Advertisement

University as a Terminal: Socio-Material Infrastructure for Post-Neoliberal Society

  • Krzysztof Nawratek
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Critical University Studies book series (PCU)

Abstract

The chapter questions if the university as an institution and a socio-spatial entity – not only with all buildings, land and infrastructure but also academic community – can secure any economic autonomy in a contemporary capitalist city. It also discusses the idea of a “terminal”, the material element of urban infrastructure, allowing different urban actors (human and non-human) to freely plug-in and use it to support its existence and development. The chapter is based on analyses of projects done in the academic year 2014–2015 by students of the second year Master of Architecture programme at the University of Plymouth for Academic Quarter of Silesia University in Katowice, Poland. The idea of strict zoning – the notion of the city with precisely spatially defined functions, is still pretty strong in Katowice. This is a modernist attitude, leading to sorting functions, to dividing the city into specialized areas. Urban planning based on fragmentation is somehow related to the identity politics focused on strongly defined, unique subjects. However, there is an alternative to this kind of urban development and politics. The city, especially the contemporary “mongrel” city, is a concoction of different functions and different residents. What makes a city unique as a political entity is its spatiality, allowing diverse logics to operate simultaneously, side by side, potentially without any interaction. Thus, the city has an ability to unify and integrate, but at the same moment it could protect weaker actors and could allow a creation of autonomous spheres (they are not necessary spatial zones) and local experimentations. The chapter analyses mechanism of this process of connecting and separating. It argues that the mechanism of mediation should be secured by “inclusive infrastructure” or “infrastructure for social change”. I would argue that the university, especially in a Polish context, has the ability to and indeed should become a laboratory of socio-economic and cultural experimentation.

Keywords

City Council Homeless People Spatial Zone Material Infrastructure Land Speculation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Awan, N., Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2011). Spatial agency: Other ways of doing architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bush, N., Koumi, A., & Taranowska, M. (2014) Otwarty Uniwersytet Ślaski: Urban strategy document for the open university of silesia in Katowice (Poland). http://issuu.com/nathanbush90/docs/otwarty_universytet_slaski_urban_st. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  3. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16): 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Graaf, R. (2015). Architecture is now a tool of capital, complicit in a purpose antithetical to its social mission\. The Architectural Review. 24 April 2015. http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/architecture-is-now-a-tool-of-capital-complicit-in-a-purpose-antithetical-to-its-social-mission/8681564.article. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  5. Duffill, A., Hills, A., & Horton-Howe, A. (2014). Ko-oprekariat, urban strategy and masterplan for Katowice, Poland. http://issuu.com/andyhills88/docs/kooprekariatbookletsmall?e=1. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  6. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2005). The end of capitalism (as we knew it): A feminist critique of political economy. Minnesota: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Heracleous, E., Parkinson, E., Twells, B., & Tyburska, A. K. (2014) Katowice 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbpfWKsOFo. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  8. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. London: Space Syntax.Google Scholar
  9. Koziołek, R. (2014). Uniwersytet jako dobry wspólne. Gazeta Wyborcza, 242, 17.10. 2014, Gazeta Katowice, p. 2 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  10. Kruth, J. (2016). The political agency of geography and the shrinking city. In K. Nawratek (Ed.), Re-industrialisation and progressive urbanism. New York: Punctum Books.Google Scholar
  11. Magnusson, W. (2014). The symbiosis of the urban and the political. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(5): 1561–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nawratek, K. (2015). Post-capitalism, post nation-state, democratic confederalism and Rojava. http://kurdishquestion.com/index.php/kurdistan/post-capitalism-post-nation-state-and-rojava/790-post-capitalism-post-nation-state-and-rojava.html. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  13. Nurhak, A. D. (2016). The kurdistan woman’s liberation movement. http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=180. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  14. Oxley, M. (2015). Final boards. http://matthew-oxley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/final-boards.html. Accessed 10 April 2016.
  15. Pawley, M. (1998). Terminal architecture. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  16. Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  17. Standing, G. (2014). A precariat charter: From denizens to citizens. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Staniszkis, J. (2012). Zawładnąć: Zarys procesualnej teorii władzy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture, University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations