transdisciplinary methods, which are very much needed to engage knowledge, concepts and theories from various disciplines, allowing them to permeate policy-making and practice processes in different contexts.
To this end, the working theme poses the question: which actors and which transdisciplinary methods can engage knowledge on public spaces in a transformative manner that directly influences public space policy and practice processes towards meeting the role of promoter of ‘inclusive, connected, safe and accessible’ cities?
The AESOP Thematic Group Public Spaces and Urban Cultures develop this working theme addressing the following topics:
- Changing typologies and roles of players and actors: multiplicity of publics and public space cultures, arenas for rebuilding participation
- Public spaces and changes: climate change, social movements, circular economy
- Changing needs and roles: homelessness, refugees, immigrants and integration, age, gender, social, cultural, ethnic and religious considerations and urban justice
- Questioning the global north-south divide and public space dynamics
- Changing environmental awareness: public space as a buffer zone, contribution to public health (mental and physical well-being)
- Changing intangible cultural heritage: adapting the genius loci to multiple and dynamic cultural identities
Productive steps in 2020
|
14th September 2020 AESOP TG PSUC Webinar, TU Vienna, Austria |
|
|
Power to co-produce: Careful power distribution in collaborative city-making Practices/Pedagogies/Policies |
|
|
Power to co-produce is a collective attempt to widen up the debate on collaborative city-making. The basic premise of the webinar is that power is immanent in urban development processes, also in those procedures that rely on participatory and inclusive, so-called 'co-productive' forms of collaboratively shaping the city (city-making). Therefore, a fairer distribution of power requires first a deep analytical understanding of how power works in co-production processes. The webinar-type symposium follows a multidimensional approach, distinguishing between (1) practices, (2) pedagogies and (3) policies, while articulating their interrelations. The webinar brings these often separated dimensions of city-making together. Participatory collaboration in city-making encompasses co-production of place and knowledge developed by local groups, means of legitimacy created to get their voice heard and the process of achieving the co-governance of local urban commons. Co-production may also be considered as a collaborative research method, challenging the existing distribution of power in science and scientific institutions, and presenting other possibilities to subvert the processes through which ideas get generated, and knowledge is associated. Recognising the process of co-production of urban space as a process in which power relations are negotiated requires a multidimensional approach that goes beyond considering co-production simply as a form of practice. This open webinar is an attempt to establish a dialogical relationship between different perspectives on the interplay of power relations and collaborative city-making processes focusing on local processes of co-production and civic engagement, particularly of the marginalised communities. By recognising (1) practices, (2) pedagogies and (3) policies, and interrelations among the involved actors and institutions, it is expected to broaden debates on participatory collaboration in city-making processes. Specifically, it is expected to reveal the democratic aspects of city-making by revisiting existing power discrepancies that shape urban development processes. To achieve this, the organisers of the webinar aim at distinguishing possibilities, limitations and also pitfalls of urban co-production. The webinar in particular aims at exploring and discussing urban co-production processes to amplify the voices of the unheard, see how they themselves manoeuvre within the dynamics of power relations enmeshed in participatory planning and inclusive urbanism, thereby seeking to decolonise the processes of the social production of space, by revisiting the role of the most marginalised participants within the existing set of power relations. If power is ubiquitous in city-making processes, then urban scholars have to understand how and to what extent power distribution in urban development can be rearranged in a context-specific setting, and in a careful and socially just way. The webinar will therefore critically explore urban co-production processes considering spatial justice, alongside southern and feminist approaches in city-making. By inviting scholars and practitioners from corresponding fields, this POWER TO CO-PRODUCE webinar addresses how local communities struggle for power (power over, power to, power from…) in reaching their goals; in what way urban professionals can provide space, methods and tools for marginalised voices to be heard and for vulnerable populations to empower themselves; to what extent policy-makers can enable processes of co-production in city-making to ensure the constant democratisation of city-making processes. The webinar seeks to bring together planning and urbanism researchers, activists, critical spatial practitioners alongside with urban scholars, and others to reflect and discuss potentials, possibilities as well as limitations and pitfalls of urban co-production processes. Structured in three sessions, the webinar focus on learning from urban co-production processes between policy-makers, professionals and local communities, and ask: How can urban co-production of space and knowledge go beyond contemporary pitfalls in the collaborative city making? How can communities on the one hand and urban professionals on the other enable the accompanied experience and knowledge to circulate among and between these actors in more context-specific, careful and socially just ways? |
|
|
23rd-24th September 2020 AESOP TG PSUC Roundtables, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia |
|
|
Roundtables (1) Public Spaces - Knowledge Transition Between Research, Policy and Practice Roundtable (2) Moving Around our Cities in the Times of Epidemics – the Changed Demand for Public Spaces |
|
|
|
Local organization committee: Matej Niksic and Alenka Fikfak, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana. Roundtable1: Public Spaces - Knowledge Transition Between Research, Policy and Practice Moderators: Matej Nikšič, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana and Ceren Sezer, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen Participants: Patricia Aelbrecht, Geography and Planning School, Cardiff University Cecilia Andersson, UN Habitat, Global Public Space Programme Enzhe Dusaeva, Tamga Institute of urban studies, Kazan Zeynep Gunay, ISOCARP Board, Director of Young Planning Professionals Programme Alenka Korenjak, prostoRož, Ljubljana, Slovenia Tadej Žaucer, Ministry of infrastructure of the Republic of Slovenia, Sustainable Mobility and Transport Policy Division Public space has received an increasing attention in urban research, policy, and practice. This is evident in the growing academic literature on the themes related to public space, including accessibility, healthy living, inclusiveness, democracy, urban justice, self-organization, social movements among others. The 2016 UN Habitat Conference, Habitat III, adopted The New Urban Agenda, which focused on public space as a promoter of ‘inclusive, connected, safe and accessible’ cities (UN Habitat, 2016). NGOs worldwide have developed a place-making approach to improve public spaces, which has been adopted in many cities. Neighbourhood organizations, local interest groups, cultural minorities, or politically oriented pressure groups manifested their needs and interests and reclaimed public spaces specifically in the context of profit-oriented urban developments. This complexity requires transdisciplinary methods to analyse and conceptualise public spaces to be able to engage knowledge, approaches and theories of public spaces from various perspectives to inform and influence policy-making and practice in different contexts. This roundtable aims to promote a vivid discussion between the speakers and participants from academia, international institutions, practitioners and governments on the challenges and opportunities of knowledge transition between public space research, policy and practice. Roundtable 2: Moving Around our Cities in the Times of Epidemics – the Changed Demand for Public Spaces Moderators: Alenka Fikfak, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana and Christine Mady, Notre Dame University-Louaize, Beirut. Participants: Jose Chong, UN Habitat, United Nations Human Settlements Programme Marko Peterlin, Institute for Spatial Policies, Ljubljana, Slovenia Janez Černe, Deputy Mayor of The City Municipality of Kranj, Slovenia Stefano Ragazzo, AMAT - Agency of the Mobility, Envrionment and Territory of Milan Municipality, Italy The recent Covid-19 pandemic crisis have affected mobility, social practices and other forms of life that are part of public spaces in our cities. While the public transport usage is decreasing, some other forms of mobility such as walking and cycling are gaining popularity. At the same time new social distancing measurements are challenging the design and management of the open public spaces. On one hand public spaces must stay the places of the social exchanges and democratic practices, on the other hand the epidemiologic measures demand the changed behavioural patterns and practices in open public spaces. Can this be an opportunity for re-conceptualising public spaces as we know them and turn them into more democratic and sustainable places? This roundtable focuses on the following questions: Which technical solutions can contribute to a responsible usage of open public spaces during the epidemics so that the transportation, socialisation and other normative functions of streets can be kept while the public health standards not endangered? Which interdisciplinary approaches are needed to address the issue in a holistic way at the crossroad of health, IT, urban planning, social and other sciences and disciplines to allow streets and other public spaces stay alive during the epidemics? How can individuals, communities and local authorities equally engage in circumscribing epidemics and mitigating their impact on the everyday lives of commuters, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of city streets? How can data be shared in epidemics situations and the transmittal of viruses controlled in streets and public transport? |
|
22nd October 2020 AESOP TG PSUC Roundtable, IUAV of Venice, Italy |
|
|
Making Room, Social innovation in urban planning |
|
|
|
Social innovation has widely been regarded both by the academic and policy discourses as a positive tool that could enhance the socio-political capabilities of local societies to improve the distribution of disadvantages and to sustain innovative assets of multilevel governance for territorial development. The webinar aims at comprehending how social innovation has changed urban planning theory and practice, by repositioning the role of public institutions in social innovation debate. The seminar’s intended contribution is to provide a reframed concept of social innovation able to reposition public support in the analysis. It is intended also to understand how public space is a tool we can use to maximize the production of public value in regeneration processes; finally, it is aimed to understand how the role of the urban planner is changing in the contemporary cities. Participants: Alessandro Balducci, Cecilia Bertozzi, Nadia Charalambous, Gabriella Esposito De Vita, Laura Fregolent, Christine Mady, Ezio Micelli, Francesco Musco, Valentina Orioli, Elena Ostanel, Federico Savini, Ceren Sezer, Carla Tedesco. The workshop was free of charge for participants and was supported in the framework of the Marie Curie Project NEIGHBOURCHANGE ( |
- Details
- Parent Category: THEMATIC GROUPS
- Category: Ethics, Values and Planning
The AESOP thematic group on ETHICS, VALUES AND PLANNING has been recently renovated.
