‘buyysiang WeMpeS » uosiegy atydog pue apg Ares Aq paupy AyD BY} 0} UOJUedWIOD Yjos pue maid samp Sy “AUNIIDS A vwado “ean Asmatta9-tqusanyit9 PEE jou asm suoneP! [PE wv pasynboe wear 19nd ‘iq, poouamygtt 2 any Bus 3ido=d 2B PUL STS ‘up 38008 Spanos yp fo sy POE SOOT pay ayn Wr A228 Rig spony aor pee Sm yg ont seaz1 © poBeaons® PE SER gn ap jo i020? Peay anno wzensagy UE 440 OL ‘grureusun sie aunzngpa jo spo sub BVA sag) pandae Buoy sey HAUS PPEPAL sunt 70 Aue “at POPPA era sewing Aaron | say gore pu Aa 2 jo 92008 EET Mgnonyy ano 03 age $8 (6O6T 2 Hn oe ee Sr, uorireans pe AUSwAOU J ei ey ftps oyoseiate © ut BUT No rajacag oy ps KaoU0>® FSHORL Banjo puTstson Pet Ow SIT wat puede pue paous Sod Neat a pur pase sow 70 4 7 qe yo 2105 © 0, BE TE an 30 Aaa pa OT vce es (B67) HAL UMESTES) aimpowe wegin 70. SUDOS HE eestnarp-200 PE PAPO sane qerpos ape pur (equa aay agp a0 pavesedos aero, ps avs! east pus “HORNA “a1 say 1 etd auroog Aap sence PENT 2qL pon saanont> 1208 1 SNP! wom sede yo aanasasd Of) 0 sr s940 up 02 2 A aH get [e06T]) PUES “SRP UO * ppangg,dxrno-ppanuaess Se PE “gquaonsur 298] J° UO! paved ar gd a8 YPN NOT sann zed aos aged 38} cep yruoruaoo wong suena xp Jo Suns Uy SoTL a Sa St wat Jo suaTAGNS EN) padoyeas Spur sounsse Sonsst A520 Magouone ap PHS c2HEAES Aha “ign 2830 sHondsaucs ‘o2eds Aa pu tT Sp wooing duane aR | suondezom Buoye mo padden! ave 2) Zep yo suorsuairp 24 2 : ‘esa “ued 2 We segn pondze (.s6t (298Ul) SN oye suoypxe Jo mea “exp aip Jo woRt Oo eT go Suidoyonap 2120 OF OPCUENY FT aa epg vaso OED 7 SNH e084, kepSaona ‘yeemn0put 708 apis ~ 1euoHMANSU POY eats0} — Magna voroy prose 03 adoq 2% U2P' Z nan om mses p30 UHL REDA ATP * Fepsoes2,, 1p He0H9 ap ayqid 2yp Jo Sooo yy -ssaegt jpaveurose) steps ane SOR J Sunigissod 2HeDOWNP, PLE wosing, axqdos pur aBPHd MD soyqnd A113370 GARY BRIDGE AND SOPHIE WATSON industrial capitalism this urban arena broke down as people sought retreat in the prwvate sphere. The public realm became one of studied impersonalit, impartiality ee cationaity in the engagement with others. Yet for Sennett public urban spaces ane he social hetexogeneity of cities still offer more radically open and unpredict ari uncountefs in ways which ace socially progressive and civilizing. Unpredict. Slit spontaneity. and a certain disorder (Sennett 1970) were at the core Of Saeeee ceeton ofa city that was based on encounter and performance inthe public sere Sennett (chapter 32 of this volume) opposes his view of the importance of performativity and the city as Zeatro mundi to the ideas of the city as impersonal aeremaiy and selézepression that so preoccupied Simmel and others. Yet at che seats le concludes that the privatization of urban space and the separation of Siuecent groups has continued apace in the caroriented, decentralized city, The Sroblem is not one of overstimulation bat understimlation and the los of the Public realm, a further restriction of the performative possibilities from ‘which his analysis seeks to revivify the city. Tor other writers urban public space is not so inclusive and potentially progress: ive ‘The unpredictability of encounter in cites may also result in conflicr os 9 Dovasive feling of threat. Attacks, apes, and mugging in certain spaces that 6 pli in the sense that hey ae accessible co all, but ate net safe forall (undespossts aap ed alleyways, noncesidental streets) have heen of pattcular concemn for cones for example (Valentine 1989). Yer the steets are a contradictory ste of the Mlle for women, Vietrian morality kept women