From Parklets to People St.: City of L.A. Offers "DIY Kits" for Community Placemaking

One of the more important themes in my dissertation research on "do-it-yourself urban design" has turned out to be the increasingly obvious interaction between the tactics and aesthetics of informal, unauthorized community improvements and those of very official streetscape redesign efforts by some trend-setting major cities.

Probably the best example is the evolution, over a period of several years, of the once-clandestine Park(ing) Day movement into an international phenomenon (now often appropriated by local businesses and certified by authorities) and into the popular progressive planning trend of parklets. In San Francisco, where Park(ing) Day started with the radical architecture and design collective Rebar converting a single parking space into a temporary park in 2005, the idea was swiftly embraced by city officials and neighborhood boosters as a quick, cheap way to provide just the sort of novel public space amenities that hip young urbanites are looking for - some much larger than a parking space, some funded by major corporations, some designed by Rebar, now a successful agency with major civic clients. (The SF city planning department celebrates a variety of other "tactical interventions" as well). Many other cities have created official parklet programs too (I was interviewed in 2012 for an article about parklets in Chicago).

Well, the top-down embrace of DIY urbanism aesthetics continues at a fever pitch today with the City of Los Angeles's "People St." initiative. (Here's the post on the subject that caught my eye.) The City's Dept. of Transportation is officially asking citizens to use approved design "kits" to help create parklets, plazas, and bike corrals in order to "transform underused areas of L.A.'s largest public asset - our 7,500 miles of city streets - into active, vibrant, and accessible public space." Community groups can apply beginning today.

The City of Angels has fully embraced the language and the aesthetic of DIY and combined it with an official standardized process (plus a little cross-promotion thrown in for good measure).  As Victoria Young reports for PSFK:

The goal of the program is to improve the quality of life of Angelenos by providing a toolkit of cost-efficient design elements that can be quickly installed to help the city come alive with minimalist wood and steel planter boxes full of succulents, sleek picnic tables, and even GameTime exercise equipment [...]. Each kit contains packaged, required configurations for Plazas, Parklets, and Bike Corrals to choose from. Specifications provided in these documents simplify and automate the process, efficiently eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel for each project and streamlining the workflow with thoughtfully pre-approved design kits.

A parklet on Spring St. in Downtown Los Angeles. Source: Drew Ackerman, Flickr.

Some examples of the types of projects that People St. is promoting already exist in Los Angeles, including the above parklet, this bike corral in Highland Park, and the Sunset Triangle plaza in Silverlake. There's a lot to like here, whether or not one views this trend as DIY urban design "selling out" in a sense.  And the L.A. effort certainly responds to a need, not only for more public space and bicycle infrastructure at the expensive cars, but among citizens to make positive changes themselves. Several of my interviewees there said quite explicitly that they "wish the city would do it" so that they wouldn't have to. As one male cycling activist put it, "if there’s a place where we can do it […] up to spec and everything, we should be able to put it in ourselves."  This is pretty much exactly what LADOT is hoping. 

Of course, there are still reasons to keep a critical eye on these efforts. Not least is that, while they are touted as ways of expanding a city's public space (they are, after all, small parks), from the way the application/approval process is structured to the basic realities of contemporary urban economics, they can tend to wind up as little more than cute extensions of an adjacent business (which is often responsible for upkeep, bringing chairs in at night, etc). If something is essentially designed to look like outdoor seating for a sidewalk cafe, it may not appear at all welcoming or accessible to everyone no matter how many signs define its public-ness. And then there's the question of whether such hip improvements can be viewed as indicators (or even catalysts) of gentrification... but that's an argument for another day. For now, L.A.'s effort does at least seem to indicate a broadly positive (and refreshing) step among city officials and planners there, one that does justice to what Mayor Garcetti calls the "fundamental shift in how we make our city streets safer and more enjoyable."

"Do-it-Yourself Urban Design" in City & Community

My article, "Do-it-Yourself Urban Design: The Social Practice of Informal 'Improvement' Through Unauthorized Alteration," has been published in City & Community. It was published in early view in September 2013 actually, and will be in the next print issue (vol. 13, no. 1). 

