代写DEVP0002 Critical Urban Theory and Design代做留学生SQL语言程序

日期：2025-11-01 11:23

DEVP0002 Critical Urban Theory and Design

Code:      DEVP0002

Intensity: 30 credits

Assessment: Coursework (50%)

MODULE OVERVIEW

This is a core module for the MSc Building and Urban Design in Development (BUDD) course and is mandatory for all BUDD students, but it is open to other UCL students of all disciplinary backgrounds.

The module covers a critical reflection on the epistemology and the ontology of urban design in a renewed prospective highlighting the tensions between its theoretical and conceptual coordinates and its current global problematiques. It aims to offer a series of conceptual building blocks to construct a theoretical and critical understanding of urban design as discipline and practice, conceptualising it as a project of city making for collective existence. It introduces students to a common vocabulary of concepts and theories on urbanism, political economy of space, urban studies and urban sociology expanded with the use of critical theory, philosophy, and cultural studies.

It offers the opportunity familiarising with authors, ideas and literatures that can help reflecting on the complex realm of imagination, representation and design of urban futures and therefore conceiving urban design as part of an expanded field, where the many scales of architecture are manifested –from their urban manifestation to how building and spaces are conceived, occupied, and used, incorporating objects, spaces and meanings.

Positioning urban design aside the conventional realm of architecture and urban planning the module is searching for an expanded urban design (project) grounded contemporary sites of crisis able to pose new urban questions. As all critical projects, it can be divided in a pars destruens and a pars construens: in the first it attempted critically deconstruct the monolithic project of urban design based on anticipatory fixed forms complicit with the current global conditions loosely defined by extractions, extinctions and expulsion and the second to revise and re-imagining the city project as a form. of collective life, giving voices and space to situated, inoperative and minor gestures.

The module critically assesses the role of urban design as both theory and practice in the transformation of cities, towards understanding how space emanates from specific modes of production with their inherent structure of social relations, cultures, ideologies and histories, as well as gender, age, diversity and other such elements that configure the urban realm. The module inherently suggests the political nature of space, of contestation revealing the lines of power and agency that are written and rewritten in cities, places and urban projects. Therefore, by deconstructing and re-calibrating the discipline of urban design as a political economy of space, students are invited to critically analyse the different scales and formal and informal forces that transform, regenerate, revitalise, upgrade and/or conserve places. Putting at the centre the urban project as emerging from constitutive tensions with space and society imply re-thinking the city not as an epiphenomenon of the way the world evolves/revolves or the simple mise en scene of a specific set of knowledge and savoirs, rather is the very looking glass through which to see the world today critically. Researching the intricate space of the urban project today, imply taking a relational view where the key overlapping tensions of 1) power and knowledge, 2) politics and life and 3) bodies and spaces are framing the current urban project. This allows to engage with the politics of city making as double dimension of both creation of a new urban subjectivity with all its contradiction and places and allow to expand the task of thinking the politics of the project of the city spatially as a question of collective existence.

Theory and specifically critical theory are at the centre of the module intended as a manner of looking at the urban and the spatial practices as both a re-examination of the significance and complications of the critical gesture and the systematic questioning of the obscured issues, ignored debates and neglected alternative trajectories of its tradition. Specifically, the module attempt suggesting provincializing our concepts (time and space) that have served to normalise and colonise the planet to become vulnerable and to embrace not the unknown but the unknowable and explore the unfamiliar life of things.

The importance of the re-appropriation of a theory laden reflection on and from the city and an extra dose of critical theory is a direct consequence both of the centrality of the city to human life as a life lived with and among others, and of the way the collective of human life is now explicitly played out within and in relation to urban contexts.  Engaging with urban design philosophically means the opening of a mode of inquiry that asks both questions on the nature, the form. and the essence of the city itself and the modes of life and existence that the city enables. This involves not only what emerges within the physical bounds of the city, but also that which arises in the larger space—within the city or without, materially or conceptually —to which the urban gives rise. Ultimately the module attempts to engage the reality of the city as a social, political, economic, material, spatial, environmental, and topological phenomenon questioning “what is the form. of collective life?”

