University of Amsterdam Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Urban Studies (Research MSc)
Framing urbanity in planning visions
What it tells us about dominating powers that drive
urban intervention and its effects on the individual
experience of space
Daniela Brose
Student Daniela Brose
10861556
Katzerstr. 20, 10829 Berlin, Germany brosedaniela@gmail.com
Supervisor/1st reader dhr. dr. Federico Savini
Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies 2nd reader prof. dr. Willem Salet
Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies Submission date 4August 2016
Abstract
Visions of urban renewal projects are official representations of space; as such, they reproduce power structures and prescribe the meaning of space based on their understanding of urbanity. Embedded in an institutional context of planning, these visions are shaped by political economy instead of social values. Furthermore, these visions prove to be simplified, idealised and static. Space is meaningful and an important component in the identity-formation of each individual. Their experience of space is subjective, complex, and emergent. Based on this understanding, this papers reconceptualises urbanity as a cognitive construct, or urban imagery. From this three themes are developed—identity, values, and inclusiveness— to guide the framing analysis of urbanity in the planning visions of two cases of urban intervention: East Quayside in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the Potsdam Square. The themes illustrate those elements of urbanity, which a common understanding in planning and design omit.
key words: urbanity, framing, representations of space, meaning, environmental awareness
1. Introduction
Spaces, then, may be constructed in different ways by different people, through power struggles and conflicts of interest. This idea that spaces are socially constructed, and that many spaces may co-exist within the same physical space is an important one. It suggests the need to analyse how discourses and strategies of inclusion and exclusion are connected with particular spaces.
(Flyvbjerg and Richardson, 1998: 9–10)
This paper attends to the concept of urbanity, the creation of its imagery in the processes of urban intervention, and its effects on the individual meaning of space. Over the past decades, urbanity has been a focal point in urban studies, mainly as an idea which can accommodate various desired states of the urban condition. However, by applying the concept of the social production of space (Lefebvre, 1991) and contemplating urbanity critically, we can delineate the problematic relationship between the meaningful individual experience of built urban space, social practices, and the effect of urban intervention on both of them.
Simultaneously to the physical material space, there also exist immaterial spaces—or constructed spaces. These constructed spaces comprise both representations of space and cognitively constructed spaces, the lived spaces of each individual. Representations of space are static and reductionist conceptions of urban areas, mainly created for analytical and administrative purposes. Cognitively constructed spaces, however, are imaginative lived spaces, which are intangible and dynamic. Urban space is power-laden and fraught with competing symbols and layers of meaning. Since the urban environment in particular is a spatial product of society (Lefebvre, 1991), it carries cultural and social information—thus the material surface of a city reverberates symbols, values and meaning (Peri Bader, 2015; Ittelson, 1978). Official representations of space, such as planning visions or agendas, prescribe and dominate meaning through framing. Because they are embedded in the socially constructed institution of planning, they also reproduce power structures. Thus, the content and the effect of representations of space, as the dominant form of space (Lefebvre, 1991), has to be made a primary topic for research in order to discover new angles of how to think about the city as living space and as a provider for meaning and identity.
Urban intervention, such as urban renewal projects, are accompanied with truth-claiming visionary plans, which entail statements about political, economic, social and cultural values. As a result they simplify social reality and subsume the possibility of multiple meanings and identities. Furthermore, visions are not the result of democratic values and reflection about society. The right to the city is not just about geographical, economic and social justice, but also about the freedom to create one’s own meaning of living in a city. Visions deprive of that right. By prescribing meaning, they disempower the individual's meaning-construction and foreclose alternative urban realities. The development of the socio-economic dynamics in cities is becoming more complex, however, planning practices prevent a realization of those.
This paper is concerned with the conceptualisation of urbanity within the planning discourse and its application in planning visions. It critically looks at how urbanity is framed in practice and asks the following questions: What are the dominating frames of urbanity mobilized in urban renewal projects? What are the factors that influence the framing of urbanity? And how are frames articulated in order to legitimize a plan? To answer these questions, I firstly reconceptualise urbanity, built on a wide-ranging literature review in urban studies, to capture the fundamental epistemology and ontology of the concept. The aim is to construct a heuristic framework, which can guide framing analysis within planning theory. In this sense, the paper aims at complementing critical analyses of large urban projects from an analytical perspective centred on the analysis of truth-claiming visions, and addressing their simplified and hegemonic nature in contrast to the alleged 'truth' of the multiplicity of meanings.
The developed themes identity, values, and inclusiveness emerged from the reconceptualisation. Secondly, the paper illustrates how the themes and frames within them relate to each other in the practice of visualizing and imagining plans, and reflects on their embeddedness in the institutional and political context. The empirical analysis shows that urbanity is constructed by a discursive articulation of these frames where some are central to instrumentally define the others in the planning process. The results show, that within the value theme, economic frames dominate. The identity theme illustrates the simplification and idealisation of the complex urban reality, and further, is utilized to support the value theme. Inclusiveness proves to be mainly defined through exclusivity, or the 'invisible.' Both analysed visions were driven by the interest of the investors, guided or fostered by the local planning system. The study is set up as a comparative case study of two completed urban renewal projects, which were significant urban interventions in the respective city. The East Quayside in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a waterfront redevelopment that was introduced in a phase of economic transformation, has dominating frames which reproduce well-known symbols of the city's identity. For the second case, Potsdam Square in Berlin, which was reconstructed as the new centre of Berlin after the fall of the wall, it was expected that the identity theme would be dominating the envisioned development. However, economic frames within the value theme dominated the vision.
2. Environmental Awareness and the Multiplicity of Meanings
The experience of the world is made up of bodily/sensual and cognitive/emotional processes for which the built environment provides stimuli. How environment is perceived and interpreted is dependent on the individual's experience, values and meaning-construction (Ittelson, 1978). A block of modern high rise office buildings, for example, can mean financial strength and influence for one person, while another person only sees corporate greed.
Research in the field of environmental awareness began to focus on the individual perception, taking the starting point from a person-in-environment perspective. For the study of urban areas, the analysis of the city involves three steps: ''a source of information, the psychological processes implicated in the extraction and utilization of that information, and the resulting phenomenology or varieties of urban experience'' (Ittelson, 1978: 199). Individuals have their own value-combination based on personality, emotions, experiences, and biographical backgrounds—all what makes a person an individual in the first place also creates the individual experience of urban space and an idiosyncratic image of the same. According to Ittelson, the space of a neighbourhood or city serves as the concretisation of values (Ittelson, 1978: 203). This indicates the reciprocal relationship between the material space and cognitively constructed spaces. Thinking about these spaces, it becomes clear that there is a maximum of individual urban realities and imageries, which add to the complexity of space.