The folks at the journal and the publisher, Wiley-Blackwell, have been super supportive and are making the article free (i.e. not behind the academic paywall) all year, so go download it here!: http://bit.ly/DIYurbandesign

Do-it-Yourself Urban Design
The Social Practice of Informal 'Improvement' Through Unauthorized Alteration

There are numerous ways in which people make illegal or unauthorized alterations to urban space. This study identifies and analyzes one that has been largely ignored in social science: explicitly functional and civic-minded informal contributions that I call “do-it-yourself urban design.” The research, which began as an investigation into more “traditional” nonpermissable alterations, uncovered these cases—from homemade bike lanes and street signs to guerrilla gardens and development proposals—that are gaining visibility in many cities, yet are poorly accounted for by existing perspectives in the literature. This article examines the existing theories and evidence from interviews and other fieldwork in 14 cities in order to develop the new analytical category of DIY urban design. I present findings on the creators of these interventions, on their motivations to “improve” the built environment where they perceive government and other development actors to be failing, and on the concentration of their efforts in gentrifying areas. This introduces the possibility of conflict and complicates their impact. I argue that DIY urban design has wide-ranging implications for both local communities and broader urban policy.

They also gave me the opportunity to create a 'video abstract' for the research, which you can see below. I'm a goober but it features some other friendly faces and familiar names behind the scenes. 

Do-It-Yourself Urban Design | City & Community Video Abstract 

from Sawyer-Lux | QUALITY CUTS on Vimeo.

Thanks to everyone who helped with both the article and the video!

No Posts in 2013!

It's true. It was a wild year. I completed remaining data collection and the bulk of the analysis for my dissertation and got a lot of writing done. I worked on two articles for publication (one of which has just come out) and presented a paper at ASA. I spent most of the first half of the year working on the "Spontaneous Interventions" exhibition, which we traveled to Chicago for an excellent and very well-received run from May to September at the Chicago Cultural Center. I hope to post some post-dated entries on some of these (great pictures from SI:Chicago!) back in 2013 when I get around to it.

Most importantly (and the best reason for not having spent any time blogging), my partner Emily and I welcomed our daughter into the world. Isla Peregrine Art Douglas was born on April 8th, 2013, in Brooklyn, New York, in a room overlooking the harbor. She's nine months now and continues to be the coolest thing ever in the world.

"Lefebvre and Whyte Hit the Streets"

I had a great time at the 14th annual Chicago Ethnography Conference last week at UIC. I saw some great talks and some great friends, and got to give a paper in a neat session on Public Spaces. The paper, "Lefebvre and Whyte Hit the Streets," presents some new findings from my dissertation research on "DIY Urban Design" and is sort of a first attempt at a 'free-standing' article/chapter to come out of it. Here's the abstract:

Lefebvre and Whyte Hit the Streets
The Diffusion of Scholarly Urbanism and the Rise of the Informal Urban Designer

There are numerous ways in which people make illegal or unauthorized alterations to urban space, its uses, or meanings. This paper is based on my research into a particular type of spatial intervention: creative, highly localized, and largely anonymous practices aimed explicitly at “improving” particular aspects of the built environment without permission. Examples include people painting their own crosswalks and bicycle lanes, gardening vacant lots and public spaces, building and installing benches and other street furniture, or creating faux-official signage to promote desired civic improvements or commemorate unheralded events – what I call “do-it-yourself urban design.” We all have our assumptions about the meanings of these types of things, who makes them, why, and where, and they raise questions of context, rights, responsibilities, and perhaps unintended consequences. To that end, this paper presents one of the more unexpected and potentially significant findings - the degree to which many members of this group of informal placemakers are in fact informed by quite sophisticated knowledge of planning, design, and academic urbanism. Building from qualitative fieldwork and interviews with individuals in nine cities, I show how the ideas of professional planning and design and scholarly urban theory feature in the work of do-it-yourself urban designers. I argue that this knowledge inspires their actions, informs their justifications, and produces a self-reflexivity on their parts that at once emboldens them and raises personal ethical dilemmas about unintended consequences.

AAG 2012

The annual Association of American Geographers conference is in full swing here in New York City. I'm excited to be in the program twice, for both a panel discussion this afternoon and a paper session on Tuesday.

This afternoon I'm really looking forward to the panel on Parsing the Politics and Practice of 'DIY' that I organized with my friends and colleagues Brian Hracs of the University of Toronto and Uppsala University, and Michael Seman of U.T. Arlington. As we write in the abstract, the panel will "bring together an interdisciplinary group of scholars to discuss the evolution of the term and its value as a topic of conceptual and empirical inquiry. Drawing on studies of music, art, fashion, cycling culture and urban revitalization the panelists will unpack the intersections between alternative identities and practices and how activities associated with D.I.Y. shape, and are shaped by, local spaces and scenes." Our excellent panel also includes: Patrick Adler (UCLA), Alison Bain (York), Dan Campo (Morgan State), Doreen Jakob (Exeter), and Johan Jansson (Uppsala).

