Pour la recherche urbaine

Adisson F., Barles S., Blanc N., Coutard O., Frouillou L., Rassat F. (Eds.). (2020). Pour la recherche urbaine. CNRS Éditions via OpenEdition, 441p.

Pour la recherche urbaine est un ouvrage de prospective nationale de la recherche urbaine, initiĂ© par Sabine Barles, Nathalie Blanc et Olivier Coutard, sous l’Ă©gide du CNRS, dans le but de rĂ©flĂ©chir Ă  l’avenir de la recherche urbaine en France, au sein d’un collectif pluriel en termes d’approches, de points de vue, d’affiliations et d’anciennetĂ© de carriĂšre. BasĂ© sur les dĂ©bats de six journĂ©es d’Ă©tude et d’une Ă©cole thĂ©matique entre 2015 et 2016, cet ouvrage livre une synthĂšse riche de ce qui se fait actuellement dans la recherche française sur les villes, des questions nouvelles posĂ©es par les villes contemporaines et les processus qui s’y jouent, et enfin les directions  de recherche esquissĂ©es par les travaux et dĂ©bats rĂ©cents. La ville et la recherche urbaine y sont considĂ©rĂ©es dans leurs dimensions sociale, gĂ©ographique, Ă©conomique, matĂ©rielle, politique et environnementale. Cinquante-deux auteurs y ont pris part. CoordonnĂ© par les trois instigateurs ainsi que FĂ©lix Adisson, LeĂŻla Frouillou et Fanny Rassat, il a Ă©tĂ© publiĂ© cet Ă©tĂ© par CNRS Éditions et est accessible gratuitement en ligne. Il couvre en quatre grandes parties et seize chapitres les grands domaines de la recherche française sur les villes et propose des pistes de recherche, des questions et des propositions (thĂ©oriques, mĂ©thodologiques et organisationnelles) pour le futur de cette recherche. 

J’ai trouvĂ© la dĂ©marche de l’ouvrage trĂšs intĂ©ressante et sa lecture m’a beaucoup appris (autant sur les sujets qui me sont familiers que sur ceux qui ne le sont pas). Je trouve qu’il s’agit d’un outil indispensable pour les chercheurs francophones en Ă©tudes urbaines, jeunes ou plus confirmĂ©s, et en particulier lors de l’Ă©criture d’un projet de recherche. En effet, l’ouvrage permet, grĂące Ă  l’apport de regards complĂ©mentaires et collectifs sur questions urbaines, de fournir un Ă©tat de l’art de nombreuses questions scientifiques posĂ©es par les villes contemporaines, mais aussi de confronter son idĂ©e avec les perspectives de recherche Ă©bauchĂ©es dans les diffĂ©rents chapitres. Pour ces mĂȘmes raisons, la synthĂšse de cet ouvrage n’est pas aisĂ©e. Je vais donc tenter d’en livrer les principales lignes directrices plutĂŽt que de faire une revue chronologique des diffĂ©rents chapitres.

 


 

Tout d’abord, la richesse de l’ouvrage s’exprime par la diversitĂ© de nature des chapitres qui le composent.

Certains se prĂ©sentent principalement comme une revue thĂ©matique de la littĂ©rature. Ils offrent au lecteur un panorama de rĂ©fĂ©rences classiques et contemporaines sur un aspect de la recherche urbaine. C’est le cas selon moi du chapitre 1 sur les approches critiques, ou du chapitre 7 sur l’Ă©cologie urbaine (considĂ©rĂ©e ĂĄ la fois comme Ă©cologie dans la ville, et Ă©cologie de la ville).

