Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:8
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:5

Sadržaj

članak: 1 od 194  
Back povratak na rezultate
2022, vol. 56, br. 3, str. 978-1002
Ograđena naselja u Evropi - pomodnost ili socijalni izazov?
Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet političkih nauka, Politikološko odeljenje

e-adresasneska152@gmail.com
Projekat:
451-03-68/2022-14

Ključne reči: ograđene zajednice (naselja); socijalna segregacija i siromaštvo; demokratski duh i kapaciteti grada; ugrožen javni prostor; privatizacija
Sažetak
Ovaj rad se bavi kod nas slabo istraživanim konceptom ograđenih naselja (politika stanovanja) koji je sredinom 20. veka razvijen u SAD, ali je u novije vreme posebno afirmisan u neoliberalnom društvu, širom sveta. Ograđena naselja postoje i u socijaldemokratskoj Evropi, te članak izučava posledice primene ovog koncepta, tj. uticaj ograđenih naselja na demokratski duh grada i demokratske i razvojne potencijale grada, na uzorku gradova u Evropi (Francuska, Britanija i Irska), uz izvlačenje pouka. Ograđena naselja imaju brojne loše efekte na zajednicu. Vlasti za potrebe ograđenih zajednica često privatizuju saobraćajnice, javne prostore, kao i pristup preostalim javnim površinama, na štetu većine stanovnika, za koje čitavi kompleksi u gradu ostaju nedostupni. To stvara brojne socijalne, prostorne nepravde, čime se aktivno potkopava demokratski duh i kapacitet grada. Ovi procesi su u sukobu sa demokratskim konceptom otvorenog grada i modelom mešovitog stanovanja, negovanog u vreme države blagostanja. Članak se oslanja na analize postojećih istraživanja i studija ograđenih naselja u svetu kroz indikativne primere i studije slučaja (analiza sadržaja, sinteza, generalizacija, komparacija). U ovim studijama su često korišćene statističke metode, analize promene regulative, intervjui i ankete stanara, menadžera razvoja, političara i službenika. Komparativnom metodom u ovom radu se porede sličnosti i razlike ograđenih naselja u raznim zemljama, što je osnov za zaključke i preporuke za optimalnu politiku stanovanja i razvoj gradova (sinteza). Članak uvodi ovu izazovnu temu u prostor debate političkih i društvenih nauka (polje urbanih studija), daje prikaz postojećih posledica, te putem komparacije omogućava da sintetički dođemo do preporuka za izbor optimalne politike stanovanja (učenje iz iskustva).

Introduction

Gated settlements as well as walled cities were a feature of settlements in ancient and medieval times. In the age of capitalism, some forms of protection and division have been preserved, usually in terms of wealth - rich or poor neighbourhoods in the city. Sometimes in a city of great inequalities and conflicts, some kind of fence remains for security reasons. A good example is Berlin as a divided city between two political systems and two states, then long throughout history until the middle of the 20th century, Jerusalem was a divided city according to religious affiliation (Jews, Muslims, and Christians), etc. (Bagaeen & Uduku, 2010).

However, in a time of welfare state based on social democratic values, the principle of an open city that welcomes newcomers and is accessible to all is also affirmed. It is complemented by the concept of mixed housing, which means that citizens of various social groups live together in the same buildings and neighbourhoods. It has a good effect on getting to know people, better mutual understanding, and it strengthens the democratic community in the city and thus society in general.

The neoliberal society, however, seriously deepens the wealth gap between the people (a large part of the middle class is impoverished) and the reduction of public service benefits objectively lowers the quality of life of most citizens, which again encourages the social division of the city’s inhabitants (Neil, 1996; Neil & Neil, S. & Williams P. 2007; Ward, 2014).

The availability of good quality housing is of great importance for every individual, in addition to education, employment and health. This area requires the active commitment of the authorities (state and local authorities) and welfare society procured a huge number of good public housing for citizens, engaging wide scope of resources for this aim. Neoliberal society on the other hand, transfers these affairs from the public to the private sector and each person should buy or rent a housing on the market for himself. The transition to a neoliberal concept of urban planning and housing directly causes major problems for vulnerable social groups in cities all over the planet (Glasze, 2005). Traces of these problems and social, spatial injustices are visible in the cities of developed European countries (poor quality of housing, growing number of homeless people) and less developed countries are in an even worse condition, if they follow this neoliberal concept. They are often advised or asked to follow this concept, for the rationality of public sector spending.

Gated communities in this context represent an additional irritation for most citizens because in addition to the troubles they have (poor quality of housing); they are also deprived of access to various parts of the city because of their poverty and suspicion of possible criminal acts. This practice destroys democratic concept of open city (Lefebvre, 1996), vulnerable population develop a sense of animosity towards the order, values and ideology of the city government and society in general, together with strong feeling of hostility and hatred between the inhabitants of the city.

Theoretical framework

In recent literature, there are more and more justifications for the existence of gated communities housing concept, but the list of good sides of this concept is expanding, and objections are becoming rarer or non-existent. Additionally, a new social gated settlement movement is emerging that approves and glorifies networks of closed gated settlements as examples of good urbanism (Bagaeen & Uduku, 2010, Bagaeen, 2015). Such interpretations are a certain sign of getting used to the great social differences in society, increased doubts about the possibility of a pleasant and safe coexistence of citizens and reconciliation with the situation that the city cannot solve the issue of inequality, injustice and crime in society (Glasze, Webster, Frantz, 2006; Low, 2003; McKenzie E. 2006). These difficulties and weaknesses should therefore be fenced off, marginalized and removed from view. This way of thinking overlooks the need to change the system because cosmetics or physical fencing of the community only deepens the problems. By a similar principle, cities in the USA, where this concept originated, have for decades rather unsuccessfully fought against ghettos, displacing poor ghetto citizens throughout the city. Those relocations did not yield any results. The only successful way to remove the ghetto was to solve the cause of the problem: helping poor citizens to retrain and find job, arranging settlements (good quality of houses and apartments), providing good quality of services: school, kindergarten, health centre, supply and police protection, in order to suppress the crime that flourished in the ghetto as the main “economic activity”. In order for this settlement to be sustainable, the city had to take care of it (maintenance) and provide support packages for the future, if there is a need for it (Đorđević, 1998; Peterson, 1985).

In contrast, the European social-democratic concept of development of society and cities provided greater equality to citizens and greater assistance to the poor, and European cities rightly bear the label of democratically organized ones. The neoliberal housing policy in European cities brings the same type of problems that exist in the USA: the growth of the number of poor citizens, poor availability of housing for citizens (the problem of poor and too expensive housing) and the growth of the number of homeless people.

Gentrification is regular practice - poor citizens displace from their settlements to the periphery in even worse conditions, and arrange these spaces for exclusive rich housing, for business, commerce and tourist attractions (Janoschka & Salinas, 2013; Lees, Shin, Lopez-Morales, 2016; Renau & Martin, 2015).

Gated settlements, as a product of the logic of suppressing, gating the problem and its further deepening, are not a good model of housing. In a well-organized democratic society without too many social differences (Dupuis & Dixon, 2010) this type of settlement would not be controversial in itself. Good example are gated settlements in New Zealand, which are not based on the separation of inhabitants. However, in today’s deeply divided neoliberal society, this concept remains a truly problematic phenomenon.

Comparative analysis of fenced settlements and movements in european cities (France, Ireland, Britain)

France

A number of French authors have dealt with gated communities in their cities, especially in Paris and its metropolitan region – Île-de-Francе. They noticed numerous examples of gated settlements with or without guards and cameras. Several such settlements were analyzed, pointing out the specificity of each of them in terms of origin, social structure of the inhabitants (professional, age, wealth), their needs, lifestyle and the resulting relations in the settlement itself. Sometimes the phenomena of further gating of the space next to the settlement and the consequences it has for other citizens are followed. Here we will show several such settlements: Montretout, Villa Montmorency and Villa des Gravilliers, then the closed settlements of Sigri, Val de Bièvre next to Parc Ratel and the fenced settlement of Parc de la Martiniere. We will point to the reasons for their establishment, quality of life in the settlement and consequences for other citizens.

Montretout settlement is located in the western part of Paris called Saint-Claude on the banks of the Seine. In history, this area was part of the royal estate, with buildings for the guard and officers who guarded the property. With the abolition of the monarchy, the property was sold in order to make an elite settlement on the splendid place, with a beautiful view of the river Seine (1832). The future owners of the apartments immediately established the Assembly of apartment owners1, which becomes the co-owner of this space.

Initially, the construction of 37 housing units is planned, and the regulations prohibit any business activity and the construction of cafes or dance halls in this area. In 1932, it was further forbidden to split any plot in this area (1000 m2) and any other construction, and today there are 50 exclusive housing units with a total of 400 inhabitants. This settlement was gated from the very beginning, had its paid guards and remained inaccessible to other citizens.

In recent times, a conflict has arisen when the inhabitants of the settlement demanded the installation of cameras for protection and better control of space. One of the tenants, right-wing politician Jean-Marie Le Pen is a constant target of interest of journalists and TV reporters, and the installation of cameras was required from city authority. However, this request was rejected as inadmissible, explaining that the recording of the public space of the street, square, public traffic, as well as citizens could not be approved for the needs of private interest (Le Goix & Callen, 2010, pp. 95-96)2 (See Figure 1).

Villa Montmorency3 is located on a gated aristocratic estate in the 16th district, in the northwestern part of Paris. In 1853, it was renovated through the construction of 120 luxury-housing units on a large property. The settlement was gated from the very beginning and had its paid guards (Le Goix & Callen, 2010, p. 96; Pincon & Pincon-Charlot, 1994, 2001) (See Figure 2).

Figure 2 Слика 2. Вила Монморенси / Figure 2. Villa Montmorency

Извор/Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=Villa+Montmorency+Paris&tbm, Magazines Belles Demeures.

An interesting example is the gated community Villa des Gravilliers, built for factory workers in 1897. This bold construction endeavour was inspired by the works of utopian socialism, which advocated for the rights of workers in all fields (better working conditions, salaries, vacations and certainly better and more affordable housing) as well as the concept of the garden city (See Figure 3).

Figure 3 Слика 3. Графички приказ концепта града баште (Ебенизер Хауард) / Figure 3. Graphic presentation of the Garden City concept (Ebenezer Howard)

Извор/Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garden_City_Concept_by_Howard.jpg

The realization of this project was made possible by the policy of giving favourable loans, and this construction practice continued in the 19th century.

In France, the process of gating settlements is somewhat specific due to a different tradition and arrangement (aristocratic in the past and social-democratic4 during the 20th century) than in the United States, for example, but the consequences again lead to a similar social situation. The law regulates that if a gated settlement is located on the banks of a river, lake, sea or exits to other public spaces such as parks, picnic areas, the settlement must provide other residents of the city with access to those public spaces. A large part of these settlements is located on parts of former aristocratic estates, forests and hunting areas, so this solution is important.

However, the law also allows for certain derogations, when the court approve restrictions on the general availability of some areas for 10 years, with the possibility of extending those restrictions. Numerous examples show us that it is a common practice to close streets and reduce access to public areas for other citizens. Indicative examples are the practice of gated settlements in the Sigri area located 20 km south of central Paris. The first example is the settlement of Val de Biėvre5 next to Park Ratel, which has been renovated. Citizens of the neighbouring settlements come directly along the street that goes in the middle of the gated settlement6. Residents of this gated settlement are closing the street and the regional court was confirming their right to close the passage because “the street is being treated as an extension of their private yards.” Other citizens are completely prevented from using the park space, which thus actually becomes private.

Another example is the gated settlement of Parc de la Martiniere7, also located on the banks of the Bièvre River. The residents of this settlement have closed the beautiful passage to the park that stretches along the bank, although it is a public road and the court approves their decision as legal. Other citizens can reach the park bypassing this settlement, by driving through congested streets (Le Goix & Callen, 2010, pp. 102, 104, 105).

Gated communities in France are sustainable and fit perfectly into the system of small municipalities8. Empirical research shows that the tenants are rich people and they choose to live in a gated community because of the idyllic, rural way of life, security and value of property, which is also a form of good capital investment and ensuring safety for the family. They are attracted by the good landscaping and design of the resort, good quality services and entertainment9. An important motive is the richness of social networks in the settlement, acquaintances, closeness of relatives and friends as well as the proximity of well-paid jobs - very important for educated professionals.

The plants of new IT factories, headquarters of financial institutions, plants of the aero industry, robot factories, scientific research parks10, etc. are located in the vicinity7. Empirical research shows that tenants are very socially engaged and participate in the governing bodies of the settlement.

In this context, the only problem for society remains the existence of great inequality and quality of life of other citizens who are excluded from such a pleasant environment and deprived of a similar quality of life in their settlements (Charmes, 2005, 2007; Le Goix & Callen, 2010, 107-111).

Ireland

Ireland, like many countries, has adopted the concept of gated settlements and new settlements of this type are often built, always for rich and influential people. City authorities are eager to raise comfort and respond to all the wishes of this population. A common symbol of this urban space are the signs: “private”, “tenants only”, “access is not allowed”, etc. Therefore, researchers in Ireland have been quite focused on the privatization of public space and the fencing of various spaces along these settlements, and finally on the consequences of this process on the quality of life of other city residents (spatial injustice)11 (Kenna, Linehan, Brady, Hall, 2015, pp. 114-118).

Neoliberal society and the state have similar characteristics in this country as in other states. Unfortunately, there is a practice of criminalizing poor people, the homeless and young people who have no perspective and their subculture of rebellion against such a system or lifestyle and entertainment are considered problematic. In this context, the term anti-social behaviour is adopted, and used by politicians, centres of power and certainly a richer social class in order to justify fencing and reducing the opportunities to meet with these social groups.

The study identified close to 600 interventions of this type in Ireland’s largest cities and almost 80% of them are the closure of access roads to promenades, parks and other public areas. In addition, gates and obstacles in various places additionally enclose large spaces for other citizens. (see Table 1).

Table 1. Табела 1. Број ограђених прилаза јавним просторима (одобрени од општинских скупштина: 2000–2011) / Table 1: Number of gated roads leading to public areas (approved by municipal assemblies: 2000-2011)

Градови / Cities Број затворених прилаза и путева
1. Даблин / Dublin 260
2. Корк / Cork 78
3. Фингал / Fingal 72
4. Јужни Даблин / South Dublin 64
5. Дан / Dun 43
Сви градови / All cities12 576

Извор: аутор прерадио према: Kenna, T., Linehan, D., Brady, W. and Hall, J. (2015, str. 120) / Source: Redesigned by the author according: Kenna T., Linehan, D., Brady, W. and Hall, J. (2015, p. 120)

Citizens can most frequently use some congested and not very attractive surrounding roads, to approach the riverbank, ocean, promenade or park. Often, residents have to make a much longer way on the everyday house-work-house relation, due to the fenced spaces, which is both more expensive and exhausting. The city authorities allow all these changes without any consultation with the community, nor do they deal with the problems that have arisen for most residents, which develops in citizens a sense that they are second-class citizens, irrelevant to city authorities (Kenna et al, 2015, pp. 122–123).

The authors especially follow the experiences of the cities of Dublin and Cork, which have the largest number of gated and fenced spaces, which offer richer material for research. See a map of Ireland (Figure 4) with the largest cities located most often on the shores of the Irish, Celtic Seas, or Atlantic Oceans.

Figure 4 Слика 4. Градови Ирске / Figure 4. Irish cities

Извор/Source: https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:Ei-map.png приступљено15.06.2022.

Empirical research13 and analyses of the data collected show that the process of closing access and roads has always been approved by municipal assemblies for several reasons. The most common reason is the danger of anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood. It turned out that if the applicants applicants only use that slogan in the request; the positive decision would be automatically supported. These decisions were made without any evidence or given examples of endangerment of the settlement or house, and in fact, most frequently there were no such evidence at all. The other two reasons are also quite of general nature: a request for further development of the settlement or for the purpose of prohibiting the access of vehicles to a given area.

These examples are indicative because they show the dominance of rich and influential people, who have the power to support politicians or jeopardize their careers, which was obviously crucial for a positive response of city representatives to the requests of the residents of these settlements. The space of the city is arranged according to their needs, and other citizens pay with their limited and difficult movement through the city, the price of increasing the comfort of the gated settlements (Kenna et al, 2015, pp. 126–127).

Great Britain – social movement Occupy London

Occupy London is a social movement, created in London in 2011. The movement was open to all citizens who share these ideas. It was inspired by the Movement called Occupy Wall Street from New York as a response to the great social injustices that bothered citizens14.

The Occupy London movement also was attracted by the financial district in London, but was dominantly focused on the problem of reducing public space in the city15. They were occupied with urban policy that pushed poorer citizens from the city centre to the periphery, with the increasingly visible process of gating11 that suppressed all forms of community and democratic content, decreasing quality of lives of most citizens. The movement was a rebellion against elitist political institutions that protected big capital and oligarchic interests, without taking into account the needs and interests of the majority of citizens, which actively undermines democracy16 (Robinson, 2015, p.41).

The movement created a camp by locating itself in the City as the world’s financial centre and the richest municipality17. The movement thus brought to the surface numerous anomalies of which the citizens of London and Britain were often unaware (Robinson, 2015, p. 40). The first location of the camp was in Pater Nostri Square, but they did not stay there for long because it turned out that the square had been sold so that it was no longer a public but private area. The police intervened, pointing the members of the movement to the law and the right to protection of personal property. The movement changes location and goes to the yard of St. Paul’s Cathedral. This act provoked great reactions from the clergy and divisions among them: should the movement be left there or not? At first, they complained that they were hindering the entry of believers into the church (which was not true at all), but later they pointed out that the number of tourist tours around the cathedral is decreasing that negatively affect their earnings. This was the basis for debates about how the church as a spiritual organization became sacred, guided primarily by its short-term financial interest and ignoring the movement’s efforts to protect the common good and resist injustice (Odih, 2013; Nyong’o, 2012, p. 137).

The movement points to the inability of the national economy to build and mobilize capital on important topics, but it is already becoming clear that wealth is gained outside the country, through various robberies and military interventions. Various unused buildings have been mapped in the city, such as schools, courts that have been abandoned because impoverished citizens have left an overpriced part of the city. These empty institutions were a symbol of the weakness of the economic and political system as well as the indifference of public institutions for which these processes do not pose any problem. The city authorities quickly “solved the problem” by demolishing these buildings, which unpleasantly reminded of the former users who were driven away by poverty (Robinson, 2015, p. 42).

The movement mapped public places and facilities in the city that are important for meetings and socializing of citizens, but which are endangered, neglected, poorly or not at all maintained, asking the city to take care of it. However, neoliberal city leaders see a solution in transferring the obligation to maintain the public good to private individuals, regardless of what they do with it. Through the activities of the movement, it became clear that the only solution could be found by changing this system, ideology and values. Instead of a fence and a closed door, the members of the movement affirmed openness and transparency in all possible ways. An open general assembly was established, which publicly illuminated the problems and injustices in the city and affirmed their joint solution (participative decision-making). The movement sparked important debates, encouraged citizens to fight for other values and made some impact on the political scene. However, the movement distanced itself from the label that they are for direct democracy, due to the great aggression that is falling on everything that resembles social democracy in British society, calling it a socialist specter18 (Odih, 2013; Robinson, 2015, p. 43).

Results and discussion

The concept of a gated settlement divides citizens according to wealth, deepens the existing gap and undermines the democratic capacities of the community in the city. There are numerous examples in the world and in European cities that confirm this. Gated settlements have disastrous consequences for the closeness of people, for the quality of the community and democracy, even in many European cities with a long tradition of caring for the well-being of all citizens, openness and participatory decision-making. Therefore, the concept of a gated settlement should not be recommended as good and should be changed.

Numerous authors have pointed out for decades that the neoliberal state and city authorities are fighting for their cities to preserve and strengthen their comparative advantages and remain the world’s leading economic, financial, IT, service and artistic centres of the globalized world, attracting development projects, capital and a highly developed workforce. Economic development and profit are absolute priorities and accordingly they shape their cities and residential areas (Sassen, 2002; Neill, 1996).

Thus, in the metropolitan region of the city of Paris, in addition to research, IT centres and facilities of the IT industry, machine vision, robots, the aviation industry, etc. they make elite settlements for owners, directors, managers and highly educated professionals in this sector. The fact that part of the fenced settlements is founded on aristocratic estates and buildings symbolically reflects the desire of the world elite to restore the untouchability of the privileged as part of the feudal tradition, culture and lifestyle, thereby cancelling the democratic values of a society of equal citizens.

In London, besides the ambition of its further strengthening as a development and service world centre, there is an additional strong need to strengthen and protect London as a world financial centre (City). This is how numerous elite and gated settlements are created, with numerous privileges granted to their residents (Butler, 2007, pp. 763, 769, 770, 772–777; Atkinson & Flint, 2004, pp. 875–892; Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004, pp. 913–930). The Occupy London movement pointed to the consequences for the fate of the poor or the majority of residents, the endangerment of public spaces, infrastructure and the serious collapse of democratic capacities. For decades, researchers have been analyzing the “rich” practice of gentrification and displacement of poor residents to the periphery of city, in the process of rebuilding many parts of this city. Despite the criticism, the city government remains consistent with this concept, thus sending a message to the public that development and profit are everything. Those who cannot contribute to it, must move to the outskirts or leave the city (Lee & Butler, 2006).

Irish cities are good example of how automatically, with the inclusion of the concept of gated settlements, there is a division of residents, how the spirit of democratic communities in the city collapses, how settlements and residents are separated by wealth and how the gap between them grows, with obvious marginalization, neglect and even underestimation of impoverished inhabitants. The neoliberal economy creates the poor, and the authorities develop animosity, contempt, mistrust and even hostility towards them.

If we wished to call the future development of the city (and society as a whole) democratic and open, so that all citizens have the same chances for a quality life (housing as well), to actively influence the shaping of space, settlements and the city as a whole, then necessarily the neoliberal concept of the development of society and cities, as well as the concept of gated settlements, remain a side track. The welfare state, with an open city accessible to all and the concept of mixed housing, unequivocally remains a far better basis for sustainable development, for the affirmation of democracy and the development of a democratic community of satisfied and happy citizens.

Conclusion

Gated settlements are a logical consequence of a society with an economy of high concentration of capital in a globalized world, where multinational corporations and oligarchic capital play a major role19. The ideology of weakening the state (hollow state), influences the transfer of a large part of public affairs to private actors20. The process of coordination of a large number of diverse actors and interests, performed by the public sector, becomes very complex, often incomprehensible to the public and is certainly not value-neutral. In these affairs, the protection of the public interest and the public good is often suppressed, while the affirmation of the group interests of power holders and capital owners is aggressively strengthened (Robinson, 2015, p. 38). Democracy necessarily weakens.

The ideology of neoliberal capitalism is affirmed in all fields, even in the field of spatial planning and housing. The enjoyment of private property, the provision of protection and security, the importance of tenants’ control over the settlement and the apartment, which is primarily seen as a capital whose price is permanently rising, are affirmed as priority. The gate on the gated settlement is a symbol of exclusivity, luxury, security and a special package of services, and on the other hand, it is an obstacle for less happy (poorer) citizens event to approach this space (Robinson, 2015, p. 37).

This American housing concept has been exported to many countries around the world where it has been accepted because it fits perfectly with the values of global, neoliberal capitalism. The consequences for the democracy of cities and communities are disastrous.

Dodatak

Project

The paper was written within the scientific-research activity supported by the funds of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia according to Agreement No. 451-03-68/2022-14, signed with the Faculty of Political Sciences.

Endnotes

1 L’Assemblee Syndicale des Proprietaires
2In Paris, studies were conducted in the 1970s and, at the time of the welfare state, there were as many as 1,500 gated settlements, villas and private streets governed by the assemblies of apartment owners.
3Two last owners were Countess Montmorency and Countes de Boufflers.
4By social-democratic tradition, we mean a developed welfare state, which prioritizes the quality of life of citizens as a certain contrast to the liberal concept (USA) in which profit, market efficiency and effectiveness always remain a priority.
5After the Bièvre River
6The street is public and divides the settlement into two parts.
7This settlement has only eight residential units.
8France has about 37,000 municipalities that are quite small (the smallest in Europe) with 1,700 inhabitants on average (usually from 500 to 2,000 inhabitants). The gated settlements are somehow naturally formed as self-government residential units.
9One of those manifestations is Strawberry Celebration Days in the settlement Val de Bièvre.
10In the vicinity of the settlement Val de Bièvre, in the north, there is Clamart, the centre of aviation industry, automation, robots and information technologies. There is also Saclay, the nuclear research centre, and Orsay, the university scientific park. In the south, there is Yvelines, famous for its research centre.
11In the period from 2000 to 2011, there were many above-mentioned interventions in the space in Ireland, in the form of closing public areas and, in particular, access roads.
12Остали градови из узорка су: Голвеј, Лимерик, Вотерфорд и Лири-Ратдаун. / Other cities from the sample are Galway City, Limerick City, Waterford City and Laoghaire-Rathdown.
13The minutes from the sessions of the assembly and its working bodies were analyzed, the council members and the experts who participated in decision-making were interviewed.
14Namely, the banking sector in the USA as the main culprit for the 2008 crisis, which then spread throughout the world, instead of paying for the part of the incurred damage (with companies going bankrupt, people losing their houses or pension funds, and then becoming poor and homeless), was actually protected against losses by numerous laws and continued functioning more or less as before (with minor corrections). The Occupy Wall Street followers of demanded the identification of the culprits by their names, as well as holding them liable. In Island, for example, the bankers were held liable for the omissions and errors and sentenced to prison.
15Buildings, streets, as well as areas that were formerly public became private.
16This form of government is, objectively speaking, plutocracy – the power of the rich.
17The City is a municipality with a special status in comparison to other London municipalities: large banks have the voting right and make decisions of public importance to this municipality, with the medieval principle of secret voting. They have a special access to the British Parliament and the right to autonomous control of their own police (a city within the city).
18The campaign of Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour leader from 2015 to 2020, was accompanied by accusations of this type, indicating that the neoliberal ideology entered its aggressive stage by protecting the rights of capital to “unobstructed work”, which often involved exploitation. Therefore, in neoliberal economy, there is a practice of affecting the employees’ right to eight-hour day at work, minimum wages, daily of annual holiday etc. These standards were maintained in the EU for a long time, and those were some of the key reasons for Britain’s decision to leave the EU – Brexit. Neoliberal societies protect the right to increase profit at all costs, defending the right to endanger the quality of life of the people in their societies (impoverishment, relocation due to gentrification, formation of poor settlements and quarters) or displacement and killing citizens of other countries (wars., interventions, neoimperialism). There are numerous examples: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, former Yugoslav republics, Ukraine etc. A similar phenomenon was recorded during the US presidential campaign in 2016, when the campaign of Bernie Sanders, excellent democratic candidate who advocated the development of social-democratic institutions for the purpose of correcting huge social inequalities, became the target of “strong burst fire” of extremely influential power centres and media. The media lynch made him a traitor who was in favour of socialism and a “Russian friend”, which is established as one of the worst labels due to Russophobia. In that way, Sanders was soon eliminated although his ideas of European social-democracy applied to the American society would definitely have alleviated many weaknesses and solved burning problems (poverty, increasing social differences, excessively expensive schools and colleges, poor worker protection, low wages, a large number of the homeless etc.).
19This era is called post-Fordism industrialization by many authors.
20The hollow state goes together with the concept of new public administration, which often uses public private partnerships as an important instrument of the implementation of public projects and provision of public services.