Then, on Tuesday morning, I'll be presenting my most recent findings from my dissertation research on DIY urban design in talk entitled "Don't Wait for Anybody to Give you Permission: Unauthorized Urban Design 'Contributions' in the Contemporary City". It will be part of a great-sounding session on "Locating Alternative Geographies Through the Spatial Imaginary" organized by Ingrid Butler and Asha Best. The abstract can be found here.

El Urbanismo Informal de Ciudad Mexico

I had the extreme pleasure of spending a couple of weeks in Mexico City this month, working with the rainwater harvesting group Isla Urbana in the city's Tlalpan delegacion and conducting research on DIY urban design all over town. It is an amazing place to do this research, because the range of informal urban design interventions here is staggering, on a scale to match the immensity and diversity of this amazing city.

On the one hand, as a dynamic and international 'global city,' hip cultural scenes and world-class architecture and design thinking set the stage for excellent examples of the sort of high-concept unauthorized improvements seen in L.A., Toronto, and London. Groups like Haz Ciudad - formed in large part by professional designers and planners - have embraced the concept of 'wikiciudad', the idea that anyone can edit and modify cities (see this excellent piece by my friend Jimena).

Here, Haz Ciudad's "wikilane" near the Mercado Jamaica in del. Venustiano Carranza has stayed put for months and become part of the fabric of everyday life in the neighborhood.
At the same time, however, in keeping with its duel identity as very much a southern, 'developing world' capital, Mexico City also essentially runs on informal urbanism.

Here, a couple of community members simply repave their street in a hillside neighborhood of Xochimilco. And below, an informal settlement and bodega constructed along a public bike path in Tlalpan.

Muchísimas gracias a todos en Isla Urbana y mis increíbles guías turísticos y compañeros de ciclismo Jimena y Oscar! Hasta la próxima!

(These are just a few favorites. If you feel like sifting through the less relevant stuff, please check out this album for much more DF.)

Street Art & Magical Urbanism in Japanese Cities

A wonderful article by a_small_lab's Chris Berthelson in This Big City last month got me thinking again about a subject that's long been dear to me - informal urbanism in Japanese cities!

Chris's piece, "The Non-Intentional Landscape of Tokyo," argues that part of the magic of that city is not only its relative geographical centerless-ness, but an essentially "decentralized" way of growing, managing, inhabiting, and relating to itself. Complex redefinitions of public and private space are better understood as interconnected constellations of "scattered uchi." As he writes, "Once thus comprehended, Tokyo’s non-intentional landscape has the appearance of purposefulness in a system which is not purposefully constructed simply because purposeless is in its very nature transitory."

Well this post of mine is not really a response to this lovely bit of urban critical thought, but simply a fun reaction to it - it seems a good enough excuse to put up a few images from my last trip to Japan.

On the left, some sort of book exchange sponsored by Tokyo Metro; right, a classic example of pot gardening in public space in Kyoto. Below, graffiti along the canal in the Nakameguro area. Click for larger images.

DIY Urban Design at ASA - Las Vegas

I'll be presenting my research on do-it-yourself urban design tomorrow morning at the American Sociological Association's annual conference here in Las Vegas. I'll be joining a panel of fascinating-sounding papers in the regular session on Popular Culture, organized by Dr. Terry McDonnell with Dr. Dustin Kidd presiding. Below is a revised abstract for the paper , the circulation version of which can be found here (pdf).


Do-It-Yourself Urban Design
Making Local Improvements Through Unauthorized Alterations of Urban Space
There are numerous ways in which people make illegal or unauthorized alterations to urban space, its uses, or meanings. This paper presents a particular type of unauthorized intervention, which I distinguish from other “traditional” forms of illegal spatial intervention (graffiti, political occupation, etc.), and which has not been described in previous research: creative, highly localized, and largely anonymous practices that are aimed explicitly at “improving” the built environment of local communities – in other words, “do-it-yourself” urban design. In painting their own crosswalks and bicycle lanes, building and installing benches and other street furniture, or creating faux-official signage to promote desired civic improvements or commemorate unheralded events, people are responding to perceived inadequacies in their communities and taking design responsibilities into their own hands; even small-scale acts of aesthetic alteration assert a vision of the city as open to individual “beautification.” Building from qualitative fieldwork and interviews with individuals in London, Los Angeles, New York, Pittsburgh, Toronto, and Vancouver, I discuss the implications of these practices for understanding the contemporary city and contentious politics and raise questions of rights, responsibilities and perhaps unintended consequences.

Aspirational DIY Urbanism in Phoenix

Came across this wall on N. 4th St. in Downtown Phoenix today. Had been to the area before on previous visits (it's right near the Roosevelt Row arts district) but this was new to me.

(click to read sign in bigger image)

I wound up meeting the woman behind the project and "Rogue Green" just a couple blocks away in a cafe on 5th, seems it's been a great success. You can learn more about the project at http://roguegreen.blogspot.com/

Here's Brian having a go at it:

Touring Toronto with the Urban Repair Squad

I was up in Toronto last month for the Experience the Creative Economy conference at the UofT's Martin Prosperity Institute (see earlier post). While I was in town I had the honor and privilege of taking an impromptu guided tour of D.I.Y. urbanism in the city with a spokesperson for the acclaimed local bike lane champions and all-around unauthorized do-gooders The Urban Repair Squad.

Anti-bike signs on the TTC were replaced with a more bike-friendly message (above), and even some classic pieces, like these bike-lane commentaries and "pothole onomatopoeia" are a bit worn down but still doing their part.


As my URS liaison explained, "the group kind of fulfills an official function [...] Above all it asks questions about how urban design is used, and what it is used for."

We also saw some fantastic street art:

Above, Posterchild stencil and others. Below, a piece by Poser (is it?) in Kensington Market, and a slightly disregarded Banksy in an alley. (Click for larger images)

DIY Urban Design and the Creative Economy

I'm honored to have been selected to participate in the Experience the Creative Economy conference at the University of Toronto's Martin Prosperity Institute, June 21st-23rd. I'll be speaking about my research on DIY urban design and what it may have to tell us about spatial rights and responsibilities in the so-called 'Creative City', and taking part in three days of collaborating and workshopping around issues pertaining to creativity and economic development. Here's the abstract for my paper:


Do-It-Yourself Urban Design
'Improving' the City Through Unauthorized, Creative Contributions

There are numerous ways in which people make illegal or unauthorized alterations to urban space, its uses, or meanings. This paper presents research into a particular type of unauthorized intervention: the creative, highly localized, and largely anonymous practices that are aimed explicitly at “improving” particular aspects of the built environment. In other words, informal “do-it-yourself” urban design contributions. In painting their own crosswalks and bicycle lanes, building and installing much-needed benches and other street furniture, or creating faux-official signage to promote needed civic improvements or commemorate unheralded events, people respond to perceived inadequacies in their communities and take design responsibilities into their own hands; even small-scale acts of aesthetic alteration, such as guerrilla gardening, billboard liberation, and yarn-bombing, assert a vision of the city as popular space open to creative, individual “beautification.” Building on twelve months of qualitative fieldwork and interviews with 40 individuals in six cities (London, Los Angeles, New York, Pittsburgh, Toronto, and Vancouver), I distinguish these practices from “traditional” forms of illegal spatial intervention and discuss their implications for understanding our relationship to the contemporary city. We do not normally think of the urban built environment as something we can reshape at our whim; its uses and meanings are normatively – and often legally – defined and regulated, essentially altered only by professionals. That an increasing number of individuals treat the built environment as open to personal reinterpretation raises a number of questions concerning rights, responsibilities and popular expectations as well as wider and perhaps unintended consequences.

DIY Urban Design Piece on GOOD.is

[Updated]

Happy to report that a brand new piece of mine is now up on GOOD! It's sort of a glorified slideshow of various instances of DIY urbanism (taken by both myself and others) and featuring short descriptions and quotes from my ongoing research. The piece is out just in time for the presentation I'm giving on this work at the annual meeting of the Assoc. of American Geographers.

Click the screenshot to visit the article on GOOD.is:

Please check it out!
http://bit.ly/DIYUrbanDesign

UPDATE: I'm happy to say the piece has received a ton of great attention, including a nice summary on Planetizen that I'm particularly proud of, as well as other blogs and heaps of tweets from such esteemed urban design commentators as Allison Arieff and Richard Florida. Thanks everyone for taking a look!

"DIY Urban Design" Headed to ASA

A paper presenting the results of my dissertation research pilot study has been accepted for presentation at the American Sociological Association's annual conference in Las Vegas this August. I'll be in the regular session on Popular Culture, organized by Dr. Terry McDonnell. This is an abstract for the paper.


Do-It-Yourself Urban Design
Making Local Improvements Through Unauthorized Alterations of Urban Space

All manner of unauthorized alterations and occupations of the built environment can be seen in the city, from juvenile bathroom graffiti to organized political demonstrations. Indeed, practices like graffiti and street art, guerrilla gardening, and the unauthorized use of particular spaces for unconventional purposes have become relatively common features of urban life in recent decades. Limited existing social science research on these alterations (which I collect for shorthand as "spatial interventions") tends to group these practices into one of two basic categories: as strategies of radical political protest and even "resistance," or as little more than concept art, self-promotion, juvenile acting out, or criminal vandalism. Yet in new research I have found many cases that do not fit comfortably with either perspective. These practices are better described (and thus distinguished) by a third logic: intentional but small-scale, ground up, creative "improvements" to particular spaces. This paper briefly reviews the existing literature to draw out its core assumptions, and then presents the findings from a six month study of spatial intervention practices in New York, Los Angeles, and London that suggests an alternative understanding of unauthorized alterations as D.I.Y. urban design contributions.

DIY Urban Design at the L.A. Eco Village

Among the first instances of do-it-yourself urbanism that I became aware of a few years ago were the projects of the Los Angeles Eco Village, and learning about them was a big influence on my decision to pursue my research on these and similar activities in cities around the world.

I was fortunate to go back again this week to meet with Joe Linton and other residents of this cooperative living 'intentional community,' near Vermont and Beverly in central Los Angeles. Over the years they have reclaimed their intersection with street art (à la Mark Lakeman and Portland City Repair), painted their own crosswalks, and placed seating and trees in a beautiful bulb-out to calm traffic on the street. They've also been known to calm traffic a little more actively, by closing their street with street parties and family dinners. Here are some more recent pics:

Looking to Journalism for Inspiration in Quality Cultural Analysis

I just finished reading Chrystia Freeland's remarkable study of "the new global elite" in Atlantic. And I use the word study intentionally - this is among the best new and academically-relevant writing on 'elites' in years, even the more recently well-trodden ground of cosmopolitanism (Hannerz) and the transnational capitalist class (Sassen, Sklair). Freeland confirms the tenets of these concepts through colorful, quote-filled mini-biographies like that of self-described "global nomad" Mohamed El-Erian - raised between Egypt, France, the US, the UK, and Switzerland, Oxbridge educated, now CEO of German-owned but US-based bond manager Pimco, and currently living in Laguna Beach while spending his weeks shuttling between major global cities. Of course, rigorous social science research, with its empirical falsifiability, corroborating statistics, and powerful theoretical connections, is indispensable. But not necessarily any more so than the insights provided by Freeland's sweeping, interview-driven narrative. Her broader conclusions, especially regarding the increasing importance of "intra-emerging-market" collaboration and trade, and the extent of plutocratic antipathy for the American middle class, are certainly important.

Freeland presents this not only clearly, but compellingly - and not only in the sense that one is compelled to agree with her 'findings,' but that one is actually compelled to continue reading! I mean I'm not even all that interested in the subject matter (rich people) or the premise (these rich people are especially and differently rich, a class unto themselves), but I just read it because it was the cover story and now here I've jumped up to blog about it immediately upon finishing it. God forbid a bit of cultural analysis also be a page turner! And the stuff of the business pages no less!

As for the research itself, if the single greatest challenge to the study of elites is famously "access," it is no obstacle for Freeland. She has it and risks it in spades. As global editor-at-large for Reuters, and previously an editor at the Financial Times, Freeland has clearly made valuable and seemingly close connections to the super rich. Sure, the scope (and arguably the interpretation) is limited by this, but I don't think that's the point. Famous and unknown alike, Freeland has intimate quotes from them, and some of most revealing tidbits even come from a few unnamed "wives" of the new elite (does this not make them the new elite too? Freeland does not discuss familial gender equity; perhaps it will be in the forthcoming book). Her reporting from such a personal level might, it seems, risk her standing in this society (for instance she professionally attends and participates in the very elite conferences she writes about), let alone future access to these individuals. But then, perhaps that is another trait of the new elite: they quite like being talked about by global news editors in magazines like Atlantic.

Of course, this particular magazine and a few others have long been homes to brilliant reporting that walks the line between academic scholarship and popular exposé. Atlantic published Wilson and Kelling's controversial and highly-cited initial treatise on "broken windows" theory back in 1982.

Articles of this quality should be both inspiring and perhaps envy-inducing for the more journalistically-inclined social scientists like myself. The connection may be especially applicable to the study of culture. Not only does it lend itself to a somewhat "journalistic" (if I may reclaim that unhelpfully sullied word) approach to research, but its potential popular audience invites a more accessible presentation as well.

I don't want to belabor the point. Certainly there are important and necessary distinctions between "the press" and the academy, in both directions. But Freeland's piece serves as another reminder that while journalism should aim to be as informed as good science, more science should also aim to be as informing as good journalism.

DIY Urban Design & the Right to the City

I'm going to be presenting a paper as part of a panel on "Rights, Space and Places" at the American Association of Geographers annual conference in Seattle in April. The panel is being organized by James DeFilippis and David Imbroscio. This is the abstract for my paper.


Do-It-Yourself Urban Design
Reimagining the Built Environment through Place-Based, Site-Specific Art and Activism

This paper presents research into practices of place-based, site-specific art and activism that question the normative uses and meanings of urban spaces. Small-scale acts of transgressive “beautification,” such as guerrilla gardening, adbusting, graffiti, yarn-bombing and other street art, assert freedom of expression and control with the built environment as canvass, while the defiant repurposing or misusing of spaces and structures through impromptu street closing, interventionist games, and guerrilla theater temporarily challenge authority and the status quo. In the context of theories of critical spatial practice and everyday resistance (Lefebvre, de Certeau, Scott and others), I argue that these phenomena constitute meaningful expressions of consciousness and critique of the neoliberal city. Rather than formal acts of “resistance” in any strong sense, however, I draw on empirical data from fieldwork in New York, London, and Los Angeles to show that the practices should be seen as individual, informal “right to the city” claims, often in direct response to specific socio-spatial conditions. These practices of place-based, site-specific art and activism suggest a new sense of the city’s “malleability” in some people’s eyes, defined by a willingness to reimagine the built environment on their own terms through a radical sort of ‘do-it-yourself’ urban design.

Guerrilla Gardening in London

Today I had the honor of meeting with Richard Reynolds, the guy who literally wrote the book on guerrilla gardening (though, as he is eager to remind, by no means the first to practice it). We sat on his lush high rise balcony (above; not guerrilla) as he offered some remarkable insights on his own projects and background with guerrilla gardening, and the other subjects of my research, before suggesting a few sites nearby that bare the handiwork of his comrades. Here are two images of an amazing planted traffic island on St. George's road.

The Theoretical Contexts of Practices of Spatial Contention

This is the abstract for the paper I gave yesterday at the Royal Geographical Society in London. I was part of a session on "Complex Geographies of Post-Crisis Social Movements" organized by Maarten Loopmans and Walter J. Nichols.


Expression, Critique, and Resistance in Localized Practices of Contesting and Reclaiming Urban Space

This study suggests an understanding of contemporary practices of contesting or reclaiming urban space as instances of highly individualized, localized resistance to the commoditization of cityspace under advanced capitalism. Phenomena including so-called guerrilla gardening, adbusting and graffiti, political squatting, and other spatially-attuned activism and expression have received relatively little scholarly attention, yet could benefit from consideration in the context of critical geography and social movements literatures. At the same time, the theories behind these disciplines stand to gain from the empirical analysis of these phenomena.

With their subtle but swiftly growing importance in many cities over the past several decades, practices of spatial reclaiming also present examples of the rapid development and uptake of new repertoires of ‘contentious performance’ (Tilly), while the forms taken by this expression also raise questions of scale and place for contentious politics. This paper considers the meaning of these highly informal, localized, and often quite individual spatial actions for social movement studies as well as critical theory. Through a focused analysis of the relevant literature and research on critical spatial practice, everyday resistance, and the neoliberal city as preeminent site of struggle (including Lefebvre, Harvey, de Certeau, Scott, Goonewardena and others), I offer a theory of reclaiming as an expression of critique and resistance to contemporary urban socio-spatial conditions, as well as the methodological context in which specific instances of these phenomena can be studied and understood.

On the Link Between Urban Space and "Everyday" Resistance

As I continue my research into the practices of urban spatial “reclaiming” and “intervention” that I’m calling “localized spatial contention,” a sort of ongoing project in much of my thinking has been clarifying the connection between urban space and “resistance.” In general this is obvious enough for anyone with a mind for critical human geography or other spatialized political economy, viewing cityspace as a primary site for the production and consumption of capital and thus a primary site for resistance. Sociologists, political scientists and others have likewise emphasized the easily observable fact that cities – their streets, public spaces, and buildings – are frequent cites of popular struggle. More subtly though, what about the ideas of self-expression and ‘critique’ as amounting to sub-revolutionary forms of resisting alienation and false consciousness that can be found in the writings of Henri Lefebvre, Michel de Certeau, and later cultural theorists?