D’autres chapitres proposent plutĂŽt une forme de position de recherche collective. C’est le cas par exemple du chapitre 3, dans lequel les autrices plaident pour l’usage de l’expĂ©rimentation comme mĂ©thode alternative de recherche urbaine, c’est-Ă -dire la prise en compte des citoyens, de leurs visions diverses de la ville, de leurs ressources vernaculaires et d’une forme d’improvisation dans la conduite des projets urbains. Le chapitre 9 prĂ©sente aussi certains aspects d’une position de recherche, en l’occurrence sur l’approche de la ville “par la rupture”. Les auteurs soutiennent que les crises (Ă©pidĂ©mies, attentats, sĂ©ismes) permettent de rĂ©vĂ©ler – et de donc de mieux comprendre – le fonctionnement et l’organisation des villes. “Aborder l’étude du risque par la crise pousse Ă  l’approcher Ă  partir des enjeux et de la fabrique de l’urbain. De ce fait, l’approche est plus dĂ©cloisonnĂ©e et interdisciplinaire, car aborder le risque par les alĂ©as tend Ă  disciplinariser l’étude, Ă  la segmenter en fonction de la nature de ces alĂ©as. [
] En effet, l’étude des risques urbains Ă  partir du phĂ©nomĂšne perturbateur transforme gĂ©nĂ©ralement celui-ci en principe actif, extĂ©rieur Ă  la sociĂ©tĂ© urbaine, faisant de cette derniĂšre un objet subissant. […] Envisager la crise en ville, […] C’est interroger l’urgence Ă  la fois comme condition de la gestion et comme Ă©preuve servant de justification des pratiques politiques et sociales nouvelles. […] C’est Ă©galement insister sur la rupture comme une accĂ©lĂ©ration du temps qui faire Ă©vĂ©nement et s’interroger sur le sens de cet Ă©vĂ©nement pour la ville“ (Sierra et al., chapitre 9, §2-4)

D’autres chapitres sont plus directement orientĂ©s vers une Ă©criture prospective. Ils identifient explicitement les angles morts et questions ouvertes de la recherche urbaine contemporaine. Dans le chapitre 5 sur les hiĂ©rarchies urbaines par exemple, les auteurs se demandent “jusqu’oĂč les grandes villes favorisent-elles la crĂ©ation d’une richesse qui peut ensuite ĂȘtre redistribuĂ©e? Jusqu’oĂč ne sont-elles pas au contraire gĂ©nĂ©ratrices de surcroĂźt d’inĂ©galitĂ©s? (Bisson et al., chapitre 5, §32); “les modĂšles de politiques urbaines qui [dĂ©coulent des recommandations de R. Florida] sont-ils adaptĂ©s aux centre des villes moyennes? (§17) ou encore “Y a-t-il des forces politiques qui incarnent les valeurs de l’imaginaire mĂ©tropolitain?” (§13). Sur le thĂšme des services urbains et de leur provision par les acteurs publics, le chapitre 10 propose aussi de nombreuses interrogations et de pistes de recherche. Le chapitre 16 livre quant Ă  lui un travail prospectif Ă  propos de la circulation des modĂšles urbains.

Enfin, le chapitre 4 se distingue du reste de l’ouvrage par sa forme. PlutĂŽt qu’un exercice collectif d’Ă©criture sur un thĂšme donnĂ©, il rend compte de discussions ayant eu lieu lors d’une table ronde sur l’avenir de la recherche urbaine.

 

En termes de sujets abordĂ©s, il est intĂ©ressant de noter que trois fils rouges apparaissent dans la majoritĂ© des chapitres de l’ouvrage, que se soit comme objets, facteurs ou ressources de la recherche urbaine : la comparaison entre villes “du Nord” et villes “du Sud”, la problĂ©matique environnementale et la question du numĂ©rique. Ainsi, les villes du Sud sont Ă©voquĂ©es, non plus seulement en lien avec le dĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique, mais pour introduire l’importance des donnĂ©es massives dans la construction de politiques publiques de planification (Chapitre 2), pour insister sur les enjeux de mobilitĂ© durable dans les villes dont l’Ă©talement se poursuit (Chapitre 5), sur l’enjeux d’une notion floue comme celle de rĂ©silience sur les financements institutionnels dirigĂ©s vers les villes qui la promeuvent (Chapitre 9) ou encore Ă  propos des mobilisations citadines (Chapitre 12). Par ailleurs, les non-humains – animaux et vĂ©gĂ©taux – sont plutĂŽt bien reprĂ©sentĂ©s dans cet ouvrage, en ce qu’ils permettent d’envisager de nouvelles dĂ©finitions de la ville (Chapitre 6) ou de mieux comprendre son fonctionnement Ă©cologique (Chapitre 7). La dimension matĂ©rielle  de la ville est aussi mise Ă  l’honneur, notamment dans la deuxiĂšme partie du livre. Le chapitre 1 l’envisage comme un marqueur de certaines approches critiques, le chapitre 8 s’en empare pour dĂ©crire le mĂ©tabolisme urbain, le chapitre 9 s’en sert pour analyser les consĂ©quences des crises urbaines et le chapitre 13 pour rĂ©vĂ©ler les dispositifs sociotechniques de la production urbaine. Enfin, l’urban gĂ©nĂ©ralisĂ© et de la gestion des communs sont Ă©voquĂ©s Ă  plusieurs reprises mais plutĂŽt comme des thĂšmes problĂ©matiques ou non rĂ©solus de la recherche urbaine française.

