Abstract
In traditional cities, the forces of separation and those of cohesion (for the benefits of safety, participation and provision) are balanced within small spatial units, creating complex environments. Contemporary, mobile societies also develop such textures of interdependence, but their spatial extension is much larger. Abstract and technical means are applied to guarantee the symbiotic connections, without, however, depending on physical proximity. Living together is being avoided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Judin and Vladislavic (1999).
- 2.
With the striking exception of Israel/Palestine (→ Expansion).
- 3.
Hookway (1999).
- 4.
Konrad (1996), referring to Vienna, Austria.
- 5.
This term is being used as shorthand for consumer societies in developed countries, including the notion of aging societies. There is no scientific claim to this formulation.
- 6.
In traditional and developing societies, community is an encompassing reality, indispensable for survival yet increasingly perceived as a burden in the process of individual development and emancipation.
- 7.
Caldeira (2000).
- 8.
Common-Interest Community (CIC): In the USA, this is a legal format for residential estates with many owners (also: Homeowner Associations). Often and without special mention, the common interest is constituted by the exclusion of certain persons. The less harmful communities are those which accept only persons without children or retired persons only. A widespread criterion, which is has also been legally tested, is the proof of adherence to homeowner associations during the past 40 years. See McKenzie (1994).
- 9.
Ross (1999), referring to Celebration: “(…) the pattern of “civility” usually covers a very narrow spectrum of tolerable behaviour and is designed as much to exclude as to invite common participation.”
- 10.
Caldeira (2000), referring to Alphaville.
- 11.
The heterotopia described by Foucault (1984) (→ Privatisation).
- 12.
Thomas Jefferson, in Lerup (2000).
- 13.
Marcuse (2005).
References
Caldeira T (2000) City of walls: crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo. University of California Press, Berkeley
Foucault M (1984) Of other spaces, heterotopias in architecture. Mouvement, Continuité 5:46–49
Hookway B (1999) Pandemonium – the rise of predatory locales in a postwar world. Princeton Architectural Press and Rice University, Lars Lerup, Dean
Judin H, Vladislavic I (1999) Blank: architecture, apartheid and after. NAi Uitgevers, Rotterdam
Konrad H (1996) Zeitgeschichte und Moderne. In: Haller R (Hrsg) Nach Kakanien. Böhlau, Wien/Köln/Weimar
Lerup L (2000) After the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Marcuse P (2005) Enclaves yes, ghettos no: segregation and the state. In: Varady D (ed) Desegregating the city: ghettos, enclaves, and inequality. State University of New York Press, Albany
Mckenzie E (1994) Privatopia: homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. Yale University Press, New Haven
Ross A (1999) The celebration chronicles. Ballantine Books, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fiedler, J. (2014). Segregation. In: Urbanisation, unlimited. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03587-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03587-1_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-03586-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-03587-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)