Lefebvre sees the everyday dialectically, not only the trivial, stultifying, and alienating construct of mass culture but also – thus – as the venue for consciousness and transformation. He writes that transformation of society can only be achieved through transformation of the everyday, because the problem of revolutionary totality “is posed and is resolved on the level of everyday life” (1947 [2008], p 250). Consciousness alone is powerful: “consciousness of alienation – that strange awareness of the strange – liberates us, or begins to liberate us, from alienation” (1957 [2008], p 20). And so Lefebvre saw the practice of critique as itself emancipatory and something we might all engage in (even if he is inconsistent on the possibilities here and their value; see also my previous post on Lefebvre’s theory of “moments”).

The connection with space – and urban space in particular – came along with the rest of Lefebvre’s “spatial turn” that came to define his work in and beyond the 1960s. Lefebvre saw “the urban” as a new era or epoch of society, tied to the dominant mode of production (i.e. from feudal to industrial to urban), a “problematic” through which hegemonic social and economic forms (sometimes described as the far order) can be understood – and contested – in the everyday (the near order). These forms or levels come together as a single arena for Lefebvre’s lifelong critical project, the twin dialectics of the everyday and the urban: everyday life is a realm of alienation and false consciousness, yet it is through engagement with everyday life that one might transform the everyday, and thus transform social reality; the urban is where the hegemony of ‘far order’ global-level conditions are at their starkest and space is organized most explicitly for state control and the accumulation of capital, yet it is where the far order and the near order come together, and the site of contention.

In fact, as Goonewardena (2005, p 67) suggests, Lefebvre’s vision of revolutionary struggle is perhaps most clearly understood in terms of all three levels: a struggle waged against the hegemony of the “global,” using the utopian energies and possibilities inherent in the contradictions of “everyday life,” fought on the terrain of the urban intermediary. This is the link between urban space and everyday resistance.

What’s more, the starkness of the contradictions and the need for this struggle are, arguably, all the more apparent in the contemporary, neoliberal city. In The Urban Revolution (1970 [2003], p 92), Lefebvre offers the following appraisal of the city under advanced capitalism and the need for its transformation as part of the revolutionary project, an appraisal that could serve as a rallying cry for the forms of transgressive or counter-normative localized spatial contention that I’m studying:

“Space becomes increasingly rare—it is expensive, a luxury and privilege maintained and kept up through a practice (the ‘‘center’’) and various strategies. The city does indeed grow richer. […] But it collapses under the weight of its wealth. The more it concentrates the necessities of life, the more unlivable it becomes. The notion that happiness is possible in the city, that life there is more intense, pleasure is enhanced, and leisure time more abundant is mystification and myth. If there is a connection between social relationships and space, between places and human groups, we must, if we are to establish cohesion, radically modify the structure of space.”

---

Works cited:
Goonewardena, Kanishka. 2005. “The Urban Sensorium: Space, Ideology, and the Aestheticization of Politics,” Antipode, Vol. 37, No. 1. 46-71.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1947 (2008). Critique of Everyday Life Vol. I: Introduction, 2nd Ed., trans. J. Moore. London and New York: Verso.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1957 (2008). “Foreword to the Second Edition” in H. Lefebvre, The Critique of Everyday Life Vol. I: Introduction, 2nd Ed., trans. J. Moore. London and New York: Verso.

Lefebvre's Theory of Moments

Trying to get to the core of sub-revolutionary but nonetheless valuable forms of "resistance" has become central to my theoretical inquiries recently as I try to work out a context in the literature for understanding the practices of 'spatial contention' (street art, guerrilla gardening, political squatting, other counter-normative 'urban interventions) that I am researching. One of the most fertile thinkers on these ideas is Henri Lefebvre, the French Marxist and critical theorist who is currently enjoying something of a renaissance in anglophone urban studies.

Lefebvre emphasized the value of criticism at the level of the 'everyday' and essential for the revolutionary project and saw the practice of critique as itself emancipatory and something we might all engage in. How exactly this is to be accomplished is another question, however, an ambiguity developed in fits and starts over a long career. I'm working on a more thorough review of these ideas, but one of the most interesting yet at the same time frustratingly elusive concepts is that of the "moment," something that reveals the “breadth and magnificence of the possibilities” inherent in the existential ennui of daily life (1947 [2008], p 229).

Built out of the ideas of Leibniz, Hegel, and Marx (see note below),“moments” are strenuously intangible when variously described by Lefebvre, but the important components can be drawn out. The concept first turns up in a somewhat overly-nostalgic discussion of ancient and peasant cultures that Lefebvre idealizes as having been extant prior to alienation (which was to his mind a sort of historically progressing process tied to modernity, capitalism, and the commodity form). “Mystics and metaphysicians,” he argues, “used to acknowledge that everything in life revolved around exceptional moments… These moments were festivals: festivals of the mind or the heart, public or intimate festivals” (p 250).