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon completion of the module, participants will be able to:

• Be familiar with concepts of urban space in its inherently contested contemporary production and how different theoretical traditions have reflected critically on the urban as epistemological and ontological elements;

• Understand the ways in which human activities shape and influence their environment and how the physical environment in turn affects and influences human activities;

• Gain an overview with the critical debates on urban design, urban transformation and the role of the project in shaping and transforming spaces and places,

• Appreciate the specific complexity of circumstances and constraints that urban design has to respond to in the context of contested urbanisms, informalities and neoliberal urban dynamics in planetary geographies and the ones of crisis, conflictive environments and global migration patterns;

• Recognise different approaches to and definitions of urban design and understand the debate over urbanism and urbanisation across different epistemological traditions.

• Have a critical framework to position urban design alongside architecture and planning informed an expanded tradition of philosophical and critical theory references.

• To appreciate the necessity of a decolonial approach to urbanism and the need for an expanded reference (epistemological and geographical) to think and act on the urban spatial dimensions.

MODULE STRUCTURE AND PARTICIPATION

This module is organised according to weekly teaching units, composed of weekly face-to-face encounters on campus (as indicated on the weekly DPU timetable) supported by readings and up to one-hour of asynchronous activities (including but not limited to short pre-recorded lectures) accessible on the module-specific Moodle page. Students are expected to dedicate approximately 150 learning hours per module per term, amounting to around 10-12 hours per week (for full-time students). The asynchronous activities will be released on a weekly basis via Moodle announcement, so you must keep pace with the module. Each required learning activity has a indicative amount of time to guide you

You are expected to participate actively in all module activities and your participation will be routinely monitored. Over the course of the module, each participant is expected to engage in the learning activities by drawing on the literature and on his/her personal and practical experience and reseach interests. Three different levels of readings are suggested per each unit: Core and Suggested. For each session, participants should read at least the core readings (provided electronically via Moodle) and complete all asynchronous activities for each teaching unit to be able to engage in the conversation and discussion each week. Suggested reading are the ones used by the tutor and which form. the basis for a much greater engagement and the participant can focus on them during the term and in preparation of the assignment or to develop individual research. Please note that readings are listed alphabetically, not in order of significance, and that the lists provided are not exhaustive; they indicate a route into relevant literature. A list of suggested books that informed the intellectual scaffolding of the module are listed at the end. Students are suggested to engage with some of them during the term at their own pace of time and reading.

If you genuinely find you are unable to travel for the start of Term 1 because of government Covid restrictions, we will work with you as far as possible to ensure you are able to keep up with module material until you can join us.

MODULE COMMUNICATION

Important information will be posted by staff in the Moodle Announcements forum, and you will automatically receive an email notification for these. You cannot reply to these emails. Please post any general queries relating to module content and administration in the Q&A forum instead of emailing staff directly as the response may benefit other students. Weekly communications will be sent to outline the week ahead, including any asynchronous activities you are expected to complete in preparation for the face-to-face encounters on campus.

If your query is personal or concerns accessibility (e.g. to request an alternative format for any resource), please contact staff directly. We aim to respond within 2 working days. Please do not expect a response outside normal working hours (Monday–Friday, 09:00–17:00 GMT), and be courteous in your communications with staff and fellow students.

ABOUT THE MODULE TUTORS

The module is led by Prof. Camillo Boano in Term1 and by Dr. Giorgio Talocci in Term 2.

Camillo Boano is a Professor of Urban Design and Critical Theory at The Bartlett Development Planning Unit at UCL and Professor of Architectural and Urban Design at the Dipartimento Interateneo di Scienze, Progetto e Politiche del Territorio, Politecnico di Torino, Italy. He joined DPU back in 2007 and was the BUDD program Director from 2008 till 2019. Camillo’s research is centered on the complex encounters between critical theory, radical philosophy and urban design processes, specifically engaging with informal urbanizations, urban collective actions, as well as crisis-generated urbanisms. Camillo’s research has centered on the interfaces between critical theory, radical philosophy, and urban design processes. He is working on a series of interconnected research projects in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East on urban infrastructures, habitability, forced displacement, camp urbanism and the urban project. 