References

Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2004). Fortress UK?: Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation. Housing Studies, 19.6, 875-892. [Crossref]
Bagaeen, S., & Uduku, O. (2015). Beyond gated communities. London & New York: Earthscan by Routledge.
Bagaeen, S. (2015). Beyond gated communities: Urban gating, soft boundaries and networks of influence and affluence. In: S. Bagaeen, & O. Uduku, (Ed.). Beyond Gated Communities. (pp. 9-25). London & New York: Earthscan by Routledge.
Bagaeen, S., & Uduku, O. (2010). Gated communities: Social sustainability in contemporary and historical gated developments. London & Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Bridge, G., Butler, T., & Le Gales, P. (2014). Power relations and social mix in metropolitan neighbourhoods in North America and Europe: Moving beyond gentrification? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38.4, July 2014, 1133-1141. [Crossref]
Butler, T. (2007). Re-urbanizing London docklands: Gentrification, suburbanization or new urbanism? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31.4, 759-781. [Crossref]
Đorđević, S. (1998). Entrepreneurial city management: City manager model. Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu & Čigoja štampa. [In Serbian].
Dupuis, A., & Dixon, J. (2010). Barriers and boundaries: An exploration of gatedness in New Zealand. In: S. Bagaeen, & O. Uduku, (Ed.). Gated Communities. (pp. 115-129). London & Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Glasze, G. (2005). Some reflections on the economic and political organisation of private neighborhoods. Housing Studies, 20/2, 221-233. [Crossref]
Glasze, G., Webster, C., & Frantz, K. (2006). Private cities: Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge & Taylor and Francis.
Grant, J., & Mittelsteadt, L. (2004). Types of gated communities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 913-930. [Crossref]
Janoschka, M., & Salinas, L. (2013). Gentrification in Spain and Latin America: A critical dialogue. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1234-1265. [Crossref]
Kenna, T., Linehan, D., Brady, W., & Hall, J. (2015). Gating in urban Ireland. In: S. Bagaeen, & O. Uduku, (Ed.). Beyond Gated Communities. London & New York: Earthscan by Routledge.
Le Goix, R., & Callen, D. (2010). Production and social sustainability of private enclaves in suburban landscapes: French and US long term emergence of gated communities and private streets. In: S. Bagaeen, & O. Uduku, (Ed.). Gated Communities. (pp. 93-114). London & Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Lee, L., & Butler, T. (2006). Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and gentrifying elites at the neighbourhood level. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS31 467-487 2006, Royal Geographical Society, Journal compilation, 467-487. [Crossref]
Lees, L., Shin, N.B., & Lopez-Morales, E. (2016). Planetary gentrification. Malden, MA, USA: Polity Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Low, S. (2003). Behind the gates: Life, security and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. New York, NY: Routledge.
MacLeod, G. (2014). Walling the city. In: R. Paddison, & E. McCann, (Ed.). Cities and Social Change: Encounters with Contemporary Urbanism. (pp. 130-147). Los Angeles & London: Sage. [Crossref]
McKenzie, E. (2006). The dynamics of privatopia: Private residential governance in the USA. In: G. Glasze, C. Webster, & K. Frantz, (Ed.). Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives. (pp. 142-152). London: Routledge & Taylor and Francis.
Neil, S. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and revanchist city. London, UK: Routledge.
Neil, S., & Williams, P. (2007). Gentrification of the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nyongò, T. (2012). The scene of occupation. TDR: The Drama Review, 56(4), 136-149. [Crossref]
Odih, P. (2013). Visual media and culture of 'occupy'. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Peterson, P. (1985). The new urban reality. New York: Brookings Institution Press.
Renau, L.R., & Martin, L.L. (2015). The new urban reality: The dark side of a trendy neighborhood: Gentrification and dispossession in Russafa, the 'Valencian Soho. '. In: P. Peterson, (Ed.). Conflict in the City - Contested Urban Spaces and Local Democracy (1985). (pp. 147-163). Berlin: JOVIS Verlag GmbH.
Robinson, S.P. (2015). Gated communities in a changing geopolitical landscape: An exploratory genealogy of occupy London. In: S. Bagaeen, & O. Uduku, (Ed.). Gated Communities. (pp. 26-48). London & Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Sassen, S. (2002). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.
Ward, K. (2014). Splintered governance: Urban politics in the twenty-first century. In: M. Davidson, & D. Martin, (Ed.). Urban Politics: Critical Approaches. London: Sage.
Reference
Atkinson, R., Flint, J. (2004) Fortress UK?: Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation. Housing Studies, 19(6), 875-892
Bagaeen, S., Uduku, O., ur. (2015) Beyond gated communities. London - New York: Earthscan by Routledge
Bagaeen, S. (2015) Beyond gated communities: Urban gating, soft boundaries and networks of influence and affluence. u: Bagaeen S., Uduku O. [ur.] Beyond Gated Communities, London - New York: Earthscan by Routledge, 9-25
Bagaeen, S., Uduku, O., ur. (2010) Gated communities: Social sustainability in contemporary and historical gated developments. London - Washington, DC: Earthscan
Bridge, G., Butler, T., Le, G.P. (2014) Power relations and social mix in metropolitan neighbourhoods in North America and Europe: Moving beyond gentrification?. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1133-1141
Butler, T. (2007) Re-urbanizing London docklands: Gentrification, suburbanization or new urbanism?. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(4), 759-781
Dupuis, A., Dixon, J. (2010) Barriers and boundaries: An exploration of gatedness in New Zealand. u: Bagaeen S., Uduku O. [ur.] Gated Communities, London - Washington, DC: Earthscan, 115-129
Đorđević, S. (1998) Entrepreneurial city management: City manager model. Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka, Univerzitet u Beogradu
Glasze, G., Webster, C., Frantz, K., ur. (2006) Private cities: Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge & Taylor and Francis
Glasze, G. (2005) Some reflections on the economic and political organisation of private neighborhoods. Housing Studies, 20(2), 221-233
Goix, L., Callen, R., D. (2010) Production and social sustainability of private enclaves in suburban landscapes: French and US long term emergence of gated communities and private streets. u: Bagaeen S., Uduku O. [ur.] Gated Communities, London - Washington, DC: Earthscan, 93-114
Grant, J., Mittelsteadt, L. (2004) Types of gated communities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 913-930
Janoschka, M., Sequera, J., Salinas, L. (2014) Gentrification in Spain and Latin America: A critical dialogue. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1234-1265
Kenna, T., Linehan, D., Brady, W., Hall, J. (2015) Gating in urban Ireland. u: Samer Bagaeen, Ola Uduku [ur.] Beyond Gated Communities, London - New York: Routledge, 114-129
Lee, L., Butler, T. (2006) Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and gentrifying elites at the neighbourhood level. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS31, 467-487, Royal Geographical Society, Journal compilation, pp. 467-487
Lees, L., Shin, N.B., Lopez-Morales, E. (2016) Planetary gentrification. Malden, MA, USA: Polity Press
Lefebvre, H. (1996) Writings on cities. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing
Low, S. (2003) Behind the gates: Life, security and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. New York, NY: Routledge
Macleod, G. (2014) Walling the city. u: Paddison Ronan, McCann Eugen [ur.] Cities and Social Change: Encounters with Contemporary Urbanism, Los Angeles - London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 130-147
Mckenzie, E. (2006) The dynamics of privatopia: Private residential governance in the USA. u: Glasze G., Webster C., Frantz K. [ur.] Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives, London: Routledge & Taylor and Francis, 142-152
Neil, S. (1996) The new urban frontier: Gentrification and revanchist city. London, UK: Routledge
Neil, S., Williams, P., ur. (2007) Gentrification of the city. New York, NY: Routledge
Nyongò, T. (2012) The scene of occupation. TDR: The Drama Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, 136-149
Odih, P. (2013) Visual media and culture of 'occupy'. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Peterson, P., ur. (1985) The new urban reality. New York: Brookings Institution Press
Renau, L.R., Martin, L.L., ur. (1985) The new urban reality - the dark side of a trendy neighborhood: Gentrification and dispossession in Russafa, the 'Valencian Soho. '. u: Conflict in the City - Contested Urban Spaces and Local Democracy, Berlin: JOVIS Verlag GmbH, 147-163
Robinson, S.P. (2015) Gated communities in a changing geopolitical landscape: An exploratory genealogy of occupy London. u: Bagaeen S., Uduku O. [ur.] Gated Communities, London - Washington, DC: Earthscan, 26-48
Sassen, S. (2002) The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press
Ward, K. (2014) Splintered governance: Urban politics in the twenty-first century. u: Davidson Mark, Martin Deborah [ur.] Urban Politics -Critical Approaches, London: Sage
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski, engleski
vrsta rada: izvorni naučni članak
DOI: 10.5937/socpreg56-38850
primljen: 26.06.2022.
revidiran: 26.08.2022.
prihvaćen: 26.08.2022.
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 11.11.2022.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman
Creative Commons License 4.0

Povezani članci

Nema povezanih članaka