After several years of excellent work and passionate discussions, we would like to thank Claudia Basta and all the other members for their active contribution. From now on, we (Stefano Cozzolino and Arend Jonkman) have the pleasure and the responsibility to trigger fruitful interactions within our community which, we hope, can be joined by many new members.
FIRST EVENT
The EVP's first colloquium is scheduled on Wednesday, February 24th, from 5 to 6 pm (Central European Time). The discussion/conversation will start from a recently published comment in Planning Theory titled “If neoliberalism is everything, maybe it is nothing” written by Edwin Buitelaar.
A few basic rules to participate:
- Register to the event by sending an e-mail to
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - Read the text in advance
- If you have an idea/comment that you would like to address and share with the group, send us an e-mail by 22 February at the latest.
- Details
- Parent Category: THEMATIC GROUPS
- Category: Public Spaces and Urban Cultures
Call for abstracts for a special issue for the Journal of Urbanism
‘The Design of the Public Realm: Emerging Theories and Practices’
Deadline for Submission Abstracts: March 26 2021
Guest editors
Patricia Aelbrecht / Cardiff University / School of Geography and Planning
Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3WA, UK.
Ceren Sezer / RWTH Aachen University/ Chair and Institute of Urban Design
Wüllnerstrasse 5b/ D-52062 Aachen, Germany.
Theme
This special issue focuses on the design of the public realm, a field of scholarship which was established in the 1980s within the urban design discipline but which has been long in the making in both urban design and sociology. The public realm has always been the chief concern of urban design and the most productive area of urban design thinking, however it continues to lack a solid and coherent body of knowledge. There are several key reasons for this.
First, the term ‘public realm’ continues to be loosely defined and applied, being often confused with public space or public life, while in essence, the public realm is the spatial and social territory of the city where public space and public life coincide (Lofland 1998). The public realm has an interdisciplinary character, both ontologically and epistemologically, focusing on the relationship between public life and design rather than on the design itself (Gehl and Svarre 2013).
Second, there is a need of further development and revision of the established theories on the public realm (Franck and Stevens 2007; Aelbrecht and Stevens 2019). The period between the 1960s and 80s was productive for thinking the design of the public realm, thanks to the studies of Lynch, White, Gehl and Alexander, just to mention a few. Their work has crossed disciplinary divides and developed new theories and methods to provide a better understanding of people’s perceptions, experiences, and uses in public spaces. However, since the 1990s there has been more interest in the application rather than advancing new knowledge on the public realm.
Third, it is noticeable that most established theories were originated between the 1960-80s and are therefore the reflection of their time, a period of significant social, cultural, and political changes marked by urban race riots and feminism, but are no longer able to respond to the emerging social and technological challenges we are facing today.Cities are changing at a faster rate than ever before, alongside it, the make-up of our societies is also changing, and there is an ongoing shift in the cultural expectations and requirements of the public realm (Fraser, 1990; Madanipour, 2003; Watson, 2006; Sezer, 2020). New technological developments are spurring the proliferation of new and more mobile forms of communication, association and social relations through various mediums across the public and private realms, which means that the way urban public space is used and experienced is also undergoing significant changes (Sheller and Urry 2003). As a result, the relations between public and private realms are becoming increasingly blurred, mobile, complex, and fluid. At the same time, attitudes towards public space are changing and becoming more varied and contested.
Fourth, the established theories on the public realm are often based on a limited range of western case studies raising questions whether they can also be applied to other European contexts and parts of the world, particularly the Global South, where the design ideals and practices are arguably different.
Fifth, since the establishment of urban design as a discipline, there has been little knowledge exchange or synergy between research, practice and policymaking in the design of the public realm. Today most urban design scholarship has little engagement or knowledge on how design practices think and work, and what are the policymaker’s needs and priorities (Griffiths, 2004). However, it is well known that enabling such transfer of knowledge, research can gain a better understanding of where new knowledge is needed, and enhance the prospects of being applied (Aelbrecht and Stevens, 2015). Practice and policymaking can also benefit by using research to improve built outcomes.