off the steers (the prose or aaetkwalker was constructed as another category of woman) but the streets were ser the spaces of freedom for women, away from the suffocation of che gendered pave ofthe home and the private reals (Walkowitz 19925 Wilson 1992}, Worn sence gamed the streets (the figure of the flaneuse) were unsestling for male society Whoa thove contributions revel isthe contradictory natare of urban public space for Tria conteadiction has been encoded in urban planning, Notions of the public 26 pen but impersonal became embedded in the physical design and planning of Boxem cities, and colonial cities. The building of, and access to, public spése {park, baths, libraries) was one ofthe great achievements ofthe municipal revolt anne pac esteem ies. Yer atthe same ime it instilled an ides that space had tt ny nd ational and that in some senses space itself was neutral in the Fe oeerccnae, a container of activity. In contrast Sennett (1970) looks to beter foneous spaces to bring diferent groups int performative encounter and his would eork against the rationalizing and separating influences of urban planning and its aoe eae separate social groups and land uses. The links between a realnt of tenders ej eps apace ofthe city might nor selyon the careful planning of pubic Spaces but might be created through the encounters (chance or otherwise) the searelay spaces ofthe city (et7eets, yard, stones). Tiss something tat Jane Jee {19e1) recognized in her analysis of movement, interruption, and encounter Fe see the mixed activities of a New York stree. Everyday spaces of the cy 7 cconstiture a public realm. estat cites the idea of the “public” city and the “private” suburbs has senangly influenced planing egulations, These have essentially privatized women, leaving them confined to the domestic sphere in the suburbs or with an increasing?sonydna v yasoudes uosesoxd aygqnd yo uoneenjeu pue ‘no Humand ‘uoneztesgd sar a ssoguoyenap nanny "stfende> Son 30} aor Avursd ast SPOOR Nad eappang yo worn ap es (L2sL) SPIED Poe see wD pos aE se ur ap pum aged sip Jo wono a3 Sun>euvossoxe 30 aH 2H Ped | 9H apy af agqeoanou our sti Pu cen! aaespowAp pee dao} 2HhM at fo Suna ungjond'e pey vomoond ognd so wora0coo [seg UNO} SA. Sed SUG eee ones srenbs ‘syed Jo oy ap ut sveds oygnd 30 oan! woo te Pg Buti bans pus aBpueyp se ons azmonnseyul Deg apwoud O SMPxOd as aaared das pur jediouma ul worsiaond qd agp yo woswedx agp ta poset SO. seseeus engin sn Zayunoo on unos su0}e eden TO au OPIN at eta pu ong jo afansnsaydonavypyd jo 1olgns ap pur 216u9UETN Wt (EGE Treat airy aq pow Ayeonydes) qaqeay pu ‘ussnoy Jood ‘uonenta9p egy teasop re oF pl su uray wf wone7megan prs JO poved 24, WOmSa! cea Mignd, jo wioy Tunsip ¥ 02 Ose 10g seDeds Weua9 OX po Layo se se fujeanaghd aye yj 0) adwonie af, “DuEUIONOH 4a pub suoRezEese 2A, ae adhe yo aig vt uubosyouonmstayp Ur peamaswo osye Sat 20eds A> aera are wontiBoxes Jo su Ur paMBsU0o S27 Ay 28H 398 LED A aeegogos ured 03 poromodutp ayp aiqeu 3g 81us (sou gnd Zeon eqns qe oye apn) sean agnd onstjxg “wonmuooas pre wonnausraxdo 79 DUO! ee nang peg ay le pouauo> s agg "wye>s oqana reas & wes ah Tageor od ssuntpauransuo. supp ssp 4p 98s cues 70} (0661) aaa uygos aq seus» jo voriow ay 20j ets goxd ose 81 sEn0"8 wap 1p anode vegan jo autoeu snongiue ay, Suuyyp pu Sunermas wos -eiso ave put ken eu Bop 01 psy a0 ep souD 4p 278 Aap 2420 950 Se srede Gnuoo eyo sazenb © 040 posrsgo (rt) weqeuy mee =Y Noms! sh suonnguavon oy jo 29qunu © wr exp wo Suu aay yoszToes » st AENAPL Jo suoqonasuoa