En termes d’approches, l’ouvrage fait la part belle Ă  l’Ă©tude des acteurs (de la production et de la gestion urbaine [chapitres 13 et 14], des luttes [chapitre 12], du foncier [chapitre 15], de la transition Ă©cologique [chapitre 7], des services urbains [chapitre 10], de la circulation des modĂšles [chapitre 16], de la recherche [chapitre 4]), de leur trajectoire (notamment dans le chapitre 11 consacrĂ© Ă  la diversitĂ© ou dans le chapitre 12 consacrĂ© aux mobilisations) et de leur visibilitĂ© (mentionnĂ©es dans les chapitre 11 Ă  14 en particulier). La notion de visibilitĂ© est aussi mobilisĂ©e dans le chapitre 16 sur la circulation des modĂšles urbains : “Y a-t-il une concentration des Ă©tudes sur certains exemples emblĂ©matiques de logique entrepreneuriale (tels les mĂ©gaprojets, les waterfronts ou les business improvement districts) et une focalisation sur certains contextes gĂ©ographiques, notamment les grandes villes (du Nord et du Sud) au dĂ©triment d’initiatives moins visibles ou de certains contextes moins Ă©tudiĂ©s et moins mĂ©diatisĂ©s qui pourraient venir infirmer les hypothĂšses d’une hĂ©gĂ©monie des modĂšles nĂ©olibĂ©raux ?” (Lemaire et al., chapitre 16, §32). Les autres mĂ©thodologies abordĂ©es dans l’ouvrages sont diverses et complĂ©mentaires : des critical studies du chapitre 1 Ă  la mĂ©thode abductive pour analyses les donnĂ©es massives (chapitre 2) et Ă  l’expĂ©rimentation (chapitre 3).

En termes d’Ă©chelles gĂ©ographiques, la recherche urbaine passĂ©e, prĂ©sente et future est envisagĂ©e depuis l’Ă©chelon du bĂątiment (cf. les toits vĂ©gĂ©talisĂ©s dans le chapitre 7) Ă  celle du monde (cf., les marchĂ©s financiers globaux dans le chapitre 15), en passant par les quartiers (chapitres 11 et 16 par exemple), les municipalitĂ©s (chapitres 9, 13 et 15 par exemple) et les unitĂ©s fonctionnelles plus larges (chapitres 6 et 7 par exemple).