In this changing context, it is critical that urban design thinking continues to generate new ideas and thinking in relation to the design and management of more inclusive and cohesive public realms. Hence, there is a need to enlarge the public realm research, practice and policy agendas. If we want to better understand the complex nature, meaning, and roles of public space, we need more studies investigating new emerging types of public spaces, and which take into account the desires, interests and expectations of a wider range of stakeholders and users and the cultural variations of the contexts where they are embedded, and consider the needs and priorities of practice and policymaking.
This special issue aims to respond to these calls by bringing together existing and new emerging knowledge in the design of the public realm and taking a more global and comparative view on scholarly research, practice and policy in both the Global North and Global South. It intends to stimulate a discussion on the ongoing and future public realm practice, research and policy debates and agendas and open new avenues of enquiry in a number of areas, which include but are not limited to the following:
- To rethink the established public realm design theories and practices by examining their applicability in contexts beyond the Global North. This is the case of design theories and principles of legibility, diversity, and adaptability, just to mention a few.
- To examine and/or propose new public realm design theories and/or practices that have not yet been established or applied in public space design but have nevertheless been acknowledged to work as effective principles or tools to make more lively, inclusive and resilient public spaces. This is the case of urban design thinking related to forms of informality, temporary/tactical urbanism, congestion, just to mention a few.
- To discuss emerging theoretical and/or methodological advances in the public realm research and design with user characteristics in terms of age, gender, disability, social, cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds in mind (e.g., intergenerational, elderly, women, children, disadvantageous users including ethnic minorities, deprived communities, homeless people, refugees).
- To discuss emerging issues related with the Covid 19 pandemic and its management (i.e. lockdown and social distancing measures in public space’ use) and its implications on the way we think of, and design the public realm.
References
Aelbrecht, P. and Stevens, Q. (2015) ‘The art of knowledge exchange in urban design’, Proceedings of the ICE- Urban Design and Planning, 168: 304– 317.
Aelbrecht, P., and Quentin Stevens (2019) (eds.) Public Space Design and Social Cohesion: an International Comparison, London: Routledge.
Alexander, C. et al. (1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, New York: Oxford University Press.
Franck, K. and Stevens, Q. (eds) (2007) Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life, London: Routledge.
Fraser, N. (1990) ‘Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy’, Social Text: 56– 80.
Gehl, J. (1971) Life Between the Buildings: Using Public Space, Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press.
Gehl, J., and B. Svarre. (2013) How to Study Public Life, Washington and London: Island Press.
Griffiths, R. (2004) ‘Knowledge production and the research– teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines’, Studies in Higher Education, 29: 709– 726.
Lofland, L. H. (1998) The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City, Boston: MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. (2003) Public and Private Spaces of the City, London: Routledge.
Sezer, C. (2020) ‘Visibility in public space, a new conceptual tool for urban design and planning. In: Companion to Public Space, Mehta, V. and Palazzo, D. (eds.). New York and London: Routledge, pp 137-151.
Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2003) ‘Mobile transformations of public and private life’, Theory, Culture & Society, 20: 107– 125.
Watson, S. (2006) City Publics: The (Dis)Enchantments of Urban Encounters, London: Routledge.
Whyte, William H. (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, New York: Project for Public Spaces.
Time planning:
26th March 2021: Submission of a proposal to
- Paper title and keywords;
- Author(s) name, current affiliation and e-mail address;
- 300-word abstract;
- Maximum five key references;
- If applicable, two related images at a good resolution (min. 200dpi).
03 May 2021: The guest editors will inform prospective authors about the selected abstracts.
08 October 2021: Submission of full papers to guest editors. All papers need to be subject to a quality check by Journal of Urbanism editors and guest editors before formal submission.
01-15 November 2021: Submission of full papers to journal. Please note that all submitted papers should be based on‘ sound empirical’ research and specify clearly their research questions, methods and aims, and should be carefully copy edited preferably by native speakers.
- Special issue: The Design of the Public Realm: Emerging Theories and Practices_Deadline:March 26 2021
- Webinar: Come Heat or High Water
- The Governance of Metropolitan Areas - from institutional reform to territorial cooperation (La gouvernance des métropoles et des régions urbaines - Des réformes institutionnelles aux coopérations territoriales)
- 19th meeting: Social disruption and urban complexity