Moments are first discussed at length in Lefebvre's 1959 autobiographical work La Somme et le reste (from which I've recently translated a seemingly-important untranslated chapter), mostly as a concept that he admits he had long struggled to define and finally described unsatisfactorily through examples of what he calls “partial totalities”: love, play, struggle, creative activity (1959 [1989], pp 235, 237).

Two years later, Lefebvre offered a “theory of moments” in which the moment is defined as “the attempt to achieve the total realization of a possibility” (1961 [2008], p 348), and is again exemplified as love and play, and as festival. Lefebvre adds years later that some moments “are seeking to shatter the everydayness trapped in generalized exchange,” and seek to “transform daily life through poetry” (1981 [2008], pp 57, 172). A somewhat clearer summary of the idea is offered by Merrifield (2006, p 29): “Just as alienation reflected an absence, a dead moment empty of critical content, the Lefebvrian moment signified a presence, a fullness, alive and connected.” While sloppily defined by Lefebvre, the idea of the moment is important to his theory, a shared, imprecise-but-mutually recognizable meme of experience that serves as a potentially liberating exception to the everyday that is nonetheless born of the everyday.

Still, the search for the possible via the festival or the moment are not ‘revolutionary’ in themselves for Lefebvre. As others have pointed out (Trebitsch, 2002 [2008]; Merrifield, 2006; 2008) the Lefebvrian moment can be seen as somewhat analogous to (and even inspirational of) “the situation” of Guy Debord and the Situationists, yet Lefebvre disputed the idea that simply subverting the everyday will lead to consciousness of ‘real life.’ Lefebvre even seems sometimes unsure of the chances for success even through his own philosophy of praxis, turning away from the emancipatory potential of his quotidien critique at times to a more skeptical tone and language suggesting the unlikelihood of the necessary revolutionary preconditions. The possibilities for clarity and critique (and thus transformation) are always present in Lefebvre’s theory, but his optimism for them is inconsistent. Particularly in his earlier work, they are fleeting, tentative, beyond the reach of most of us most of the time, confined to “certain privileged moments of lucidity” while “most people remain imprisoned within narrow, out-of-date frames of reference” (2008a, p 247).

Furthermore, Lefebvre argues that “Consciousness must be gained over and over again through action and struggle as well as through organizations whose role is to penetrate everyday life” (p 151). Through the critique of everyday life, the individual can learn “certain infinitely delicate but efficacious techniques which will give him active power over himself qua content” (p 248), but “the problem remains: how can the ‘masses’ – whether masses of moments of masses of human beings – ‘participate’ in a total vision” (p 250). Lefebvre thus explains and essentially accommodates for the lack of socialist revolutionary transformation at once, putting the ideal ‘total moment’ on “a distant horizon beyond our present vision” (2008d, p 66) and emphasizing the value of seemingly minor, personal moments whereby the transformation of everyday life might still be slowly affected.

---

*Note: Merrifield (2006, p 29) succinctly describes the significance of “moments” for Hegel and Marx: “All dialectical movement progressed through different moments: moments of skeptical, negative consciousness defined history for Hegel; moments of contradictory unity defined and structured capitalism for Marx. All reality for both thinkers was momentary, transient, in motion, in fluid state, whether as an idea or as material reality.”

Works cited:
Lefebvre, Henri. 1947 (2008). Critique of Everyday Life Vol. I: Introduction, 2nd Ed., trans. J. Moore. London and New York: Verso.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1957 (2008). “Foreword to the Second Edition” in H. Lefebvre, The Critique of Everyday Life Vol. I: Introduction, 2nd Ed., trans. J. Moore. London and New York: Verso.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1961 (2008). Critique of Everyday Life Vol. II: Foundations for a Sociology of the Everyday, trans. J. Moore. London and New York: Verso.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1981 (2008). Critique of Everyday Life Vol. III: From Modernity to Modernism, trans. G. Elliot. London and New York: Verso.
Merrifield, Andy. 2006. Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction. New York and London: Routledge.
Merrifield, Andy. 2008. “Lefebvre and Debord: A Faustian Fusion,” in K. Goonewardena, et al. eds., Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York and London: Routledge.
Trebitsch, Michel. 2002 (2008). “Preface: The Moment of Radical Critique,” in H. Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life Vol. II: Foundations for a Sociology of the Everyday, trans. G. Elliot. London and New York: Verso.