Giorgio Talocci is a design researcher and educator. He is a s Teaching Fellow at The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, and he works as Lecturer at the Welsh School of Architecture (MA Architectural Design), and as Studio Master at the Architectural Association (MA/MArch Housing and Urbanism). His main research interests and publications focus on the significance of obsolescing processes in the dynamics of governance of the contemporary city, and on participatory design methodologies. He practised as an architect in Rome, where he later co-founded Laboratorio Arti Civiche — a trans-disciplinary research group whose work centred on participatory design research experiences and performances, most often with communities of squatters. Giorgio completed his PhD in Development Planning in 2019, with a thesis questioning the actual emergence of emancipatory design practices in informal settlements in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. There, he conducted a twelve-month fieldwork based on ethnographic research methods. He has long term experience of participatory design research along with urban poor communities, in United Kingdom, Italy, Cambodia, Philippines, Myanmar, Brazil, Turkey, China, Somaliland. He has been a long term collaborator of the Community Architects Network, a programme funded by the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights. His article “The depoliticisation of housing policies: the case of Borei Keila land-sharing in Phnom Penh, Cambodia” was awarded the 2017 Best Early Career Article Prize by the International Journal of Housing Policy, for being “by far the most ambitious of all the submitted articles in terms of engaging with ideas and the global context, yet at the same time painting a vivid and convincing picture of the housing/political realities in the locality”.

ASSESSMENT

The module will be assessed through a 3000-word essay (excluding bibliography and appendices), to be submitted electronically via Turnitin by 09:45 AM UK on Tuesday November 25^th, 2025. The essay title and topic are chosen by the student, but it has to address the general question “what is the form. of collective life? How can the urban project materialize a new imagination and potentials for a collective life? The essay has to contain a concepts map, a diagram, or a collage.

OVERVIEW OF MODULE UNITS

Unit 1	Recalibrating Urban Design: what is the form. of collective life?
Unit 2	Southern, planetary and in the margins
Unit 3	Space, power and knowledge
Unit 4	The camp and the paradigms of displacement
-	Reading Week
Unit 5	Politics, spaces and life
Unit 6	Care and its infrastructures
Unit 7	Bodies, spaces and the urban project
Unit 8 Unit 9	Extractions, excavations and dispossessions Urban Design for collective living

Unit 1

Recalibrating Urban Design: what is the form. of collective life?

UNIT FOCUS

The session will introduce urban design as city making in the current conflictive trend of urban transformations and frames a broader theoretical need for a recalibration reaffirming the necessity of a critical gesture. It will frame. an analytical matrix able to analyse which forces transform, regenerate, revitalise, upgrade and/or conserve places putting at the centre the urban project as emerging from constitutive tensions with space and society and it will frame. the guiding question of what is the form. of collective life? taking a relational view where the key overlapping tensions of 1) power and knowledge, 2) politics and life and 3) bodies and spaces are framing the current urban project.

CORE READINGS:

· Berlant, L, (2022) Introduction. Intentions, in Berlant, L., On the Incontinence of Other People, Durham, Duke University Press, pp:1-31

· Kaiser, BM., Thiele, K., O’Leary, T. (2021) Introduction, in Kaiser, BM., Thiele, K., O’Leary, T. eds, The Ends of Critique. Methods, Institutions, Politics, Rowman and Littlefiled, London, pp:1-18

· Simone, A. (2016), The Uninhabitable, Cultural Politics, 12 (2): 135-54.

ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Cunningham, D. (2005) ‘The concept of metropolis. Philosophy and urban form’ Radical Philosophy, 133: 13-25.

Cuthbert, A. (2011) ‘Urban Design and Spatial Political Economy.’ In Companion to Urban Design, edited by T. Benerjee and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, 84–96. London and New York: Routledge.

Hélène Frichot, « A Creative Ecology of Practice for Thinking Architecture », Ardeth [En ligne], 1 | 2017, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2017, consulté le 10 juillet 2023. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/1007

Fry, T., (2005) Design, Design Development and Question of Directions. Design Philosophy Papers, Vol. 3(4), pp: 265-281.