En termes de contexte institutionnel de la recherche urbaine, l’ouvrage insiste sur les effets nĂ©fastes des nouveaux modes de financement de la recherche urbaine sur les objets et terrains Ă©tudiĂ©s, notamment par les jeunes chercheurs (cf. chapitre 4). Ce sujet est convoquĂ© dĂšs l’introduction: “En premier lieu, nous souhaitons redire ici l’importance de s’attacher Ă  favoriser une plus grande pluralitĂ© des thĂ©matiques financĂ©es par les appels Ă  projets incitatifs. [
]. DeuxiĂšmement, et indissociablement du point prĂ©cĂ©dent, il convient de dĂ©velopper les financements non thĂ©matisĂ©s (appels Ă  projets blancs ou sur des thĂ©matiques larges) pour permettre aux Ă©quipes de sortir des sentiers battus et des sujets rebattus. TroisiĂšmement, une revalorisation importante des crĂ©dits de base des Ă©quipes et le dĂ©veloppement de formes de financement pluriannuelles, au-delĂ  du format typique (3-4 ans) des projets ANR, voire dĂ©barrassĂ©es de la logique compĂ©titive des appels Ă  projets, seraient plus cohĂ©rents avec le temps long de la recherche (surtout quand elle se veut interdisciplinaire) et des changements urbains.” (Adisson et al., introduction, §25). La collaboration interdisciplinaire avec les “sciences dures” (informatique, ingĂ©nierie, physique, biologie) est interrogĂ©e dans le chapitre 2, tandis que le chapitre 4 analyse l’importance de l’organisation de la recherche sur les production scientifiques. En particulier, “et c’est le […] paradoxe, les thĂ©matiques de la recherche urbaine sont foisonnantes et les Ă©vĂ©nements scientifiques sont nombreux, mais l’hyperspĂ©cialisation conduit Ă  un manque de dĂ©bats transversaux et thĂ©oriques ainsi que d’espaces et de temps pour les structurer.” (Adisson et al., chapitre 4, §37-8)

 

Cet ouvrage se rĂ©vĂšle comme un beau plaidoyer “pour la recherche urbaine” collective, plurielle, interdisciplinaire et critique. Il retravaille des questions trĂšs classiques sous des angles nouveaux (‘L’urbain par ses limites’ dans le chapitre 6 ou la sĂ©grĂ©gation par la diversitĂ© dans le chapitre 11) et propose des analyses de questions nouvellement classiques (comme celle des smart cities  dans le chapitre 2 ou celle des mobilisations citadines dans le chapitre 12). On pourrait  toutefois interroger le choix de mener une prospective de la recherche urbaine nationale sans questionner ou expliciter l’existence (ou non) d’une spĂ©cificitĂ© française de cette recherche.

Pour mon projet sur les inĂ©galitĂ©s urbaines, le chapitre 5 est venu conforter mon opinion que les inĂ©galitĂ©s Ă©conomiques dans et entre villes mĂ©ritent une attention plus grande et que la recherche urbaine reste encore largement Ă  faire sur ce sujet. Je souscris donc tout Ă  fait Ă  l’appel de B. Bisson et al. :

“Quelle est la contribution exacte des villes Ă  ces inĂ©galitĂ©s ? Les villes permettent-elles de maximiser la richesse collective et donc les revenus Ă  distribuer comme le soutiennent les thĂšses sur la surproductivitĂ© des mĂ©tropoles ? Dans ce cas, le problĂšme des inĂ©galitĂ©s pourrait ĂȘtre corrigĂ© par des mĂ©canismes de redistribution. Mais une autre hypothĂšse peut ĂȘtre faite : les grandes concentrations urbaines ne seraient-elles pas la cause du problĂšme ? [
] Piketty a prolongĂ© ses analyses en soulignant une dynamique de concentration spatiale d’un capital devenu patrimonial. Il a notamment appelĂ© dans un rĂ©cent article des Annales Ă  approfondir « […] les dimensions gĂ©ographiques et spatiales du capital et les effets d’échelle » (Piketty 2015, p. 132). Cet appel, qui esquisse de nouveaux champs de recherche, mĂ©rite d’ĂȘtre entendu par les Ă©tudes urbaines pour approfondir les connaissances sur les mĂ©canismes de production des inĂ©galitĂ©s, notamment monĂ©taires, au sein des villes et de leurs relations pensĂ©es Ă  l’échelle des systĂšmes urbains.” (Bisson et al., chapitre 4, §36)

 


 

Je partage ici, le type de document sur lequel s’est appuyĂ© mon compte rendu. Il est constituĂ© d’un recueil de passages du livre que j’ai considĂ©rĂ©s comme importants.

À ce jour, je n’ai pas connaissance d’autres comptes-rendus de cet ouvrage.

Ordinary cities between modernity and development

Robinson J., 2006, Ordinary cities between modernity and development, London, Routledge, 204p.