pue eds 2p 02 sse00e“oeds qn woonag drupe Ae “{ze6r Uosteys, pue Ayling) Koupds wt SEI) PLE WEHEST uw 4x8 agp Jo way aun ut Kou; sour Touts 2xp UO pur ean Pus Sd aaa snuod pub Asap uoneuuyge ue so ypog aed 9nd Uo CORAL Weyer on areodey oso 13} “(S66 AUEUEEA. pu fa) Aazuneeuoe LE) si diduseasou pu auinyon sp 30 97 zadeyp HOHY fst AoumeNo) ATT sip yo neo ypu aus 908 10 patou wag sty Ap gp Jo sed IPN EE goin poyuopr Buoy o soueaqyulls my, 2ede aqgnd Jo donensesde, ueutstop ei da aoueytsr 1yjo sdnos8 se4i0 “2few pus ~ Brusuarwow up von ‘ug cra ond paps se poasuon ase sey wear aya WEGMAN ose ar Sia wy wosezith 50s 20s 7 aU 31 ff 30 uous Aa poudnany We apa jo sured eyo dey sup jo ane20q 1sn{ 104 Uautoa 205 songHu coeds AI soonunen e821 01 ‘2ouooun apsowop se yous ‘seon>ead ered Busod> 29 (OH so? Iie urzenpyno se yons) tens ava ayp 02 porguo> siytson 9 sone aoa ejengnd seal a oye 0: pes suoneRSdau NS NO “an Bea ptpuuond of Burameyé pue uBisp saan 02 p08 (Tet wPEL 66, re pu soooropung. 72) smn aerueag “BR6t Horr FEREL emo spewed Buquor pue Sormue|d yom soanaesy asoxp If 95 Sinan spsousop pa Sonmesuodsox25e>-pygp auau4o|ct9 PIrd39 Siiand AD372 GARY BRIOGE AND SOPHIE WATS! of the ink forged in that earlier period between “public” service provision, the local state, and public spaces in cities, ‘A more important role for local government is now a feature of many non- Western cities, There has been a pervasive trend of decentralization of responsibil- ities for city governance away from the national state down to the regional and local jevel (Habitat 1996). For some, such as Castells (1997) this is an effort to sidestep the legitimation crises faced by many national governments and push the blame for lack of services down to localities. For others (such as Habitat) there is a suggestion that ie resus fcom elements of necessity ~ structural adjustment programs imposed by the World Bank and IME have limited central government finances for welfare provision. But they also suggest an empowering clement to this with increased Semorratization and links between an enhanced local state and grass-roots organ- ization over service provision in cities. So it could be argued that such shifts represent the potential for a rejuvenated public realm in many non-Western cities, Tt is instructive to think of conceptions of power and through what practices, institutions, and discourses the public is constituted, In many non-Western cities the formal public realm was something remote from the mass of the population, often tied to colonial interests and latterly to export markets and tourism. Indeed in thinking about the relations becween the public and the private itis important to Temember that most of the space of the cities worldwide and the majority of their ietivities are in private hands: not open to public scrutiny ane secluded from areas of encounter, Most commercial and residential properties, and therefore land areas of the city, are held by private individuals. Although there are still tracts of land and monumental buildings, owned by the public, in terms of infrastructure, government, find other public buildings the privatization of urban space seems to be increasing, In many non-Western rapidly developing cities, the private ownership of land combines vith the inability of governments to get access to it (either via the market because it js too expensive for eash-starved governments or because of the absence of legal techanisins such as compulsory purchase, or through a lack of political will, a