Haraway, D., (2015) Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationcene, Chutlucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities, pp: 159-165

Harris, K., (2019) Making room for the extraeconomic. Ontology for contemporary critical urban inquiry. City, Vol 23, pp: 751-773

Parker, S., (2012) ‘Urbanism as material discourse: Questions of interpretations in contemporary urban theory’. Urban Geography, 33(4): 530–544

Pieterse, E., (2013) Introducing Rogue Urbanism. in Pieterse, E., Simone, A., eds. Rogue Urbanism: Emergent African Cities. Cape Town: Jacana Media & ACC, pp: 12-34.

Roberts, M. (2000) ‘Urban Design and the Urban Question: Banlieues 89’. Journal of Urban Design, 5(1): 19-40

Rao, V. (2006) ‘Slum as theory: the South/Asian city and globalization’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(1): 225–232.

Roy, A., (2019) Fishbowl City, in T. Banejeree, A., Loukaitou-Sideris, eds., The New Companion of Urban Design. London Routledge, pp: 28-39. 

Sadler, S., (2018) ‘The immanent City’. In K. Jacobs, J. Malpas, eds, Philosophy and the City. Interdisciplinary and transcultural perspectives, London: Rowman and Littlefield, pp: 206-238. 

Shatkin G. (2011) ‘Coping with actually existing urbanisms: The real politics of planning in the global era’. Planning theory, 10(1): 79-87.

Simone, A., (2010) On Cityness, in City Life from Jakarta to Dakar. Movements at the Crossroads, London: Taylor and Francis, pp:1-61.

Unit 2

Southern, planetary and in the margins

UNIT FOCUS

The current urban - global issue - demonstrates the impossibility (conceptual and ethical) of defining the urban in a universally recognized way. At the same time, this recalls the - urgent - need for redefined discourses sufficiently capable of not obscuring and making invisible the extreme variety and complexity of its own conditions, without reducing, simplifying, or abstracting them. This session will frame. one central component of the reaffirmation of criticism as a form. of displacing from the south and in the margin, seen not as geographies but modality, ethics, situations where to challenge how urban design knowledge is constructed. With the use of different traditions of critical theory - from ontological to feminist - putting into play urban design limits and epistemic violence and spatial thoughts confronting with issues of marginality, exclusions, and the colonial project of urban knowledge.

CORE READINGS:

· Caldeira, T.P.R., (2017) Peripheral Urbanization: Autoconstruction, transversal logics, and politics in cities of the global south. Environment and Planning: Society and Space, Vol. 35(1), pp:3-20.

· Lawhon, M., Truelove, Y., (2020) Disambiguating the southern urban critique: Propositions, pathways and possibilities for a more global urban studies, Urban Studies, Vol. 57(1), pp: 3–20.

· Watson, V. (2014) The case for a Southern perspective in planning theory. International Journal of E-Planning Research, Vol. 3(1), pp: 23-37.

ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Ahmed, S., (2006) “The Orient and Other Others,” in Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006), pp: 109–156.

Armiero, M (2022) From Waste to Climate. Social Text, Vol. 40, no. 1, p. 69–89.

Bahn, G. (2019) Notes on a Southern urban practice. Environment and Urbanization, 31(2), 639–654.

Comaroff, J., Comaroff, J.L, (2012) Theory from the South: or how euro-America is Evolving towards Africa. Anthropological forum, Vol. 22(2), pp: 112-131.

Ferraris, M., (2012) Margins of Architecture. Serbian Architectural Journal, Vol.5, pp: 47-57.

hooks, bell (1989) Choosing the margins as a space of radical openesses” Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media, no. 36, 1989, pp. 15–23.

Khuan-Hsing, C., (2010) Decolonization: a geocolonial historical materialism in Asia as Method. Towards Deimperialization, Durham, Duke University Press, pp:17-64.

Lowe, L., (2015) The intimacy of four continent, in The Intimacy of Four Continent, Durham: Duke University Press, pp: 1-42.

Mcfarlane, C. (2008) ‘Urban Shadows: Materiality, the ‘Southern City’ and Urban Theory’. Geography Compass, 2(2): 340-358.

Miraftab F (2009) Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global south. Planning Theory 8(1): 32–50.

Rao, V. (2006) ‘Slum as theory: the South/Asian city and globalization’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(1): 225–232.