In environmental perception, the city is seen in four exclusive categories: ''the environment as object, as self, as value, and as setting for action'' (Ittelson, 1978: 201). Out of these four the categories 'self' is the most interesting one for the purpose of this study. As Ittelson stresses, this category is rarely experienced in the Western world, where boundaries between environment and self are more distinct, as in contrast to Eastern cultures. The ''environment is experienced as an important part of one's self, as an integral component of self-identity'' (Ittelson, 1978: 202).
The permeability between self and space explains the experience of feelings of loss, when a person becomes detached from a place he or she identifies with (Ittelson, 1978: p. 202). People are connected with their environment, not just through spatial practice on an everyday basis but through dealing with the experience on many more levels.
Though experience is bound to the immediate space, it is perceived through an always evolving 'filter' shaped by past trajectories. With each person having their own way about a city, theoretical and practical interpretations of the complexity of space increase. Visions reduce this complexity and the multiplicity of meanings and lived spaces. Massey calls this complexity 'throwntogetherness' in her seminal work For Space (Massey, 2005). Therein, she makes the following propositions about space: ''(1) space is the product of interrelations, (2) space should be understood as the sphere of the possibility of the existence of multiplicity in the sense of contemporaneous plurality, and (3) that we recognize space as always under construction— meaning always emergent'' (Massey, 2008: 9). Everything and everyone, every object, or entity, has their own trajectory and space is constituted by the multiplicity of those trajectories. The complexity, interconnectedness, and singularity of trajectories are a means to better understand how individual the experience of the urban space really is and the impossibility of capturing it. The action of urban intervention through planning and policy making forms a contrast to the experience of space.
3. The Construction of Urbanity: Representations and Imageries
Urbanity is an assumingly well understood concept of urban life, entailing ideas of both the material and the immaterial urban space. What follows is a reconceptualisation of urbanity inspired by environmental perception and the cognitively constructed and lived spaces in contrast to urbanity in planning and instrumentalized spaces.
In planning and design, urbanity is seen a desirable quality (Gualini and Majoor, 2007) that adds to the sense of a place—making a city more attractive and liveable (Montgomery, 1998). These attributes themselves are controversial—so is the concept of urbanity, which is fuzzy and malleable. Most definitions convey the belief that social life can be channelled by spatial intervention and that urbanity is a condition which can be facilitated by pushing the right buttons in planning and policy-making (Gualini and Majoor, 2007). Mostly, these suggest to create a specific heterogeneity consisting of mixed use, different densities and a 'liveable' public space (Montgomery, 1998; Darchen and Napoli, 2014; Krafta, 2014; Sherman, 1988). Those ideas of urbanity reflect current utopian ideas of urban life and city design. Nonetheless, planners and designers are aware of the social, psychological and cultural dimensions of space and the feelings, impressions, and even values and ideas connected with a place (Montgomery, 1998: 100). However, these are extremely intangible and thus have no place in the planning institution. Often, the result is an attempt to make urbanity a concept with measurable indicators and thus avoid the full acknowledgement of its complexity.
The question of 'Planning urbanity?' was also picked up by Lees (2010). She recognizes that urbanity as a concept not only has its place in academic discussions and policy-making, but also gained recognition in society, mainly a very specific social group, that these days falls into the group described as the 'creative class' by Florida (2002). For this social group, urbanity is related to ideas of an urban lifestyle, which they are willing to pay for (Ahlfeldt, 2013). Thus urbanity receives an economic value (Dörfler, 2011). Today, the term has evolved into a tool as soft location factor and into a means to legitimize urban intervention. According to Lees urbanity stands for anti-modern urbanism that and a term that ''is widely celebrated, advertised, and squeezed into an often narrow, iconic vision by entrepreneurial city councils, planners, and developers'' (Lees, 2010: 2302). Urbanity has a positive connotation, which can prove to be alarming. Since the concept is so malleable, urbanity can be widely deployed to cover up planning projects that should be reviewed critically, but are accepted in a more unquestioningly manner.
The sociologist Dörfler believes that the sheer attempt to produce and thus plan urbanity is a contradiction in terms (Dörfler, 2011). Adopting from Lefebvre, he argues that part of the
production of space is always the lived space that builds on experiences, subjective images, and meanings, which are necessary to maintain subjectivation. Thus ''urbanity exists nor as definition neither as a means in planning, for urbanity is the opposite, the nonintervention and creative engagement of strangers facilitating unpredictable situations'' (Dörfler, 2011: 99). Yet, instrumental spaces, the visions of planning projects, are being created. They should support these images and meanings or phantasmagorias. However, the structural framework to establish urbanity contradicts its very nature of spontaneity. Concluding the discussion of urbanity in planning, it can be said, said that urbanity is defined through technical terms but carries imaginary values.
Outside of planning, ideas about urbanity are much broader, encompass those intangible elements, and inhere notions of its intricacy. In a conceptual paper, Pløger describes urbanity as vague, fluid and ephemeral (Pløger, 2010). Urban life, he contends, only becomes meaningful through "imaginary, lived value-schemes, coding and re-coding, social constructions and deconstructions, words and discourses" (Pløger, 2010: 320-321). Meaning, emotions and experience are elements of urbanity, which makes it more immaterial and intangible, hence subjective. Contrary to planning, the experience of city life is "profoundly non-instrumental" (Pløger, 2010: 322). Still, physical space is important in Pløger's argument: "in physical space the life materializes or comes into being" (Pløger, 2010: 328). Taking this as example for other interpretations of urbanity, it illustrates how over time urbanity was adapted in the planning discourse for a specific purpose and mobilized as a frame to guide and justify action.
Against the backdrop of the experience of urban space, and in contrast to more technical planning definitions of urbanity, this paper contends, that urbanity is a mental imagery, or cognitive construct—the narrative people create in their minds in order to make sense of their own being in the urban environment and to make the lived experience meaningful. According to Wunenberger (2003), an individual moving through the city has dreams of urban imaginaries in his or her mind, which are the reflection of experience and memories. In their physical environment, individuals can read their own histories, impose any association they want (Carr, 1992: 233), and consequently form an intrinsic relationship with it. The urban image, the individual idea of urbanity, is both the result and the foundation of the experience of being in an urban environment. In other words, urbanity can be seen as the mental personification of the self-constructed image of the individual’s urban life. This way, the subjective image of urban space, the individual idea of urbanity, becomes a personal sanctuary that enables the individual to move through the city safely and carry out the individual's role. Urbanity is the immaterial space, multiple cognitive constructs that co-exist.
There is a mismatch between ideologized universal representations of space and the individually experienced space. Since the appropriation of representations of space is part of the cognitive processing, the personal ascription of meaning is constrained by those. People adopt the imageries, values, and the meaning as depicted in planning visions and are constrained in the actualization of the individual experience of space and the reproduction of individual imageries, identity, values, and meaning. People adopt the urbanity constructed in the discourse of urban intervention for their own urban imagery. Table 1 shows how contrasting the experience of urban space is compared to urbanity is perceived in the planning discourse.
Urbanity as a concept Urbanity as a cognitive construct
Universal
Simplified, reductionist Hegemonic
Closed, static
Desired, idealized, constructed Technical, rational
Expressed in representations of space
Individual (entity) experience (trajectory) Multiple, complex
Subjective In flux, emergent Cognitive
Imaginable, intangible, immaterial Expressed in spatial practice
Embedded in power discourse Utilized symbols in frames
Part of meaning-construction Identity
Table 1: Characteristics of urbanity
Considering urbanity from various and new angles enables new perspectives on the discussion of the nature of urban space and the power relations which are played out in it. Rethinking urbanity as the narrative and the imagery of the urban experience creates these new perspectives. Urbanity thus is no longer about rational and official ideas of quality, liveability or attractiveness based on physical conditions, but about identity, values, and inclusiveness. These themes will be used for the analysis of the visions and will be explained further.
4. The Meaning and the Production of Space
[D]ifferences in interpretation lead to differences in opinion, and to disagreement and possibly controversies. From this culturally rich perspective, spatial decision making is not so much a contest about the distribution of individual utilities but rather a struggle over ideas and meanings.
(Stone, 2001)
Over time, culture and civilisation have not just changed space physically but also put layers over layers, which structure the meaning of space. Planning means an intervention in both urban realms, the material and immaterial—a reconstruction of space, which affects its experience and the urban imagery of the individual. By employing visions—meaning forethought ideas—urban intervention also produces representations of space, which are not neutral, not open, and not inclusive. As Beauregard points out, the city does not present itself but is rather represented by means of power relations expressed in strategies, discourses and institutional settings (Beauregard, 1995: 60).
Visions, as representations of space, are rational, intellectualised, official conceptions of urban areas for analytical and administrative purposes. In the institutional environment of planning, spaces are symbolised and meaning is produced in a discourse, which ''can be understood as expressing a particular conceptualisation of reality and knowledge that attempts to gain hegemony'' (Richardson and Jensen, 2003: 16). In this sense, planning limits and determines material and immaterial dynamics in space. It also constrains the individual's capacity of appropriating the space through living in and modifying it. The power of representations of space is legitimized by by an institutional discourse of expertise, rationality and technical vocabulary. Urban intervention is performed by by a small group of experts or members of the financial and political elite and other social groups, which do not have equal power, remain unheard and excluded.
The concept of social production of space (Lefebvre, 1991), allows us to illustrate the relative power of the professionals who create official representations of space (conceived space), which relate dialectically to spatial practice (perceived space) and representational spaces (lived space). In representational spaces physical space and its objects are associated with images, symbols and meaning—thus become value places. Spatial practice is the use of space, the everyday routine in the urban reality. According to Lefebvre, spatial practice contains both the material results of planning and the movement through and appropriation of the city by individuals. Looking at space through this theoretical filter lets us carve out not only their interwovenness, but also the tension between them. The representations of space pervade a society and determine the realm in which individuals experience space. When this pervasiveness converges, or dialectically interacts with the lived space of agents, tension arises (Lefebvre, 1991). In terms of meaning-making, representation of space have the potential to either give meaning where there is none, or constrain the meaning-construction and actualization of the individual experience of space.
In this light, the prescriptive nature of planning visions affects the right to the city. By implication, the right to the city includes individuals’ access to public space and to shape the urban space. Furthermore, it includes emotional access and appropriation for individual meaning-making and identity-formation (Lefebvre, 1991; Harvey, 2003). Through visions and other representations of space, citizens become excluded from the potential right to shape and appropriate their city, because ''[t]hose who are empowered by these politics will determine the specific social and spatial outcomes'' (Purcell, 2002: 103). Framing urbanity in visions ''implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction'' (Benford and Snow, 2000: 614). In relation to the production of space, this means that representations of space are intruding the representational spaces—or urbanity the way it was rethought for this paper. That brings up the question about the content of those representations of space and how they could be framed to ensure the right to the city, or the multiplicity of meanings in representational spaces.
5. Framing Analysis
From this point of view, we see that the use of the concept of ‘frames’ for spatial decision making broadens our view on what is at stake. Frames are not limited to collective ‘utilities’ and ‘interests’ of different actor groups, but extend to the culturally informed ideas and meanings of the individuals involved.
(Ernste, 2012: 93)
Framing is a practice in which reality is reduced to fewer values and less complexity, and which creates one alleged truth (Entman, 2004). Planning then becomes 'world making' (Fischler 1995, cited in Richardson and Jensen 2003: 15), not only in the sense of controlling and determining a material and spatial outcome, but also ''words, signs and symbols become the frame of mind for social agents'' (Richardson and Jensen 2003: 15). As Zukin says: "While sets of meanings of the social imaginary are conceptualized in symbolic languages, these meanings are materialized and become real in all sorts of spatial and social practices" (Zukin, 1998: 629). Thus, frames are links between meaning and spatial practices.
They entail much more information than their content: ''Frames are not free. They have institutional sponsors'' (Rein and Schön, 1996: 95). In the institutional discourse, the reality is represented by the individual planner or urban intervention as a multi-actor process and their language, background and values. This way, structures of domination are sustained. Consequently, the reality depicted by verbal and visual signs, here the idea of urbanity, cannot be inclusive or impartial. According to Rein and Schön one needs to construct frames in order to study them (Rein and Schön, 1996: 90). Individuals negotiate their experience with different influences, one of which is meaning-space negotiation. Visions of big urban interventions impose on all other existing frames. On the individual level, these frames are fluid, always emergent and complex. Researching those is an impossible and ambiguous endeavour. However, the presupposition of their existence allows the construction of frames, which will make it possible to see how urbanity as shown in visions compare to the idea of urbanity as a cognitive construct, the urban imagery. The following three themes identity, values, and
inclusiveness emerged from the introduced literature and focus on the experience and meaning
of urban space.
Identity
The idea of the dialectical relationship of representational spaces, spatial practice, and representations of space support the argument, that the identity of a city, whether produced collectively or prescribed from above, is also reflected in the concrete visions of urban interventions, and how urbanity is framed in those. People identify with their neighbourhood, their city, and other spaces of other scales. Visions contain cues about the assumed identity of the space they represent. These are symbols, that refer to the past of a place or indicate the anticipated or desired future. There are cities, which are known for a single historic event
(battles, treaties), a popular figure (home towns of famous authors), or a specific food (cheese, apples, wine). This is because either modern city marketing singled out this identity in order to differentiate one city from the other and stay attractive to tourists—another explanation is be the reproduction of specific features over time in the wider society. In other cities, the past is wiped out in an aspiration to be known for one specific industry (pharmacy, handcraft) or for cultural events (sports, fashion, fairs). Nowadays, any city seems to need to have an identity or at least an identifying feature. Likewise, beliefs about the identity of the city reflect further ideas about its role and meaning, all embedded in a wider cultural context. Paris, for example, has many competing frames: Not only is 19th Century Paris perceived as the role model for urbanity, but it is also known for fashion, history, and its central role in France. Two days after the Brexit referendum, François Hollande announced, that he wanted to make Paris the financial centre of Europe. This is a strong frame from a powerful source. An example of a smaller frame is sustainability. Lastly, within the identity theme, architecture has to be understood as an expressive tool for these beliefs about the identity of a place.
Values
Frames in this theme tell us about the ideals of the planners and other vision makers, but also about more universal trends, such as in urban governance and planning practice. The layers of meaning, which shape a space reverberate values. In the Paris example, Hollande's statement expresses an economic value. The value theme will allow to reconstruct the truth about the social reality assumed by the producers, and urban ideals. Examples for political or cultural values are the erection of monuments or historic preservation. The decision to protect the appearance of a city is a good example for a combination of cultural and economic values. It can be an economic value now, because historic sites become a tourist attraction. This, of course, is tightly knot with the identity theme. Designating a lot of public space or continuously developing disability-friendly accessibility are examples for social values, but also an indicator for the wealth of a country or city. An urban intervention project itself can be a value statement, e.g., by choosing offices over apartments or social institutions. These values are mostly facilitated by the interest of the actor or group driving the project. A developer, who invests money for the sole purpose of monetary reward will want to build profitable. Architects are interested in the function and the aesthetics of buildings, and also making a name for themselves. Politicians want to keep their voters and gain more, and maybe want to realise some idealistic ideas. A planner has a more strategic interest, but often finds himself as agent of a political agenda. Values are embedded in these different interests but also wider trends such as sustainability, mixed-use or walkability. Value frames can be analysed in the concrete development plans: The use, the shape, the scale, and the design of the public space. Further statements about values can be found in between the lines or in the images that accompany visions.
Inclusiveness
In terms of urbanity inclusiveness means that individual imageries of the urban or city life, even if they cannot be explicitly addressed or identified, should be accommodated. Visions should leave enough room for interpretation and appropriation. The themes identity and values for the framing analysis make clear, that these overarching visions, employed in planning projects, may not comply with ideas on the individual level. They are extremely simplified, constructed ideologies. Their reductionism excludes a multiplicity of frames, and constructed spaces—urban imageries. The theme inclusiveness exceeds the idea of a diverse society, which is another limiting concept. Inclusiveness means an openness to the entities and their trajectories, Massey's idea of throwntogetherness (Massey, 2005). Obviously, visions cannot be inclusive to everyone's urbanity, particularly if these are dynamic, however, it is possible to analyse the degree of inclusiveness. Excluding people disempowers them, so this theme is used reconstruct the audience, that was addressed in the vision's idea of urbanity. If visions address the public, this will show who they think constitutes the public. This starts with statements and visual cues about the accessibility, which can be physical access but also proposed or imagined activities.
Another cue is land use which propose a special behaviour or special users. In this category it is also very important to consider what is invisible. This is the spatial component of inclusiveness. Often overlooked is the temporal aspect. Is urbanity promised 24/7 when there are only offices?
6. Methodology and Methods
By looking at how urbanity is framed in relation to the themes developed in the chapter before, the study will find out in what ways planning visions, the unit of analysis, affect the cognitively constructed urban spaces of individuals; and if there are dominating frames and themes which can be associated with the structures of power inside the institutional discourse of planning.
There were two primary goals of this research: 1) to analyse how urbanity was framed as truth by applying the themes which were developed from the idea of urbanity as a cognitive construct (and if it resonates with the audience); and 2) to reconstruct the driving powers in the creation of the vision which will give insight in the institutional context and power relations. In keeping with framing theory, the results of this analysis will better inform the understanding of the role of visions and the depiction of urbanity in order to mobilize planning projects. In this sense, the paper aims at complementing critical analysis of large urban projects from a specific analytical perspective, centred on the analysis of visions, and addressing their simplified and hegemonic nature in contrast to the alleged 'truth' of the multiplicity of meanings.
The study was conducted as as comparative case study with two cases of urban renewal projects, which are perceived as spatial expression of an economic or political transformation. The comparison offers the chance to see that the dominating themes in the visions of those two development projects are different and possibly to interpret why that is the case. On one hand, the projects should be similar: The selection was based on the overall significance of the project —and hence the possible impact on the experience. Significance is constituted by the size or scale of the project, a central location within the city, and the degree of intervention through planning; these elements are indicators that the site was and is meaningful to the wider local public. On the other hand, the two projects should differ in the imagery that was created for the vision. Based on these criteria, the East Quayside in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, and Potsdam Square in Berlin, Germany, were selected. The Quayside represents an economic transformation after the steady decline of the shipping industry and the deindustrialisation. Potsdam Square is a case of political transformation, namely the reunion of Germany and the city of Berlin.
A framing analysis of the visions is conducted in two ways: What is communicated and how it is communicated. Critical content analysis and visual analysis are applied to analyse the content of the message, or which reality is communicated. Language and visualisations are a crucial tool for displaying assumed knowledge and dominating ideologies in a format of official documents, which are the main source for this study. In visual analysis the reality of images is analysed and the context in which they are embedded with the values and intentions (Rose, 2001). Critical analysis means, that the production of the visions is analysed in their cultural context and discourse, and also that audience is being considered. This includes the intended effect and rhetorical and visual methods such as concealment, abstraction, composition, or the use of symbols. The first step will be to explore how urbanity is framed in the language of policy documents and in PR material such as illustrations, masterplans, and photos. The main questions that drive the analysis are: What are the dominating themes and frames in them? What effect was tried to achieved? What was the motivation for the choice? Which truth was produced in which way? To complement the framing analysis, further documents which were produced before and during the planning process by various actors and institutions involved in the process were consulted. All documents, including the PR documents and architectural drawings, models, renderings were collected from libraries, archives and from interviewees.
Secondly, images and texts are understood in their ''cultural significance, social practices and power relations in which [they are] embedded'' (Rose, 2001: 3), which means that the visions have to be seen in their wider cultural context and institutional discourse of planning. The latter also includes actors in politics, investors, and architects, but also neighbourhood associations
study included the completion of semi-structered interviews with key actors to understand modalities of the production of those images, texts, frames, visions, and to learn more about the political and economic context. Furthermore, these interviews allow an insight into the background and interest of the different key actors. Another aim of these interviews was to gain insight to the negotiation process and dynamics between different interest groups during the creation of the visions; and furthermore the reflexivity of the people involved. Almost all interviews were conducted in person and recorded. One interview for the Newcastle case took place on the phone and another interview for Berlin was carried out by e-mail. Where interviews could not take place or did not suffice, additional planning documents fetched from libraries, museums and archives.
The analysis and discussion will show how the three themes identity, values and inclusiveness intertwine dialectically. Each of the themes is present in both visions—I may say are actually covered in all planning visions—however, as the two case studies will show, there is one dominating theme with distinct frames. Frames of the other themes defer to the dominating theme in a trickling down effect, or are articulated in a way that carves out the importance of the leading theme or frame.
7. Analysis and Discussion
For the analysis the two visions were systematically analysed for frames which fit the developed themes. Each theme is covered on its own in this paper, however, as will become clear in the following section, the themes do not stand on their own, but build on each other or utilize the others to strengthen the main theme.
7.1 East Quayside, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Quayside is an example for a dominating identity theme although the transformation it marked was an economic one, so within the value theme. The dominating frames are communicated through images and symbols from the past, such as the shipping industry, and the river Tyne and its bridges. This reduces the complexity of Newcastle to very few landmarks and icons. By using these frames, a very specific idea of Newcastle and its identity is being reproduced and imposed on the population. This is the truth which is claimed. Furthermore, these frame are utilized in order to mobilize the economic motive behind this urban renewal project and, assumingly, to win the public over by giving an actually meaningless development meaning through framing. This effect was driven by the politics and the way the problem was framed. The urban renewal project of the East Quayside in Newcastle (from now: Quayside) was induced by the national government—at that time it was the conservative government under Thatcher—which formed an Urban Development Corporation (UDC) for the Tyne and Wear area in Northern England. UDCs must be understood in the context of the neoliberal turn (Leary, 2013). The purpose of UDCs was to support the restructuring of several regions outside of London after a decline caused by the deindustrialisation, hence, the motive was a political one with an economic solution. The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (TWDC), which had full planning authority, received half a billion pounds from the government with the instruction to bring private sector development into Newcastle. Quayside was the flagship project of the TWDC, which operated from 1987 to 1998. After a steady decline of the shipping industry, in the 1980s the Quayside was a derelict area with serious contamination problems. Industries had abandoned the site and warehousing sheds were the only buildings left.
There are three succeeding proposals for the Quayside, which will be used for the framing analysis. The first scheme by the Newcastle Quayside Development (NQD)—even though the most visionary plan—was rejected by the advisory board Royal Fine Art Commission due to insufficiency. At their suggestion the TWDC appointed Terry Farrell to design a masterplan, which could not be realised due to an economic crisis (Balls, 2015; Haylock, 2015). However, Farrel's ideas and design were picked up by AMEC, a development corporation, which eventually realised most of the project.
Author Type Year Format Includes Realised Slogan
Newcastle Quayside Development (NQD)
Developer 1988 Brochure Text, photos, illustrations, schemes
Not realised Extending the heart of the city
Terry Farrell
Masterplan Architect 1991 Masterplan Drawings, sketches Adapted by AMEC Quayside becomes the address AMEC Developer 1992 Brochure Text, pictures,
illustrations, schemes, photos of models
Partially realised Expanding the hear of a great city
Table 2: Overview of the three succeeding development schemes for East Quayside, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK Overall, the dominating theme in the three proposals is the identity theme—for all proposals refer to the frames 'historic shipping industry' and 'river Tyne' with its 'bridges.' However, already emerging in the masterplan by Farrell, the value theme is considerably more significant in the AMEC plan. The latter almost presents itself as a business to business pitch for the office space created at Quayside. The identity theme is still present, even if it is utilized to embellish the vision to make the development more attractive and personal.
The identity theme, which focuses on the past of the Quayside and Newcastle, is employed in all three proposals to 1) make the proposal more attractive, 2) to make it appear more organic and integrated, 3) to explain the origin of the design, and 4) to make it more meaningful for everyone involved. In all visions the frame 'shipping industry' is present, which directly relates to other frames, such as 'river Tyne,' 'the bridges,' and 'water.' However, in the visions by NQD and AMEC, the frame 'shipping industry' also carries a value-positioning towards industry, the commercial aspect of it, which both developers aim at reviving. For this, the past is glorified, which is reflected particularly in the illustrations of the NQD, which depict an idealized vision of the development. They show an urbanity which is dense, colourful, and lively. The illustrations include elements such as flags, tents, a theatre, a biplane and many tall ships, which were added to achieve atmosphere. The AMEC brochure contains seemingly unrelated photographs of the river and the bridges during sunset, and an illustration of a tall ship. The identity theme gives the mostly commercial development character in order to create an effect of distinctiveness compared to other business areas. Terry Farrell's masterplan and explanation of it contain very few frames in the identity theme. The design was developed based on the historic building structures of the city. The river is visible in all his sketches and he points at the views to the landmark bridges.
The value theme shows the underlying interest or motive behind the development, which the identity theme should sell and make more attractive—or even deflect from it. This way, the frames of the identity theme are not only a content but they become a form, meaning that the identity theme is utilized as part of the value theme. Value is framed through identity. The problem was defined as an abandoned and derelict area; the solution was to bring in private investors to develop the site. This meant the 'development of offices', which is one frame in the value theme, additionally to the 'shopping' and other frames related to commercial use. However, the NQD tried to make these frames attractive in themselves, to make shopping meaningful and part of the urban lifestyle. 'Mixed-use development' is a frame which coincides with the planning definition of urbanity discussed earlier. Another important frame is the scale of the project, meaning its desired reach, which is supra-local in the NQD and AMEC proposal. The new development should attract millions of visitors and make Newcastle more important for business in the North East of England. For example, the AMEC vision shows two maps that show first the area in the wider city area and then another one in the region with connections to high streets and airport. Furthermore, there is the value of the project itself. NQD constructs the Quayside development as very important and exciting. The value in the NQD seems to balance social, historic, cultural and economic values. Shopping is sold as social and cultural value since
it is framed as a space where people can meet or just go to see activity. The frames 'public life' and 'leisure' are connected with 'commercial use' such as 'offices,' 'shopping,' 'restaurants and bars.' The Farrell masterplan shows very little value-positioning. Nonetheless, the focus on architecture and design is a value in itself and shows ideals of how to design urban spaces. The idea to make Quayside 'the address,' which is a value related to the commercial development, was part of the Farrell masterplan.
The analysis of the inclusiveness theme in the Newcastle case shows that the theme can be significantly present, even though in different ways: Whereas the NQD contains many frames that aim at being inclusive, the AMEC brochure has the negative frame of inclusiveness: 'exclusiveness.' The NQD envisions a village 'community' and a 'unifying feel' through 'public space,' which is a another frame with an emotive effect. Several times they point out that the development will attract and offer something to all ages and people from all walks of life. This 'diversity' frame is also partially reflected in the illustrations, which show many people, however, there they show a fairly homogeneous group. The 'activity' frame is expressed through the announcement of excitement every day of the week, by night and by day. However, shops will be 'family-oriented,' which is a hint about the actual audience NQD wants to address. It is also families which are depicted in the illustrations. AMEC contains the 'exclusivity' frame. There is no false pretence about who they want to address: the business community in and around Newcastle. The overall design of the brochure is more formal and the cover has a photo of business men. They have detailed information in info boxes which are necessary for potential investors about the office sizes, the car park, hotels, and the linking infrastructure.
What is apparent is the different language that was used both the visual and the written communication. NQD uses many powerful and positive adjectives. Farrell's masterplan is very technical and puts a lot of weight on design. Lastly, AMEC is simply stating the facts necessary for businesses to make investment decisions, but embellishing them with frames from the identity theme. NQD was one of three proposals in the first round. Alastair Balls, the chairman of the TWDC was giving free rein to the developers for their proposals: "here is your opportunity to use your imagination" (Balls, 2015). The three proposals were presented to the public at an exhibition that was visited by 5000 people. The public could vote and voted for NQD. However, their vote was not binding and only had to be taken into consideration. The aim behind the voting was to give the public a sense of empowerment. Gladly for Balls, the public's choice was also the choice of the TWDC. After all this scheme was never realised. While Balls said that the development stopped due to an economic crisis, Colin Haylock, a planner working for the council at that time, and Terry Farrell say that the first scheme was rejected by the advisory board Royal Fine Art Commission (today CABE), due to the absence of a clear overall structure, no connections, and no appreciation of public space (Haylock, 2015; Farrell, 2016). Farrell said about the plan that "it was a mess" and that "it wasn’t a masterplan" (Farrell, 2016). Under the instruction of the Royal Fine Art Commission, TWDC appointed Farrell to create a masterplan. That the identity theme dominated the proposal is due to the UDC that, even though it had planning authority, wanted to act sensible. Newcastle is a city with a very strong identity, which was reproduced in the visions to reduce alienating feelings.
7.2 Potsdam Square, Berlin, Germany
The case of Postdam Square shows how the economic value frame became the central frame for the definition of the urban character of the area. It reflects a process oriented towards business redevelopment and represents ‘rupture’ with the historical past of the area. The analysis shows how this development came about through the political and economic context and was driven by very few. The identity theme is present only very little which is surprising in this very specific case and dealt with on a rational rather than a meaningful level. With the dominating economic frame, the place becomes deprived of its historic and future meaning. Potsdam Square is also an example of the technical nature of visions and the idealised image of the city. Urbanity here is defined by the appearance of the city, expressed in measurements, questions related to the infrastructure, and the city as a spectacle for entertainment and consumerism. The truth that is claimed is shaped by excluding other more social aspect of urban living.
The renewal of Potsdam Square (German: Potsdamer Platz) became possible after the fall of the wall in Berlin in November 1989. Before being almost completely destroyed during World War II, Potsdam Square was a central square in Berlin for both transportation and cultural life; and one of the busiest squares in Europe. During the time of the divided Germany, the wall ran straight across Potsdam Square making it an inner city wasteland. After the fall of the wall, Berlin had to grow back together. For urban planning this meant reuniting and restructuring two governmental administration bodies, but also to develop an overall design for the city, which had been growing separately under two different systems of government for almost 30 years. Potsdam Square, with its central location and historic importance for the city, was the most important site to develop. The Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment wanted to maintain control but also to get developments going quickly. The land of Potsdam Square was sold to Daimler-Benz, who has been voicing interest long before the fall of the wall. The senate department advertised an urban development competition, which was restricted to 16 selected participants. The winning proposal, chosen by an expert panel, should be the basis for a development plan. Construction began in 1994 and lasted until 2001 with a few smaller projects still being finished today.