prevailing regime of corruption). Such land supply bottlenecks lead to massive shortfalls in housing, provision resulting in homelessness or very poor accommodation for the mass of the cities’ population who find their owa solutions via squatting on unused land and sef- provision of shelter, These “informal” organizations are significant not just forthe provision of asc services bur asa way of coasteucting ¢ new public realm, a form of rses-roots representation. Although such social movements are generally targeted St specific issues it is clear that a number of them have had significant impacts on urban governance, Especially important are women’s movements ~ such as thos® for politcal participation in Guadalajara, Mexico; neighborhood handicraft associa Bons in Santiago, Chile; and strugeles for health care in Sao Paulo, Brazil (Habitat 11996: 168). The growing importance of feminist movements in all theis diversity it the cities of the avorld has been noted by Castells (1997, chapter 4). Despite the pervasive force of gender division, chese movements represent a reconstitution @ Fr public ralcn in relation to issues of work, heath, and homes production an reproduction; and the toleration of difference. Fine nnportance of women's movements points to a realm beoween the public at the private - that of civil society. For Gramsci civil society had a significant imps?sngesnag jo ong auersoo ata as Aanaes AaBH0gN JO aoejd v st a3eds aqua gon fap ep go sed Tea pa ogni aye wis Te anvaud pu oqnd v yo ' aaa ama ane 2 S19} 13H WO a0 20598 703 9H 30} pre [enans jue Buona 30} — 9unosar © aeH0009 O51 £9 24039 ‘sooeds 12944}0¢-U 243 OH MOUS eee gf axe roy -snonas Asan uayo te 3 Po9PwE PUN AP ML dB 2904 | uwpesog yo 84g 20088 21 Jo sans] aR OSNjuL Ie Suonwpasdap pre couajors af toquop (op ss2denp) Soe 20U38H “HOEK! w2Ps «dn ueayp 01 entepeABOR Ut a tap yodoous aasteaud pur 2px 705 (0661 SPC) sapesuny soul Sudanys nov auanard on sun dovson aze oF, 19570 naoNe sopasun asu2sard am soqmp weg asoxp uo soaapos aoquAs 19 A SA sispromuy a3ead sees reaqran pur ayf-ssasizn} souronag azeds 214d JO womeanestid au SOwomx9 Senay jam oe sm wsaingh 20} S908 SEH AtvoUg>9 oe ANOHe OE pase Ayppeam 2m yo sora 5952826 2 JO HOS UTED?» 10} {koa ope 07 519925 1 WOH} ea sajna ayy Poe Ss0yee ‘Ss9per 295362208 GOS oA] TT an aarrges ox pure sesso appar Buco agp Jo st2s0 M48 09 TAT ‘umnousnop sof a Aqrromed “uavespypun Apoteses 20 pozaealsd “{usseasout! Buraq st aDeds regan un aggre apd ado ov stuautavous [eos weGET IO susoyjo a1 28083 (E861) 1004 pr saseg Jo vomezteos xp pu 2m 182 soa erro oie ay sdeapad 5 satsng pe Sowseg op Us Owe TL yeunsoyan aaa joonssesd BA 2poul sf s9ni808 ye}908 auTos pus “Suisne| Suaurdoydar> “ipa yo uotsond a, 99H wereapy wou Ate wy sve sowper Auss2990 jor saoapaoa sopun sixes 3638 ypu apett Bu 9 Ssuogoouion Gans 22eahd Apu sgn 9 wazaeg asad © FF AaUMHTOD 24830 ap SOAR ‘exo 1snf9x2 Pue spapafard Soustase 2 > Kau (2urgOA SHBIO Z soxdegp) sn spurs Hoy Se PAY Pees Ag pamasuoo par posmseay ot pasoddo se 4609 pe snosussouoy se paused some ceed reaver ul payransuoo Weyp Zayrer poUIBeUt 29 Ost ‘dour Katy, Soh | reso rusia s assasddo S249 £1009 24,09 AN yeep BUTE trys &Sopinoxd (qeOs6t) BUROK HAINOH (EET NOTE) “wsqperos ners 200710 Ue eudea ansfenpiarput jo suomenesioanen PUASSS seupede suepreunno> 6 posers ufo ose ze Aagusto> fo uN yUATS AP NOT sauaunsze 3201S puodsax 03 paddinbo pf 99 42a ) vorstaosd 90d ‘apraoad we te! sansnsat esse) ve puP KH 24, 8 SIE yin nos 01 uo 3peg Aaggsuodsos Busons ee (USTED) euendes