Rael, R. (2011) ‘Border wall as architecture’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29: 409-420.

Schindler, S., (2017) Towards a paradigm of Southern urbanism, City, 21:1, pp: 47-64.

Simone, A., (2004) People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg, Public Culture 16, no. 3 (2004): 407–429.

Simone, A., (2016) The Uninhabitable? In between Collapsed Yet Still Rigid Distinctions, Cultural Politics, Vol. 12(2), pp:135-154.

Watson, V. (2014) The Case for a Southern Perspective in Planning Theory. International Journal of Planning Research 3 (1): 23–27.

Unit 3

Space, power, and knowledge  

UNIT FOCUS

The session will focus on tracing the theoretical coordinates that frame. urban design as a discipline that has space at the centre of its practice and therefore it does opens up a political and relational perspective on space when a certain set of powers and a certain set of knowledges materialise and frame. interventions. The session attempt to theoretically connect with authors as Lefebrve, Foucault and Ranciere Agamben and their specific spatial readings. It will also start to frame. a critique that generates a twist in which the project re-problematizes, from within, its conditions of emergency and action. A criticism, however, that does not only work on the form. of spaces, but also on the "politics of subjectivity" and in no way its glorification, always flexing and questioning the designing self. The session attempt to suggest space, and urban space, specifically, as a field of tensions where different powers and knowledges are constructing the urban forms and the subjectivities and forms of live that operate in it.

CORE READINGS:

· Foucault, M., (2007) Lecture 11 January 1978, in M. Foucault, Security, Territory and Population, Lectures at the College De France 1977-78, London, Palgrave p. 1-27. 

· Kelly, M. E.G. (2014) Power and Resistance in Foucault and Politics. A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh University Press, pp: 85-113.

· Shaw I, Waterstone M (2021) A Planet of Surplus Life: Building Worlds Beyond Capitalism. Antipode, 53: 1787-1806

ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Agamben G., (2014) What is a destituent power? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol, 32(1), pp:65-74.

Appadurai, A. (2001) ‘Deep democracy: urban governmentality and the horizon of politics’, Environment and Urbanization, 13(2): 23-43.

Borden, I. (2012) ‘Beyond Space: The Ideas of Henri Lefebvre in Relation to Architecture and Cities’.  Journal of Chinese Urban Science, 3(1):156-193.

Dikec, M., (2012) Space as a mode of political thinking. Geoforum, Vol. 43, pp: 669-676.

Goonewardena, K. (2011) ‘Critical urbanism. Space, Design, Revolution’. Banerjee, T., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., eds., Companion to Urban Design. Routledge, London. Pages: 97-108.

Gordon, L.R., (2010) ‘Fanon on Decolonising Knowledge’, in E.A., Hoppe, T., Nicholls, eds., Fanon and the Decolonization of Philosophy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp: 3-18.

Grosz, E., (2001) ‘The future of space. Towards an architecture of invention’. In Architecture from the outside. Essays on Virtual and real space. MIT press, pp: 109-130.

Elden, S., (2009) Space I, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, pp.262-267

Kipfer, S., Saberi. S., Wieditz, T. (2012) ‘Henri Lefebvre: Debates and controversies’, Progress in Human Geography, 7(1): 115-134.

Lefebvre, H. (1996) ‘On urban Form’, Lefebrvre, H., Writing on the City. Edited and Translated by Koffman, E., Lebas, E., Oxford Blackewell, p. 133-13.

Malpas, J. (2012). Putting space in place: philosophical topography and relational geography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2012, vol 30, pages 226 – 242.

Merrifield, A. (1993) ‘Place and space: A Lefebvrian reconciliation’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(4): 516–531.

Merrifield, A. (2013) ‘Citizens’ agora. The new urban question’, Radical Philosophy, 179; 31-35.

Minca, C. (2011) ‘Carl Schmitt and the question of spatial ontology’, Legg, S. (ed.), Spatiality, Sovereignty and Carl Schmitt. Geographies of the nomos. London: Rutledge, pp:163-181.

Stengers, I., (2005) Introductory notes on an ecology of practice. Cultural studies review, Vol. 11(1), pp: 183-196.