This approach was contested in the press and the professional public, and led to the formation of the Stadtforum (English: city panel), which was a semi-public meeting of selected architects, planners, artists and other 'people from the society' (Fissler, 2016). The Stadtforum should discuss visions of the future of Berlin and some selected development projects, amongst them Potsdam Square. Stadtforum perceived the sale of the land to Daimler-Benz as impeding the future scope of influence for an overall planning scheme for Berlin. The sale was too early— there had been no time to discuss ideas for the future. The senate department, on the other hand, wanted to set a sign for Berlin as business location. The professional audience saw a unique opportunity to restructure the inner city lost. Public participation only took place in the usual format, which means that people could voice concerns, but only about the finished design. They were not actually involved in the decision-making process.
Due to the fact that the process is different to the Quayside, the documents for the framing analysis are also different in the case of Potsdam Square. There are two PR documents, the Daimler-Benz brochure and the catalogue which accompanied the info box—which also contains the presentation of Sony, the second big investor. The info box was a temporary building set up next to the construction site to inform visitors about the development through a permanent exhibition. Furthermore, the masterplan by Hilmer & Sattler, the winning scheme of the competition and the foundation for the development plan, will be analysed, as well as the information booklet given out by the Stadtforum which contains the documentation of relevant sessions.
Author Type Year Format Includes Slogan
Hilmer & Sattler Architects 1991 Overall design Masterplan, text Because documents are incomplete also Includes reasons for decision (winning scheme)
none
Catalogue of the 'Info box' Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, and investors
1996 Book Drawings, sketches
-'Stadtforum' / Senate Experts 1991 Information Booklet
Text The new centre
Daimler Benz Investor No date Brochure Text, photos,
illustrations The heart of the metropolis Table 3: Overview of the documents used for the analysis of Potsdam Square, Berlin, Germany
The dominating theme is value, which mostly emerges from the discourse: The intentions of Daimler-Benz to build a commercial area were clear, when the decision was made to sell them the land. The visions are completely dominated by the ideas and plans of Daimler-Benz and Sony, who wanted to create a monofunctional commercial and leisure centre including a shopping mall, concert hall, hotels, a casino, offices for the investors, two cinemas, and a film house. The Daimler-Benz brochure is dominated by images to make the construction a spectacle and glorify the plans. They show fireworks, lighted cranes and cultural events which took place around the construction site, which itself had become a point of interest for the population and tourists. The Sony part in the catalogue of the info box shows architectural renderings, all by night, with the buildings which mainly have entertainment and many people to create an appealing nightlife scene. Daimler-Benz talks about the 'new financial and commercial centre' and the new reunited 'capital of Europe.' A cultural centre of the 'next millennium.' Another important frame is the 'infrastructure and connectivity' of the area to the rest of the city. This frame is supported by both the developers and the senate department, though for different reasons. While Daimler-Benz and Sony want the area to be as 'accessible' as possible for customers, the senate department sees the old function of Potsdam Square as connection the Eastern and Western centres of Berlin revived, so for structural reasons. However, in the PR material the senate department is not very present and the effect and truth claimed by Daimler-Benz and Sony is: international scale, new dimensions, entertainment, spectacle.
The identity theme in the vision for Potsdam Square is dominated by frames of the potential and expected future meaning of the city as a 'metropolis' and the 'polycentric structure' of Berlin. It is surprising that the identity theme is not the dominating theme in this vision, being at this very historic moment of transformation and considering the importance of the site. The Hilmer & Sattler masterplan, as well as the discussions in the Stadtforum, emphasize the 'building structure' of Berlin with special focus on the 'eaves height' and 'block measures.' The city is presented as complex and dense. The Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment formulated an urban character shaped by 'central squares' and street space for lingering and walking as leitmotifs for the scheme. Furthermore, they point at the 'modern society' which is oriented towards leisure, consumption and entertainment. This 'society' needs the staging of public life in spaces of high visual and social quality. The visions of Daimler-Benz and Sony entail an 'attractive and vital neighbourhood,' with advanced 'architecture' by international high-profile architects. They also make clear that they want 'corporate identity' to be reflected in the design and that through multiple investors and their different identities a 'distinctive character' will be accomplished. The want to create a 'highly complex structure,' which guarantees 'life around the clock': What usually takes centuries shall be accomplished immediately through sensitive planning. The investors pay little to no attention to the meaning of the site or the city Berlin. They use symbols and associations of urban character to make their developments sound appealing.
In contrast to the Quayside development, where at least NQD tried to be inclusive, the vision for Potsdam Square defines inclusiveness and openness by who and what they exclude. The language and presentation is neutral in terms of inclusiveness and remains informative. Even though the discussion in the Stadtforum and the Hilmer & Sattler masterplan were open to the public, they maintain a fairly professional language. The Hilmer & Sattler masterplan is similar to the Terry Farrell masterplan in terms of inclusiveness: it is a masterplan with more sketches and designs than text and focuses on the necessary information which have to be covered in the process of planning. Daimler-Benz and Sony create an audience which wants to be entertained and to consume like this is what they expect people in cities want and especially at that moment in the reunited Berlin; as if they were bringing joy to the city. This hinders any needed reflection on the actual identity search. The disregard of frames of the historic meaning of Potsdam Square in their documents is striking. Daimler-Benz and Sony seem to be unreflective about their audience, but more about the success of their development. Different to the NQD, which almost went into a dialogue with the audience, and the AMEC brochure, which clearly addressed a business community, Daimler-Benz and Sony introduce their developments and describe them as spectacular, but there is no reflection about the assumed or desired user. If this was intentional remains unclear.
The renewal of the Potsdam Square almost does seem like a lost chance. The location of Potsdam Square and its historic meaning were symbolic. One could have expected a greater consciousness of the meaning of its renewal due to its significance. The senate department decided, that the value theme was more important, namely to send a signal that Berlin was a business location. This could have been an attempt to break new ground for the future of the city, and possibly to change its identity. However, social or cultural values were completely neglected, which is surprising considering the huge transformation that Berlin was going through. The fall of the wall opened a space for opportunity which was closed very quickly. The space was privatised and thus sent a signal to the public and the whole country. Instead of using the opportunity to create a new identity and give meaning to a future after a war and political changes, they gave the chance to a manifestation in space of private, group-specific and power-laden interests. The restricted urban development competition, instead of an open idea contest, was a statement against democratic procedure and a diversity of ideas which result in a better quality. The special historic meaning was not taken into account.
