1. Polarised
City
Stephen
Graham
Newcastle
University

2. Neoliberal
Ideas
of
Globalisa<on,
Urban
Change
and
Policy
• Shi?
away
from
socially
progressive
public
services,
tax
policies,
welfare
stares,
regional
and
urban
planning
of
post
WWII
period
based
on
ideas
of
egalitarian
redistribu<on
away
from
wealthy
areas
and
communi<es
to
poorer
ones
• Shi?
towards
regressive
tax
policies,
urban
policies,
welfare
policies
and
planning
based
on
suppor<ng
elites
and
well-­‐off
groups
and
places
whilst
punishing
and
blaming
poor
ones
as
the
causes
of
their
own
plight

3. Many
Aspects
of
Polarisa<on
• Managerialism
to
Entrepreneurialism
• Priva<sa<on
of
infrastructure
and
public
space
• Economic
shi?:
small
groups
of
very
wealthy
and
widening
popula<on
living
very
insecure
working
lives,
linked
to
flexible
service
economy,
in
or
around
poverty
• Ci<es
as
spectacles
designed
for
outsider-­‐consump<on
and
marke<ng
and
less
for
needs
of
the
poor
• From
planning
whole
ci<es
to
flagship
‘regenera<on’
projects
and
‘tourist
bubbles’
• ‘Revanchist
city’
–
‘taking
back’
ci<es
and
public
spaces
from
poorer
groups
or
those
deemed
to
get
in
way
of
consump<on
for
middle
class
and
wealthier
groups
• Gentrifica<on

4. Revanchist
Public
Space
Policies
• Away
from
the
idea
of
universal
rights
of
access
to
all
ci<zens
• ‘Zero
tolerance’
policing
to
protect
consumers
• Intense
CCTV
• Priva<sed
public
and
semipublic
space
• Aggressive
security;
bylaws;
prohibi<ons;
exclusion
of
homeless,
beggars,
skateboarders,
teenagers
and
those
seen
to
cause
fear
and
anxiety
to
tourists
and
shoppers
• Started
in
1990s
New
York

5. Social and Spatial Polarisation
‘Gini’ coefficient – a measure of equality and inequality in societies. 0.00 = completely equal;
1.00 = completely unequal
Below, in UK = AHC = ‘after housing costs; BHC= before housing costs

6. •
• World Bank Economists noted in 2002 that “the richest
1 percent of people in the world get as much income
as the poorest 57 percent.”
• Startlingly, by 1988, the richest 5 percent of the
world’s population had an average income 78 times
greater than that of the poorest 5 percent.
• Only five years later this has ridden to a multiple of
114.
• At the same time, the poorest 5 of the world’s
population actually percent grew poorer, losing 25
percent of their real income.
•
Milanovic, Branco ,’ True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First Calculations Based on Household Surveys Alone’"
The Economic Journal, v. 112 (January), 2002, pp 51-92.

7. • By 2006 it was estimated that there were 10.1 million
individuals around the world worth over $1 million, excluding
the value of their homes, a growth of 6% from 2005. Each
had, on average, over $4m. This ‘transnational capitalist
class’ now constitute what Citigroup researchers call “the
dominant drivers of demand” in many contemporary
economies. They operate to skim the “cream off productivity
surges and technology monopolies, then spend [] their
increasing shares of national wealth as fast as possible on
luxury goods and services.” Kipper Williams,
•
Both quotes from Mike Davis and Daniel Monk, ‘Introduction,’ Mike Davis and Daniel Mon (Eds.), Evil
Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neoliberalism, New York: New Press, 2007, pp. Xi.-xii.
• For
the
richest
10
percent
of
the
UK
popula<on,
incomes
rose
in
real
terms
by
68
percent
between
1979
and
1995.
Their
collec<ve
income
now
matches
that
of
the
poorest
70%
of
the
na<on
For
the
richest
10
percent
of
the
UK
popula<on,
incomes
rose
in
real
terms
by
68
percent
between
1979
and
1995.
Their
collec<ve
income
now
matches
that
of
the
poorest
70%
of
the
na<on

8. Urban
Landscapes
Increasingly
Reflect
This
Polarisa<on:
e.g.
Liverpool
One:
Priva<sed
City
Centre
Enclave

9. Business Improvement Districts;
“Malls Without Walls”

11. Urban Dimensions: Polarised Urban Landscapes
‘Streets and Urban Public Spaces Growth of Private Consumption Enclaves

12. Bypass Public Streets: Hong Kong

13. Bypass Traditional Streets: Boston

14. Domestic Fortressing
e.g. Post-Apartheid
S. Africa

15. Post-Apartheid
gating and
Road Closures,
Johannesburg

16. Sao Paulo

17. Gating now norm around many US cities
(e.g. Phoenix)

19. More Aggressive and Self-Contained Automobiles

20. Proliferation of Private Security Forces

21. Global Offshoring of Elites
(Offshore finance cities)
Even Efforts at Complete
Territorial Secession
(e.g. Freedom Ship “The
City at Sea”)
see http://
www.freedomship.com/

23. Privatised
Infrastructure
Growth of Private,
Charged Highways
e.g. Highway 407
Toronto & US ‘EZ
Pass’

24. Congestion Charging

25. Heathrow Express

26. New Elite
Technology
Districts e.g.
Kuala Lumpur

27. Splintering of Key
Financial Cores
as ‘Security
Zones’
e.g. London’s
Ring of Steel

28. New communications grids ‘cherry pick’ only most lucrative
spaces e.g. COLT in London

29. Global South Cities: Small elites
gated enclaves surrounded by
mass, informal city
e.g. premium water pipes merely
walking paths for Mumbai shanty
dwellers

31. Durban, South Africa

32. 4. Conclusion:
• Neoliberal forms of globalisation are exacerbating social and
geographic inequalities in all types of cities
• Wealthier groups organising globalisation doing well, even in the
crisis; many lower income groups struggling because of economic,
technological and policy shifts
• ‘Revanchist’ city increasingly hard-edged: Criminalises and
excludes those who are ‘failed consumers’ ‘taking back’ city for
wealthy consumers
• Who’s City is it? How can more redistributive and progressive
policy and planning solutions be brought back in the wake of the
current crisis?
• Social and spatial justice and democracy! The ‘right to the city’

33. Social-­‐Ecological
Movements

34. Housing/
An<
gentrifica<on/
an<-­‐
neoliberalism
Movements

35. An<
Austerity/
Priva<sa<on
Movements

36. Ethnic
and
Sexual
Minority
Movements

37. An<
Surveillance
Movements

38. By
next
week…
• Read
Atkinson,
Macleod,
and
one
other
piece
• Find
an
example
of
a
social
movement
in
a
city
aimed
at
figh<ng
for
social
and
spa<al
jus<ce