Stanek, L., Schmid, C., Moravánszky, A., (2015) introduction: Theory not Method: Thinking with Lefebvre in Methods Urban Revolution Now. Henri Lefebvre in Social Research and Architecture. Ashgate: London, pp: 1-26.

Unit 4

The camp and the paradigms of displacement

UNIT FOCUS

This session will open up the opportunity to engage with a fundamental site of crisis of the urban and its project: the camp. It will discuss the spatial object of the camp in the intersection of urban studies, architecture, geography, anthropology and humanitarian practice, to reflect on both the spatialization of biopolitics and the emergency urbanization in the framework of a global displacement era. The idea is to offer a reflection on the camp as a spatial dispositive to reflect on the tensions between permanence and temporariness, exception and normalization, politicization and depoliticization suggesting the possibility of visualizing an urbanism of exception through a categorization around authority, production, exclusion, iconicity and identity that challenges design and planning in an era of proliferations of borders at different territorial scales

CORE READINGS:

· Agier, M. (2019) Camps, Encampments and Occupations: from the Heterotopia to the Urban Subject. Ethics, Vol. 84(1), pp:14-26.

· Abourahme, N., (2020) The camp. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and Middle East., Vol.40(1), pp: 35-42).

· Vardoulakis, D., (2017) Intermezzo 2: The Refugee and Resistance to Sovereign Power, in Stasis Before the State. Nine Theses on Agonistic Democracy, Fordham University Press, pp: 77-83.

ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Alaqra, A., (2019) To Subvert, to deconstruct: Agency in Qualandia Refugee Camp. Jerusalem quarterly, pp: 63 – 76.

Ansealoni, F., (2020) Deterritorialising the Jungle: Understanding the Calais camp through its ordering. Environment and Planning C, pp: 1 – 17.

Bhattacharyya, G., (2018) Territory and Borders, Racial Capitalism and Sovereignty in Crisis, in Rethinking Racial Capitalism. Questions of Reproduction and Survival, London: Rowman and Littlefield, pp: 132-158.

Boano, C. (2019) “From Exclusion to Inhabitation: Response to Gray Benjamin. Citizenship as Barrier and Opportunity for Ancient Greek and Modern Refugees.” Humanities 8 (125): 1–8.

Elden, S., (2010) ‘Land, Terrain, Territory’, Progress in Human Geography Vol. 34(6), pp:: 799–817.

Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E, and Yusif M. Qasmiyeh. (2018) “Refugee Neighbours & Hostipitality.” Refugee Hosts, 20 March. https://refugeehosts.org/2018/03/20/refugee-neighbours-hostipitality/

Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E, (2020) Introduction, Recentering the South in Studies of Migration. Migration and Society. Advances in research Vol 3, pp:1-18. 

Giaccaria, P., Minca, C. (2011) ‘Topographies/topologies of the camp: Auschwitz as a spatial threshold, Political Geography, 30(1): 3-12.

Huq E., Miraftab F., (2020) “We are All Refugees”: Camps and Informal Settlements as Converging Spaces of Global Displacements, Planning Theory & Practice, DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2020.1776376

Maqusi, S. (2017) Space of Refuge’: Negotiating Space with Refugees Inside the Palestinian Camp. Humanities 6: 60.

Minca, C. (2005) ‘The return of the Camp’, Progress in Human Geography, 29(4): 405–412.

Oesh, L., (2020) An improvised dispositive: invisible Urban Planning in the Refugee Camp. International Journal of Urban and regional Research, pp: 349-365.

Ramadan, A., (2012) Spatialising the Refugee Camp. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38 (1): 65–77.

Singh, A.L., (2020) Arendt in the refugee camp: The political agency of world-building. Political geography.

Sanyal, R. (2011) ‘Squatting in Camps: Building and Insurgency. Spaces of Refuge, Urban Studies, 48(5): 877-890.

Sanyal, R. (2012) Refugees and the City: An Urban Discussion. Geography Compass 6: 633–44.

Yftahel, O., (2020) From displacement to displaceability, City, 24:1-2, pp: 151-165.

Yuval-Davis N., Weymyss, G., Cassidy, K., (2019) Introduction. Framing bordering in Bordering. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp: 13-55.

Unit 5

Politics, spaces and life  

UNIT FOCUS

Very connected with the session in Unit 3, this session will focus on tracing the theoretical coordinates that frame. urban design as a discipline life at its centre calling, therefore, for a renewed attention to the politics of space, as any actions on life is political. The session will primary draw from the notion of biopolitics developed by Foucault but will engage with other trajectories of scholarship and will deliberately engage with a decolonial reading of life and nature.  The focus on life and living suggested central to any discussion on housing and urbanism – is extended beyond anthropocentrism to embrace a more vitalist materialism approach to consider inhabitation as the possible territory in which to think collective life and recalibrating urban design.

CORE READINGS:

· Revel, J., (2009) Identity, Nature, Life: Three Biopolitical Deconstructions, Theory, Culture & Society Vol. 26(6), pp: 45–54.

· Flew, T., (2012) ‘Michel Foucault’s The Birth of Biopolitics and contemporary neo-liberalism debates’, Thesis Eleven, 108(1):  44–65.

· Griffiths, D. (2015) Queer Theory for Lichens, Undercurrents, 19, pp:36-45. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/235683163.pdf  

· Cheng, I., Davis, C.L, Wilson, M.O., (2020) Introduction in Race and Modern Architecture. A critical History from the Enlightenment to the present. Pittsburg: University Pittsburg Pres, pp: 3-20.

ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Flew, T., (2012) ‘Michel Foucault’s The Birth of Biopolitics and contemporary neo-liberalism debates’, Thesis Eleven, 108(1):  44–65.

Lemke, T. (2015). New materialisms: Foucault and the ‘government of things. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(4), 3–25.

Lambert G., (2020) Methods, in The Elements of Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp:17-40

McIntyre M., Nast, H.J., (2012) Bio(necro)polis: Marx, Surplus, Population and the spatial dialectic of Reproduction and Race. Antipode, pp: 1465 – 1488.

Oldfield, S., (2015) Between activism and the academy: The urban as political terrain. Urban Studies, Vol. 52(11), pp: 2072–2086.

Pierce, J., (2019) How can we share space? Ontologies of Spatial Pluralism in Lefebrve, Butler and Massey. Space and Culture, 1-13. 

Quijano, A., (2000) Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America, International Sociology, 15(2), 215–232.

Jazeel, T., Legg, St., (2019) Subaltern Studies, Space and the Geographical Imagination, in Subaltern Geographies, pp.13-83.

Rancière, J., (2001) Ten Theses on Politics, Theory & Event, 5,3, [Available at] http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v005/5.3ranciere.html.

Rozakou, K. (2012) The Biopolitics of Hospitality in Greece: Humanitarianism and the Managementof Refugees. American Ethnologist 39 (3): 562–577.

Tarizzo, D., (2016) True Fictions: Biopolitics, Critical Theory and Clinical Materialism. Paragraph, Vol. 39(1), pp: 10–25.

Roy, A. (2009) ‘Civic Governmentality: The Politics of Inclusion in Beirut and Mumbai’, Antipode 41(1): 159–179.

Unit 6

Care and its infrastructures

UNIT FOCUS

The attempt to frame. a renewed collective life as focus of the activities and the effect of the urban the urban project is, in this session, illustrated suggesting a deliberate adoption and reflection on the notion of care and its forms-of-caring.  When caring practices are at play in inhabitation they make collective life visible, where care as a process of holding together (materialities and temporalities) is conducive to notions of maintenance, repair and imagination. Inhabitation and therefore the project of urban design becomes another infrastructure of care that in the section is framed with references from feminist theory, decolonial practices and black critical studies to highlight its relational dimensions.

CORE READINGS:

· Hi‘ilei Julia Kawehipuaakahaopulani Hobart, Kneese, T., (2020) Radical Care Survival Strategies for Uncertain Times, Social Text, Vol. 38(1,), pp: 1-16.

· Tronto J., (2019) Caring Architecture, in A. Fitz, Krasny E., Arrchitekturzentrum Wien eds., Critical Care. Architecture and urbanism for a broken Planet. MIT press, pp: 26-32.