“Ordinary Cities” is now thirteen years old and it features in the reading list of many urban geography university courses, from UCL (where J. Robinson is professor of Geography) to SOAS, LSE and McGill. Its concepts and messages have diffused largely in academia (cf. for instance the 1899 citations of the book in scholarly publications at the time when this post was written), yet the predominance of western cities and western scholars in mainstream urban studies is still patent and renewed with each wave of urban ‘modernity’ (if we think of smart cities, connected cities, etc). This late review of the book content thus provides a yardstick of what it has achieved (or not achieved) since its publication in 2006.

I have first encountered the idea of Ordinary Cities while reading my friend SolĂšne Baffi’s thesis on rail transportation in South African cities. The proposition was of course well indicated in the context of Robinson’s home country of South Africa, but it resonated also with my own thesis on post Soviet cities, supposedly singular and specific, where general urban models would not apply and where mordern urban theory was not made. The whole argument of J. Robinson in this book was thus extremely attractive. It can be summarised as follow: cities are diverse, and therefore so should be urban studies. More than a scientific requirement to better understand cities and urban processes around the world, this objective of diversity is deeply militant, as argued by the author in the preface to the book: “Theories of modernity, just like South African cities, have often reserved experiences of dynamism and innovation for a privileged few, and especially for those wealthy cities and their citizens who have laid claim to originating modernity. Theories of urban modernity, then, have drawn a stark line between ‘modern’ cities and other kinds of cities, variously described as Third World, perhaps African, perhaps developing / underdeveloped, perhaps colonial. At best these ‘other’ cities have been thought to borrow their modernity from wealthier contexts, presenting pure imitations rather than offering sites for inventiveness and innovation. This book is a contribution to the task of ensuring that as scholars of cities we end our complicity in such dispossessions.” (p.x). Further along in the book, she illustrates this claims quite eloquantly: “Once New York’s urbanism has been understood as just another cosmopolitan and provincial form of modernity, any anxiety on the part of other cities about lagging behind or mimicking a modernity that is always ‘elsewhere’ (Johnson 1999) becomes less plausible.” (p.73).

 

 


 

The book consists in six chapters, which take the reader from the deconstruction of the concept of modernity (chapter 1) to the exposition of cosmopolitan ways of being urban and modern through comparative urbanism (chapter 2 and 3). A whole chapter (#4) is dedicated to the critique of city ranking, hierarchizing and labelling, arguing that world cities and global cities are more than centres of control for finance and management. The fifth chapter argues that urban studies need to put the (ordinary) city back to the centre instead of classifying them into modern or developing. Finally, chapter 6 looks at the possible and diverse futures of cities through policy and planning.

In introduction, the author clearly sets the two ambitions of the book. Firstly, she states: “it is an argument of this book that all cities are best understood as ‘ordinary’. [
] Instead of seeing only some cities as the originators of urbanism, in a world of ordinary cities, ways of being urban and ways of making new kinds of urban futures are diverse and are the product of the inventiveness of people in cities everywhere.” (p.1). The change in perception is supposed to provoke a change in perspective at the world scale, by considering cities in their simultaneous diversity rather than in a sequence of modernity adoption. Secondly, J. Robinson suggests that “we need a form of theorising that can be as cosmopolitan as the cities we try to describe. This would be a form of urban theory that can follow the creative paths of urban dwellers – across the city or across the world – as they remake cities (Simone, 1998) and that can draw on the transformative potential of shared lives in diverse, contested – ordinary – cities to imagine new urban futures.” (p.3). Therefore the dual objective of scientific understanding on the one hand and militant repossession of urban studies on the other hand appears to structure the book from its start. The way Robinson chooses to tackle this dual objective in the introduction is by exposing the parochial nature of modernity claims made by Western cities and Western scholars. The appropriation of modernity by “the West” is important because it creates a universal standard of city life and innovations with which other cities are supposed to catch-up. Debunking this claim allows the identification of urban modernity outside western cities in a contemporary and cosmopolitan manner. Robinson argues that it also provides urban planners and decision makers with a wider panel of policy options, inspired from a diversity of experiences around the world that can also be more adapted to their cities, instead of applying the same past “western” recipes. This theoretical articulation of ideas is the core contribution of the book. The following chapters then consist in illustrations of the workings of the appropriation and in research strategies to avoid the dispossession.

