Urban Development Issues
  • Home
  • UDI NEWS
  • About Us
    • Editorial Team & Board
    • Points awarded & indexing
    • Review process
  • Papers
    • Current Issue
    • Archive >
      • 2020 >
        • Volume 66
        • Volume 65
      • 2019 >
        • Volume 64
        • Volume 63
        • Volume 62
        • Volume 61
      • 2018 >
        • volume 60
        • volume 59
        • volume 58
        • volume 57
      • 2017 >
        • volume 56
        • volume 55
        • volume 54
        • volume 53
      • 2016 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2016
        • Zeszyt III/2016
        • Zeszyt II/2016
        • Zeszyt I/2016
      • 2015 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2015
        • Zeszyt III/2015
        • Zeszyt II/2015
        • Zeszyt I/2015
      • 2014 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2014
        • Zeszyt III/2014
        • Zeszyt II/2014
        • Zeszyt I/2014
      • 2013 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2013
        • Zeszyt III/2013
        • Zeszyt II/2013
        • Zeszyt I/2013
      • 2012 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2012
        • Zeszyt III/2012
        • Zeszyt II/2012
        • Zeszyt I/2012
      • 2011 >
        • Zeszyt III-IV/2011
        • Zeszyt I-II/2011
      • 2010 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2010
        • Zeszyt III/2010
        • Zeszyt II/2010
        • Zeszyt I/2010
      • 2009 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2009
        • Zeszyt III/2009
        • Zeszyt I-II/2009
      • 2008 >
        • Zeszyt II-III-IV/2008
        • Zeszyt I/2008
      • 2007 >
        • Zeszyt IV/2007
        • Zeszyt III/2007
        • Zeszyt I-II/2007
      • 2006 >
        • Zeszyt I-IV/2006
      • 2005 >
        • Zeszyt I-II/2005
        • Zeszyt III/2005
        • Zeszyt IV/2005
      • 2004 >
        • Zeszyt III-IV/2004
        • Zeszyt I-II/2004
  • For Authors
    • Publishing Policy
    • Guidelines for Authors
    • Submit your paper
    • Zasady publikowania (obowiązujące do nr 4/2016)
  • For the Reviewers
    • Register as a reviewer
  • 2018 Conference
    • Register form
    • Keynote speakers - abstracts
    • 2017 East Meets West conference >
      • 2017 East Meets West conference programme
  • IRMiR
Nick Bailey, University of Glasgow (UK)
​The consequences of the suburbanisation of poverty in UK cities

The suburbanisation of poverty has been noted in the cities of a large number of countries, including the UK. The main drivers of this process are seen as labour market restructuring on the one hand, and market-driven change in the housing system on the other. For low income households, surburbanisation processes are generally viewed in negative terms. First they are seen as arising not from positive choices but from direct or indirect displacement from central locations as a result of gentrification processes. Second they are seen as negatively impacting on the welfare of these households through the loss of access to valued communities and social ties in the former working class neighbourhoods of the core, and through the loss of access to valued social services. On the other hand, suburbanisation may offer low income households access to places which have usually been portrayed as aspirational and as locations of social advantage, both in terms of social composition and in terms of physical and social amenities. This paper explores the consequences
of suburbanisation by changes in two aspects of residential amenity which result: levels of air pollution and quality of schools. Results show that  suburbanisation has mixed impacts on household welfare but that low income households enjoy fewer of the benefits of ‘suburban’ locations than middle class households.
​
Loretta Lees, University of Leicester (UK)
Planetary gentrification and urban (re)development​

Gentrification is no-longer, if it ever was, a small scale process of urban transformation. Gentrification globally is more often practised as large scale urban
redevelopment. It is state-led or state-induced. The results are clear – the displacement and disenfranchisement of low income groups in favour of wealthier in-movers. Why has gentrification come to dominate policy making worldwide and what can we do about it?
​
Philip Harrison, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (South Africa)
Expanding the geography of knowledge production: insights on the governance of city regions from the BRICS

There is a lively international literature on the meaning and governance of city regions. The acrimonious debate of the early 2000s, with its’ oversimplified positions, has shifted in recent years towards a more cautious view of the possibilities for city region governance, with a call for more empirical interrogation and less haste in reaching conclusions. However, while the literature has matured, its geographical informants remain very restricted, with theorising still overwhelmingly based on a handful of cases in North America and Western Europe. This paper expands the geography of knowledge production by drawing cases from each of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) into current debates. It shows that a wider knowledge base may shift the orientation of the literature, and even change conclusions. The BRICS direct particular attention to: the diverse and unstable meanings of ‘city region’; the role of national elites in shaping the idea and practice of the city region (countering a common position that the rise of the city region is associated with the ‘hollowing out’ of the nation state); the role of ‘middle-level’ authorities in supporting and resisting the city region; the complex hybrid of informal/ emergent and formal/deliberate processes; and the ways in which the practical exigencies of managing large and complex urban agglomerations shape governance outcomes.   The BRICS study does not support any easy claims for city regions, showing how the governance of city regions is embedded in existing structures, power relations, histories and governance cultures. It does however indicate that city regions are opportunistic spaces of sorts, allowing for varying degrees of experimentation in new forms of governance.
Proudly powered by Weebly