· Gan E, Tsing, A (2018) “How Things Hold: A Diagram of Coordination in a Satoyama Forest.” Social Analysis 62 (4): 102–45.

ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Bartos, A.E, (2019) Introduction: stretching the boundaries of care, Gender, Place & Culture, 26:6, 767-777,

Braidotti, R. (2019). Affirmative ethics and generative life. Deleuze and Guattari Studies, 13(4), 463–481.

Escobar, A. (2019). Habitability and design: radical interdependencies and the researching of cities. Geoforum, 101, 132–140.

Graziano, V., & Trogal, K. (2017). The politics of collective repair: Examining object relations in a postwork society. Cultural Studies, 31(5), 634–658.

Lancione, M. (2019) Radical housing: On the politics of dwelling as difference. International Journal of Housing Policy, 20(2), 273–289.

Mattern, S. (2018, November). “Maintenance and Care.” Places. https://placesjournal.org/article/maintenance-and-care 

Millington, N. (2019) Critical spatial practices of repair. Society and space. https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/critical-spatial-practices-of-repair.

Power, E.R., Tegan L. Bergan (2019) Care and Resistance to Neoliberal Reform. in Social Housing, Housing, Theory and Society, 36:4, 426-447.

Power, E. M., & Mee, K. J. (2019) Housing: an infrastructure of care. Housing Studies, 35(3), 484–505.

Rawes, P., (2019) Aesthetic geometries of life”, Textual Practice, Vol.33, pp: 787-802

Simone, A., (2019) ‘The Politics of peripheral care’. In Improvised Lives. London: Polity, pp: 225-252.

Shaffer, T., (2019) Care Communities. Ethics, Fictions Temporalities. The South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 118(3), pp:521-542.

Tronto, J., (2018) Care as a political concept, in Revisioning the Political. Reconstructions of Traditional Concepts in Western Political Theory, London: Taylor and Francis,  pp: 139-156

Unit 7

Bodies, spaces and the urban project

UNIT FOCUS

Very connected with Unit 3 and 5 this unit will focus on tracing the centrality of bodies, their materialities and their performativity in the urban project. It will reflect on distancing, density and mobility to reflects on how bodies influence space and space bodies and their intersectoral dimensions of gender, race, ability. It will connect with the notion of biopolitics but will develop a more affirmative reflection on besides, control, violence and norms.

CORE READINGS:

· Rao, V. (2007) ‘Proximate Distances: The Phenomenology of Density in Mumbai’. Built Environment, 33(2): 227-248.

· Muzzaffar, H., Braid, B., (2019) Embodiments at the end of Antropocene, in Bodies in Flux. Leiden: Brill. Pp: 1-9.

· Kyla Schuller and Jules Gill-Peterson (2020) Introduction. Race, the State, and the Malleable Body Social Text Vol. 38, No. 2, pp:1-17.

ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Ahmed, S., (2017) Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press.

Ascari, P. (2018) Bodies, Spaces and Citizenship: the Theoretical Contribution of Frantz Fanon. European Journal of Creative Practices in Cities and Landscapes, Vol.1(1), pp:17-32.

Di Feliciantonio, C. (2017) Spaces of the Expelled as Spaces of the Urban Commons? Analysing the Re‐emergence of Squatting Initiatives in Rome. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res., 41: 708-725

Fassin, D., (2009) Another Politics of Life is Possible, Theory, Culture & Society Vol. 26(5): 44–60.

Foroughmand Araabi, H. A (2016) Typology of Urban Design theories and its application to the shared body of knowledge. Urban Des Int 21, pp: 11–24.

Philo, C., (2001) ‘Accumulating populations: Bodies, Institutions and Space’. International journal of Population Geography, 7: 473-490.

Simone, A., (2004), “People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg,” Public Culture 16, no. 3 (2004): 407–429.

Streule, M., Karaman O., Sawyer L., Schmid, C., (2020) Popular Urbanization: Conceptualizing urbanization processes beyond informality. International Journal of urban and regional research, Vol. 44(4), pp: 652 – 672.

Weheliye, A.G., (2014) “Blackness: The Human” and “Bare Life: The Flesh,” in Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human. Durham: Duke University Press, pp: 17–45.