The first chapter, “dislocating modernity”, highlights the paradox of modernity: i.e. a concept initially related to temporality which has been diverted and perverted into a spatialised assessment of who is “in” and who is “out of time”. The way in which this diversion was achieved, according to J. Robinson, is through a constant editing/re-writing of the Western urban story to remove all contributions from other cultures: “A reconceptualization of urban modernity might begin by interrogating Western forms of modernity. For these are as much a product of dynamics from beyond the West as its own ingenuity, including primitivist-inspired borrowings, actual resource extraction and political innovations learned in colonial governance (see, for example, Stoler, 1995; Comaroff and Comaroff 1997). But western modernity’s projection of itself as the generative source of creativity relies on forgetting these circulations and borrowings.” (p.19). Cities are central to this process, since they connect people, combine ideas and inspirations at a larger scale and at a faster pace than anywhere else. The rest of the chapter explores how urban studies themselves have embedded the western conception of urban modernity. She cites the Chicago School of sociology as a powerful vector in that process, in particular by noting how Park and al’s conception of the city in opposition with “primitive” and “folk” qualities of community and emotions has imposed a very specific way of urban living as the standard for city identification. This then made it hard for cities with strong community ties and non-anonymous relationships to claim their cityness, as examplified by J. Clyde Mitchell’s struggle to have (now) Zambian cities recognized as such by urban scholards, not discounting but accounting for tribal elements of culture and social relations. Robinson’s argumentation also makes use W. Benjamin’s work on Parisian arcades as urban signals of alternative and possible futures of the western city itself: “a future where the public and the private might be intermingled and where the utopian fantasies through which technological innovations were often represented harkened back to a pre-class and pre-commodity society of plenty” (p.29).

The second chapter in the book is intitled “Re-imagining the city through comparative urbanism. On (not) being blasĂ©”. It starts from the classic contribution of L. Wirth, “Urbanism as a way of life”, which Robinson shows as a claim/attempt at explaining cities everywhere based on a North-American XXth century experience (of Chicago). For instance, she notes that the high demographic growth fueled by a diverse immigration at a time of booming industrial economy on which the theory relies is a very situated moment in the world geographical history rather than a universal path for urbanisation around the world. The scientific antidote to this appropriation lies, for Robinson, in relaying the accounts of urban research from other contexts. She especially relies on the work made by the Manchester School of anthropologists in the zambian Copperbelt. “Like the Copperbelt anthropologists and many other comparative urbanists, Oscar Lewis observed that the blasĂ© attitude of Western urban dwellers, which Simmel, Park and Wirth had seen as a cornerstone of urban sociability, was not representative of urbanism elsewhere. [
] He did not stop, though, at simply noting differences from the US analysis and with J. Clyde Mitchell, Epstein, Gluckman and South African anthropologist Philip Mayer, he went on to suggest that ‘there are many ways of life which may coexist in the same city’ (1973: 130). He insisted that his observations from Mexico should make a difference to how cities in other places are understood.” (p.57). The chapter concludes with J. Robinson advocating for a post-colonial urban theory which “establish[es] conversations because of, and across, strong empirical and theoretical differences” (p.63) and, more importantly, lets ideas flow both ways between locations “from Chicago to the Copperbelt, but also back again” (p.63) .