oyubus aeaad agp we ojgssod 304 sea ee Monge of eoutoomegE® IS Pu pres go AHN HN wre rue sung seuss ar sono fos Pu ensre TS an0H Se Fee essa) s0U00 oF of DITOR! BSF NOH ASE ‘uy womuane Peon ope oy wus ia sep pe (S61) memNnd £2 pondae 994 sey SIAR aanns ede eoos pu sye0ss0u [808 jo 2DUeSUATS AL soqjqnd 200 68 ere etnc onerussndad eos poe maumuA08 Jo TAPE Suone Dos seTinpo pur ‘nod fanuopt‘sionpond 30) ssw PEE poseg sea eprteq ut uvox3 © voag omy azmp zip pone eH (9661) yos2y7eWN ae) pre aanoe aq 30% paod S29 wl Sowa AAR PINGS saojors Bae are ports oq ara nee agp yo Seuoue ap 2H Gay SEL “apdood JO “kepAaana aq ut paveos Agdaap oste a 5 ‘aug azengadiad o1 waz? ue SP ‘ko 08 AE aeega)aaise) “sz0s uf s80038 uanaiog sowersae 30 SPOT ‘sSivend ALD374, GARY BRIDGE AND SOPHIE WATSON ‘There has been significant literature in urban studies on “the endl of public space” (Sorkin 1992s Mitchell 1995). This focuses on how the hitherto open and uncon- trolled public spaces of the city, sites of unpredictable encounter, have been either made subject to controls and surveillance or have been made into semiprivatized spaces. The enclosed atrium replaces the courtyard, the shopping center replaces the street. The power of private capital to thematize and commodify these spaces as sites ‘of consumption further degrades the opportunity for idling, casual mutual perfor ‘mance and display, and chance engagement. Urban spaces have been Disneyfied. ‘Yet such nostalgic formulations of a lost public space themselves construct an idealized perspective. If the new shopping centers and atria represent the end of democracy, public space must once have been open to participation, engagement, and control of the majority. Or to put this another way, who were the public of these Jost public spaces, who was included and who was excluded, and for whom were these public spaces formerly more public (Deutsche 1996: 285)? In her discussions of public art Rosalyn Deutsche takes this further in asking how “images of public space ‘create the public identities they seem merely to depict?” (1996: 286). What is important she suggests is how these images construct a public, what imagined identities are evoked for those that occupy the prescribed site, and whose identities are being reinforced. ‘The possibility of affirming identities in the public spaces of the city are inscribed in power relations and are thus conflictual. Rather than adopt Habermas's notion of the public sphere as a potential space for consensus, rationality, and implicit homo- gencity, it may be more useful to imagine public space as constituted by difference and inherencly unstable and fluid. Following Pringle and Watson's argument (1992) that interests do not exist as already fixed outside the state, but instead are formed ‘within, and themselves form, the very arenas of the state, so identities are constituted by and constitute the pablic spaces of the city. Such a process can never be complete and as Moutfe (1992: 234-5) suggests, a democratic public sphere is predicated on difference, divisions, exclusions, and open contestation rather than on the imposi- tion of unity, homogeneity, or consensus. Perhaps as Deutsche proposes, psychic anxiety lies beneath this mourning for a lost public sphere, when these responses may instead be read as “panicked reactions to the openness and indeterminacy of the democratic public as a phantom ~ a kind of agoraphobic behaviour adopted in the face of a public space that has a loss at its beginning” (1996: 325). In other words there never was a public sphere that included everyone, and maybe these new privatized) public spaces of the city simply inclade a different public. Disputes over the assumptions behind constructions of the public and the private are not confined to Western scholarship on Western cities. They also mark the boundaries of assumptions from a Western experience and the contrasts (as well similarities) in non-Western urban realms. Non-Western cities disrupt many assump- tions about the relationship between the public and the private even further. What it the West is treated as the domestic realm is lived out in public in many cities. In Hanoi for example men are shaved on the street ~ see Figure 31.1. The domestic realm is also often the site of production for the public economy. Homes are sites of economic production and often exchange of goods. At the same time some urbat homeless create spaces‘of privacy through marking territory when all they have #* public space ~ now more clearly a feature of Western cities also.{Joa se somip wiowsoy Jo SButpeos feope ut Aephro49 >xp pue ousunsour opp ‘oreajad oxp pur anignd 9up Jo Aamiquie ay2 anoge posies oIssNdsIp pue pauionsanb Suraq axe suondumnsse sod ssoys soy saaoys O5[e Jf “SORID UZaIs>94 ‘uo paseq uo0q sey 34) AepAsoaa pus umpeas 2yqnd otp Jo dowssnosIp 201d op Jo {yptar yotqas 01 aaxop ap soworpus eat ays pu anjgndl ayp jo Suraoasaau sig “4a au pue 22qnd 342 jo uopeururexoar e puewop oqnd axp jo suruvous paygtosred/parous o89u, "aU! jo ASojouso9 ayp swuasoudax Aap yeolu9a a4, “punoy8 uoneuras> pesos pue aveds uodo ayjqnd e Siueny weueg sv yons ‘soeds uteus9 ur 30 (uoseas jesnyMoUde aqp Jo Bary “auSoq, amp arerqayao 01 KuowarID Buryfino} [eAUU axa Se Yas) seqUOUETDD uENIED ae aueriodun satuossq uosrad S fury ay o¥[gnd aq wroxy pepnysos pu arezedas sauun ssomi ay “Bury] axp Jo aBeuosrod ayp ySnonp passasdya si Ayo ayp Jo ayy] aggnd 2if Jo pnut yoxsuEg ut “saquosap (6¢ sideyp) voarERY aHaUvUY SY “32UtEAZ28q0 ‘snoiSija2 yBnosyp 0 YazeuoW arp jo amnBy ay Jo Aayjenied ayp yBnomp posuayzedxa s{ar son wrnsog\-uou Aueut uy “ayeuoper pue Ayenredaar qr postr st son usoisagy ui o¥ygnd axp seazoqy E|NODS are Sol usDIS9_A UE I] IGA Jo soxpRAg (uosaeg, 2xGdog ©) rowopy wr aqzeq 2095 ELE ANBIE WATSON 376 GARY BRIDGE AND SOF “This transgression of the public and the private, the intimate and the abswact, is felt in other ways. The separation of public and private so long pursued in Westere aoe o oo been a highly visual act (Benjamin 1969; Sennett 1990) which has led canine nepresentacion of conceived space inthe planning imaginares as a visua! ach coin of puting a adistance and separating ovt. As Urry (chapter 33) argues shes aiines might enbance the sense of leakage berween these realms as the ci) is Sxperienced in everyday life, Smell cannot be 50 easily controlled ss the Bie and oer eet ea blurring ofthe public and the private as intimate smells leak into the Gublic arena and public smells invade private spaces. The politics and technology of rane ancl of smells saye a great deal about the more subconscious governmentaity of the city and the separation of public and privare. “The duoensions of the relationship between the public realm and urban space have brought into question the notion of the everyday and everyday life. These has Tass atadly borgeoning ieratare adapting notions ofthe “everyday” to city fe Fan Lefebvre (1991) the everyday was the arena where capitalist alienation wat greatest (or constant) and yet was ao an escape ronte via the cextraordinariness of Breas ne (a Sunday inthe country asa form of resistance and celebration), The SNeryday is set up against the systemic oppressions of capitalism or bureaucracy of ce fcation, For Habermas (1984 1987) the everyday lifeworld has betn SSinrated out and made provincial by “the system” — but stil retains he possib- Fearne communicative action and the reconstitution ofthe degraded publi realm aac ersunivative rationality and discourse ethics. For de Cereau (1984) its the vepository of an array of tactics of resistance. Many of these themes are explicitly eatal iveaking down che quotidian violence of rational planning = in a fons of qo oputisodut aia 0: ponuiod seq 20H s30"0y aus} “san 30 sede LepAsox9 xe soma sgn 3 Buraeou! af Jo Surpueisiopun 290 wy euawouayd wsoxd sxour lou ope OWL! JO suOITeypoUu IUEISIP ar0ul 9q 02 poumnsse Ayes are Tg “Aas 24 Jo soneds [eapshyd yp Jo aatananuo9 pure parmisto> “ayers 103 ey pions sounioqey se paxtanston Syaasanosp wear ox gn ea sy 29839pior] se ,2q Buna], ‘Sutpuessiopun pue predos jemnur‘uoqzeUs jo a0 ay 20 (smautaaous [E1205 plle uoNDe aan2a|}00 pus soqod Jo suonW jeuorpest inom) yanse pav zoweTose jo wTeas © 2ygne gp sw 2oede Lephr2y9 pue cher aya ayp so suorssnoarp Azezodwomsoo ery uo Stuousae 403 2x Jo 2U0 s tip puy-patezoape natuag weg zosWonep pus sazunonu9 yo aygum pare war spam potzes 98 22240 wos} Seas Buoy w oq 0 Suds sy. “Sede aH Te HF SO So pogsadeos st ven Aaa penane 30 eu ¥ st aygnd op asap, OURO P| tawtoun jo wuoUTDBpa[aMowype ap, ~ WouoHeUo pana! © pu doues9[or sod jonjn 240 1nq s9Bvens yo 1ogaion Banoo v sta "ygNd ax Yo TomdeoU0D sa Pon peo aystun aeyp ato pur diysonefez jo adi v se So a S395 oy “Bunog se pardeooeand ose woos 2ygnd 3Ue01 sO anaeU skp pu stONDeTPAE PORPEH -eoe3s0u9p owdinsed wasaidos-uou 10) sapqqissod ax dn uodo spp jemxys Jo SRM “aqssod Gaoredirazed Jeo a, Son [enasa pu sansraqd peqoys asenu0> (HRY pur weyers ‘sop aemonsed ut .i1qnd aq, 20} sooeds wa dn wado o)jensaod Bop sey ose ar Aqeorxopeneg “eas aygnd ssojazeds Jo sanmigsod ayp wa. sr suuosand ose agedsiqA9 “Sew axp 0 woTRBumzojstes © st SIE “{WanEP er SD 1 seavo Jo ssourdansun ego Jo ssauD4ND9|6 [i908 ayp Jo aUNO..e He BUDE) Stnooun aqenrpasdun 305 {ggssod auo st edsinq > jo ssauuado au, “auosexdo? jpotsyd eps op ov Sunpou ane exp ss0eds agnd sou are asa, sonaseidoo wens jou pavu agi Aepisoxo ang “2p Aephroxo yo sooussayer ayy ut sokyeqisod dn odo pu ssieouss ssimuy Aq poourape aig Ap ag ut saoeds ognd anoqe Aas Bhp uo pling Aay,“aneds aqua yo Surzienntacop w wuasoudax stuauidopaap 7 “eat gud axp — uouis8x8u0 jo 2407 Koy ayp 5 sayAHIe ona asoyp soxeaedas IE 258 Sup pue “pqs appovf Jo as0xd taaNs axp pu asm BY a4p Ytog JO SHIA Sop ednosty sony uty sdeysod ‘sagpapaowse souol jeg ujof se ang “SUNN NNT auoyy Jo Kioubur aya Gfgnd yeu Adusis weqp zoypex) avewse pw WAR eS br goueearoped sno1as Aypeap ¥ sj yung apppel yo sopHod yons =m THUORE Shsur pur euoneniosordes uoip soqnex aBoqerp pe jeaosejas 9q mgs EMEA “oputa auois aueurzedap ayp so aoeds poqpoususo> ays ug twoxy 2>ueMO rch aoe soyssoy pure uosgeS “paonowun O:ogmy aye pur aaraso8 ap Jo S= Seotergg ayn ang Sayded pue ayend ap 30a ‘ongd ays pe son eh 2000, 20u s1 sty “2p Aato Azezoduioguo9 Jo stuaw2|9 aamusod axp 38 OO] 03 GO 190 pos oot 77a orang378 REFERENCES Bell, D. and Valentine, G. (eds) 1995: Mapping Desire: The Geographies of Sexualities. ‘London: Routledge. Benjamin, W. 1969: tlboninations. New York: Schocken, Boyer, ©. 1994: The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural ‘Entertainment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Castells, M, 1977: The Urban Question. London: Edward Amotd, Castells, M, 1983: The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social "Movements, London: Fdward Arnold, Camlls, M. 1997: The Information Age: Economy Society and Culture, vol. 2: The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Certeau, M. de 1984: The Practice of Everyday Life. exkeley: University of California Press, Chauncey, G. 1995: Gay New York: Gender, Urbar Culture and the Making ofthe Gay Male World 1890-1940. London: Flamingo. Davie, M. 1990: City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London: Verso. Deutsche, R. 1996: Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Engels, E {1844] 1993: The Condition of the Working Class in England, ed. with an introduction by D. McLellan, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Euzioni, A. 1993: The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Commumitarian ‘Agenda, New York: Crown. Foussult, M. 1981: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Ts from the French by ‘Alan Sheridan, London: Penguin. Feaser, N. 1990+ Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25 (6), 56-80. Habermas, . 1984 The Theory of Communicative Action, vl. 1: Reason and the Rational: jsation of Society, eT. McCarthy. London: Heinemann. Habermas |. 198% The Theory of Communicative Action, vol 2: Lifeworld and System —a ‘Grtique of Functionalist Reason, ts. T. McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity. Habitat United Nations Centre for Human Settlements 1996: An Urbanicing World: Global report on Human Settlements 1996, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayden, D. 1980: What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban ‘desige, and human work. Signs 5{3) supplement $170-S187. Jacobs |, 1961: The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Lefebvre, HL, 1991: Critique of Everyday Life, tz. J. Moore. London: Verso. MeDowell, L, 1983: Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 3, 39-72. Matfecol, M. 1996: The Time of Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Societys te D. ‘Smith. London: Sage. Michell, D. 1995: The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public and democracy, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 108-33. Mosife, ©. 1992; Democratic citizenship and politcal community. In C. Mone (ed ‘Dimensions in Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community, London: Ves 229-58. Murphy, Band Watson, S. 1997: Surface City: Sydney atthe Millennivon, Bristol: Policy Pringle, R. and Watson, S. 1992: Constructing interests: feminisms and the post struc ‘nace, In M. Barrett and A. Phillips (eds), Destabilising Theory. Oxford: Policy Pres 53-73, Parmar R. 1995: Bowling alone: America’s declining socal capital. Journal of Demtoeras & 65-78.“song Asso f cosy ay pr one ggg TRAM De ope seuaponss quel ps) wos oupENT A eres jo wept 20661 1 SAR #1 v9 MBOIO eo © se wsuegsc 660 “TP ads of 266 ‘SCO rasa, pur wont 95P4S 5 Osh “oBest\ suopuor|243#/acT pppoe J0 HO “266 “fez sgesge se Don sey umon Jo Adasen oU 6861 ‘an “gu aes eno Bae HH AOS PP MISTER “Buoy PUP oy 24a, 9 UO HOP huseg SOU, sayy ssyodouoH seopuor sg Ja ons pew wa tL 20 J an of yi 06st Poe eee SHON mot OM 7d Jo HP PAL "VLE 1 eae poounee ropes 0550 284 0061 ay 2 gs wosoossy Buses wma a4 enh ony Sous 0 son AON HABE PES LAE] YS paw 1 pose MonrweTt ZwopuoT HI8D 105 *HL6E poor st oreeitt ae rane 9 Xoo. soso jens © 0819) “epa)