8. Conclusions
In planning and design, urbanity has a static, simple and idealised connotation. These are inherent to visions for urban renewal projects, which are truth-claiming and prescribe meaning. After reconceptualising urbanity, based on a wider understanding, and considering the perspective of the individual's experience and their attachment to space, the three themes— identity, values, and inclusiveness—emerged that guided the framing analysis of planning visions. Visions are not the result of reflection about society and democratic values, but of interests of individuals, smaller groups, and are driven by underlying structural powers such as capitalism. These ideas are much more exclusive which interferes with the augmented concepts of the right to the city, which accommodates an emotional and cognitive appropriation of the city. The problem is twofold: Not only do visions impede actualization of individual ideas and meaning, but the visions are also created by a small group of experts. The task is to articulate visions in a way, which respects and incorporates also identity, values and inclusiveness. The case studies have shown that the visions are tied to the institutional context, a synergy of politics and planning underpinned by economic factors. In Newcastle as well as Berlin, the development was driven by private investors and their interests. The analysis shows an idealisation and construction of the desired outcome and a simplification of the urban reality. Quayside was separated from the rest of Newcastle, whose identity was defined through limited frames of the past. These frames were utilized to make the project more appealing and to create closeness with the public. However, over time, they became a deceptive embellishment to promote the underlying commercial frame within the value theme. The vision for Potsdam Square intervention unexpectedly emphasized frames of the value theme, detached from important historical events. Berlin was going through another profound political and economic change—a moment in time where the identity theme could be expected to be dominating. That would have shown appreciation of the significance of this historic location. The wider and professional public were overruled by the decision of a few. The interests of investors and technical concerns related to infrastructure overruled frames of identity and inclusiveness after a political and physical reunion of the city. The scenario showed a desired future at a time when the future was open. The value theme itself, the commercial and leisure centre in the middle of Berlin, eroded and replaced the identity theme. The identity of a place and the individual meaning are exploited to the value frame. Identity then, based on the dialectical relationship within the spatial triad, becomes jeopardized by market identity and economic values that shape the society. In that sense visions are witnesses of time, representing current values, and driving, powerful interests.
All themes are present in all visions. Identity, value and inclusiveness were chosen to represent the needs of the individual to make their experience of the built environment meaningful, and of their multiple and emergent nature. This paper has re-utilized the concept of urbanity to support the theoretical notion of a more ontological movement in planning theory regarding the imagery
of the urban. The challenge for planning that derives from the discussion is one about the formulation of visions and the way they are framed. The re-articulation of frames within the themes is a challenge for radical and new planning. According to Lefebvre, representations of space are the dominant space in our society. This is not a normative call for a definitive framing of urbanity, but rather for further reflexivity about the power of visions and the role of planning. Representations of space should accommodate new imaginaries, able to respond to socio-spatial demands including cognitive experience of space and urban imageries, rather than more tangible and technical aspects that commonly define urbanity.
word count: 9540
References
AHLFELDT GM (2013) Urbanity. LSE: Mimeo. BALLS A (2015) Personal Interview. 4 November 2015.
BEAUREGARD RA (1995) If only the City could speak. The Politics of Re-presentation. In: Liggett H and Perry DC (eds) Spatial Practices. Critical Explorations in Social/Spatial Theory. London: Sage, pp. 59-80.
BENFORD R and Snow D (2000) Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26(11): 611-639.
CARR S (1992) Public space. Cambridge [England]; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. DARCHEN S and Napoli A (2014) Adaptive re-use and the marketing of downtown LA living: the construction of a new urbanity. In: The Mediated City Conference, Los Angeles1-4 October 2014, pp. 1-9. DÖRFLER T (2011). Antinomien des (neuen) Urbanismus. Henri Lefebvre, die HafenCity Hamburg und die Produktion des posturbanen Raumes: Eine Forschungsskizze. Raumforschung Und Raumordnung
69(2): 91-104.
ENTMANN R (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of
Communication 43(4): 51-58.
ERNSTE H (2012) Framing Cultures of Spatial Planning. Planning Practice & Research 27(1): 87-101. FARRELL T (2016) Telephone interview. 3 February 2016.
FISSLER J (2016) Personal interview. 20 June 2016.
FLORIDA R (2004) The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure,
community and everyday life. New York, NY, US: Basic Books.
FLYVBJERG B and Richardson T (1998) In search of the dark side of planning theory. In: Planning
Theory Conference, Oxford Brookes University, UK, 2-4 April 1998.
GUALINI E and Majoor S (2007) Innovative Practices in Large Urban Development Projects: Conflicting Frames in the Quest for “New Urbanity”. Planning Theory & Practice 8(3): 297-318.
HARVEY D (2003) The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(4): 939-941.
HAYLOCK C (2015) Personal Interview. 28 October 2015.
ITTELSON W (1978) Environmental Perception and Urban Experience. Environment and Behavior
10(2): 193-213.
KRAFTA R (2014) A new Definition (and Assessment) of Urbanity. In: 2nd Future of Places and
International Conference on Public Space and Place Making, 2014, Buenos Aires.
LEARY M (2013) A Lefebvrian analysis of the production of glorious, gruesome public space in Manchester. Progress in Planning, 85(2013): 1-52.
LEES L (2010) Planning urbanity? Environment and Planning A 42(10): 2302 – 2308. LEFEBVRE H (1991 [1974]). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
MASSEY D (2005) For Space. L.A.; London: SAGE.
MONTGOMERY J (1998) Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design
3(1), 93-116.
PERI BADER A (2015) A model for everyday experience of the built environment: The embodied perception of architecture. The Journal of Architecture 20(2): 244-267.
PLOGER J (2010) Urbanity, (Neo)vitalism and Becoming. In: Hillier J and Healey P (eds) The Ashgate
research companion to planning theory: conceptual challenges for spatial planning. Farnham, Surrey,
England: Ashgate Pub, pp. 319-342.
PURCELL M (2003) Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(3): 564-90.
REIN M and Schön D (1996) Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice.
Knowledge and policy 9(1): 85-104.
RICHARDSON T and Jensen OB (2003) Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies 40(1): 7-22.
ROSE G (2001) Visual methodologies : An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage.
SHERMAN B (1988) Cities fit to live in : Themes and variations : A to Z. Whitley, Wiltshire, England, UK: Produced for Channel 4 by Good Books.
STONE DA (2001) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.
ZUKIN S (1998) From Coney Island to Las Vegas in the urban imaginary: discursive practices of growth and decline, Urban Affairs Review 33(5): 627–654.