Ordinary cities make their appearance in the third chapter as the primary material from which a postcolonial comparative and cosmopolitan urban studies might come about: “Ordinary cities, then, exist in a world of cities linked through a wide range of circulations – of people, ideas, resources – in which cities everywhere operate both to assemble diverse activities and to create new kinds of practices. This chapter therefore introduces a new tactic for a post-colonial urban studies: a form of theorising in which the resources for thinking about cities are as cosmopolitan as the cities that are being theorised.” (p.65). Therefore J. Robinson embarks into an analysis of modernity from the perspective of a diverse pool of cities (yet mostly large state capital cities). She looks at the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur, which signal the city’s modernity to the rest of the world while excluding poor malaysian residents from it. She looks at the early Saint Petersburg where the Nevsky perspective provided the street decorum for individual performance and recognition in a context of poor infrastructure and peasant economy. She also draws from Zambian cities and how the second-hand clothing trade allowed citizens to express their modernity through styling at a time of post-structural adjustment. All these examples participate in showing that “the experiences of poor people, or cities in poor contexts, do not stand for the ‘past’ of Western urbanism – either as sites of tradition or economic backwardness – but are contemporaneous social formations that have produced diverse and distinctive ways of being urban. With inventive traditions and appropriated copies, urbanisms in poor places stand alongside other ways of being modern and can illustrate experiences of city life in other contexts. But, as we will consider briefly in the conclusion, if poor cities are not the ‘past’ or simply ‘copies’ of Western urbanism, neither, I suggest, are they its future.” (p.90).

In chapter 4, “World cities, or a world of ordinary cities?”, the author introduces the concepts of world-cities and global-cities and how their success moved the attention from the dynamic processes they were supposed to describe (the globalised economic relations between cities and concentration of command over some of these relations in a limited number of nodes) to a fixed hierarchy of cities from which poor cities are excluded, deemed irrelevant and relegated from urban studies to development studies. She offers an interesting alternative to this view, first by considering the “key sectors involved in managing the global economy” as just another form of industrial district (p.97), and second by considering the other sectors of the world network of cities, i.e. “commanding” cities as well as cities involved in other trades and flows. Considering all cities as ordinary enables such integration. “First, ordinary cities can be understood as unique assemblages of wider processes – they are all distinctive, in a category of one. [
] Second, and learning much from global- and world-cities approaches, ordinary cities exist within a world of interactions and flows. However, in place of the global- and world-cities approaches that focus on a small range of economic and political activities within the restrictive frame of the global, ordinary cities bring together a vast array of networks and circulations of varying spatial reach and assemble many different kinds of social, economic and political processes. Ordinary cities are diverse, complex and internally differentiated.” (p.108-9). The added-value of this change of perspective is argued to be found beyond urban studies and theory building, in the practice of urban planning, as it would provide decision makers with a wider diversity of inspirations for policy rather than the restricted example of so-called world cities to catch up to.

“Bringing the city back in” in the fifth chapter means considering cities in their diversity and internal inequalities. “Rather than theories of world cities, which encourage competitive behaviour amongst cities and focus on a very small segment of the urban economy or developmentalist accounts, which zoom in on the poorest and least well-provisioned areas of the city, urban studies will need to explore the dynamics of socially and economically diverse cities. Both globalising economic sectors and the needs of the poorest citizens will have to be considered, bringing the ordinary city, in all its complexity and diversity, firmly into view.” (p.117). In short, the analysis Robinson recommends at this point of the book thus comprises various sectors of city life and the economy, within cities and city-regions as well as between them, in rich as well as in poor cities. This vast program is illustrated with a very specific analysis of Johannesburg metropolitan governance within the iGoli project, although not necessarity laid out in terms of generic research tools and methodology.

Chapter 6 (“Cities futures”) implements the ordinary cities perspective into urban planning. It looks at economic prescriptions maybe by western urban economists in western contexts regarding the desirability of industrial diversity (or specialisation in the case of clusters). For example, in a section devoted to discussing J. Jacobs’ theory of diverse cities, J. Robinson notes that “Jacobs’s overall argument is that it is the everyday, tolerant coexistence of social difference and economic diversity that enables cities to bring together different people and different talents, to generate new activities and to enable innovation. Cities that encourage segregation – physical or social – from the ‘ordinary’ city, with its jumbled mixtures of uses and people, she suggests, will lack vitality and perhaps die. [
] Clearly, diverse neighbourhoods, the physical coexistence of a range of business environments and the spatial concentration of diverse activities can have the generative social and economic effects she described. But cities do not always get to be like that, and yet they remain sites for economic growth and innovation.” (p.159). However, she finds room to accomodate Jacobs’ theory within the ordinary cities framework by switching the scale of analysis from the neighbourhood to the city. “This chapter [shows] how keeping in mind the ordinary city – diverse, contested, connected – brings into view a range of potential strategies for enhancing economic growth that could encourage redistributive investments in infrastructure, as well as expand access to employment and support different kinds of livelihoods. Reinforcing the broadest agglomeration economies of cities, it has been suggested, along with encouraging diverse urban economies, might be more useful strategies than pouring scarce public resources into already successful clusters of globalising firms.” (p.164-5).

The conclusion summarises the content of the book and reinforces the double message that the author has been communicating throughout: the fact that all cities are distinctive and diverse, and that urban studies need to reflect this diversity. She adds a warning about the scientific status quo: “Facing a world of ever-expanding cities, more likely than ever before to be home to poor people, urban studies cannot continue to base its theoretical insights on the experiences of a few wealthy cities: this would doom it to irrelevance.” (p.167).

 

Towards the end of the book, I must admit I was a little disappointed by the gap between the ambitious program set in introduction and the resulting implementation in the last chapters. The book is more of a manifest in my opinion, and I completely adhere to the core ideas of ordinary cities as the diverse material of a diverse urban studies. However, I found that the applications seemed too restricted in their scope to adequately prove the author’s point rather than just claim it. The message I take home is that we need to keep in mind, while we are studying cities, that they and their residents are diverse, connected and contested. This does not make a recipe on how to actually study cities, let alone design inclusive policies, but it is a significant step forward. A second point of critique I have towards the author’s method is that, although she acknowledges and celebrates diversity in cities and within cities, her resources remain very biased towards the dominant model when it comes to academic and theoretical references on the one hand, and to the type of city considered here on the other hand (. Regarding references, it is a pity that the only theories which are discussed (and criticised) are the dominant paradigms originating from prestigious US and UK scholars (the Chicago school, the GaWC, Louis Wirth, Jane Jacobs, Scott & Storper). Non-english writers are left entirely out of the schope, and so are less well-known scholars who have advocated for diverse urban studies before 2006. It leaves a false impression that ordinary cities are a theoretical greenfield emanated exclusively from an opposition to dominant english-speaking western references, which is probably not true. Regarding cities themselves, I wondered if it was a choice to restrict the analysis to large metropolises and national capitals (New York, Rio de Janeiro, Kuala Lumpur, Paris, Johannesburg, Chicago, Singapore, Saint Petersburg, Mexico city, etc.), or just an ambiguity related to the fact that nowhere are cities defined. It seems however that smaller cities have a very important role to play in the promotion of the ordinary in urban studies. To paraphrase Robinson: “urban studies cannot continue to base its theoretical insights on the experiences of a few [large] cities: this would doom it to irrelevance”.

With respect to my project about the scales of urban inequality, I have found interesting ideas about the relationship between industrial clusters and social segregation in chapters 4 and 6, which is mediated by J. Robinson through scale: “The benefits of proximity for networks of learning, cooperation and competition in dynamic clusters and specialised concentrations in some cities would be very relevant examples of innovation through single-use neighbourhoods, a kind of ‘segregation’. But, in many cases, strong concentrations of certain kinds of activities in cities do not translate into close spatial clustering, or into close interactions amongst similar firms, or even into stable ongoing interactions with actors […]. So, in economic terms, Jane Jacobs’s ‘ordinary city’ is perhaps best thought about at a city-wide scale where the diversity of activities that she identified as crucial to economic expansion and innovation coexist and have opportunities for the interactions she saw as crucial for generating new activities.” (p.160). I also keep her overall message about diverse, connected and contested cities in mind to draw inspiration, examples and illustrations from the most diverse pool of cities possible, large and small, from across the world when approaching urban studies.

 


 

Here I share the type of file I use to document my readings and book reviews. It is composed of citations from the book which I considered important while reading.

Other reviews of this book have been published in Belgeo, the Journal of Planning Education and Research, Justice Spatial / Spatial Justice (in French), the Journal of world-systems research, Research in African Literatures and Cultural Geographies.