Paul O'Hare

We're not NIMBYs! Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities

Abstract The term “NIMBY” is used prolifically in both academic literature and general public discourse to describe a locally based action group protesting against a proposed development. It is frequently used to dismiss groups as selfish or ill-informed, as is illustrated both by those who accuse opponents of possessing such characteristics and also by the attempts of many community groups to reject the label. This lies in sharp contrast to the much encouraged notions of public participation in planning and community life as proposed by the UK governments proclaimed vision of a “sustainable community”. This paper argues that this dichotomy between “good” and “bad” participation can be misleading, by drawing on research from two case studies where locally based community groups opposed a specific, detailed development. The paper contributes to a burgeoning literature that reappraises conventional understandings of such groups by analysing often overlooked facets of protest groups, concluding that the conventional conceptualisations of them as NIMBY is inadequate and unhelpful in academic debate.

The Visibility of (In)security: The Aesthetics of Planning Urban Defences Against Terrorism

Urban defences against terrorism have traditionally been based on territorial interventions that sought to seal off and surveil certain public and private spaces considered targets. Lately, though, a much wider range of crowded and public spaces have been viewed as potential targets and thus have been identified as requiring additional security. This has immense implications for the experience of the ‘everyday’ urban landscape. Drawing on contemporary notions that incorporate the study of aesthetics and emotions within critical security and terrorism studies, this article discusses the visual impact of counter-terrorism security measures. It analyses the ‘transmission’ of symbolic messages, as well as the variety of ways in which security might be ‘received’ by various stakeholders. The analysis takes place against the backdrop of concern that obtrusive security measures have the capacity to radically alter public experiences of space and in some cases lead to (intended and unintended) exclusionary practices or a range of negative emotional responses. The article concludes by outlining a ‘spectrum of visible security’ ranging between traditional obtrusive fortified approaches and approaches that embed security features seamlessly or even ‘invisibly’ into the urban fabric.

From rhetoric to reality: : Which resilience, why resilience, and whose resilience in spatial planning?

This paper analyses contrasting academic understandings of ‘equilibrium resilience’ and ‘evolutionary resilience’ and investigates how these nuances are reflected within both policy and practice. We reveal that there is a lack of clarity in policy, where these differences are not acknowledged with resilience mainly discussed as a singular, vague, but optimistic aim. This opaque political treatment of the term and the lack of guidance has affected practice by privileging an equilibrist interpretation over more transformative, evolutionary measures. In short, resilience within spatial planning is characterised by a simple return to normality that is more analogous with planning norms, engineered responses, dominant interests, and technomanagerial trends. The paper argues that, although presented as a possible paradigm shift, resilience policy and practice underpin existing behaviour and normalise risk. It leaves unaddressed wider sociocultural concerns and instead emerges as a narrow, regressive, technorational frame centred on reactive measures at the building scale.

Deconstructing Resilience: Lessons from Planning Practice

‘Resilience’ has emerged to become a notion that imbues academic research and policy discourse. But, the term’s prolificacy is matched neither by certainty regarding its definition nor by agreement regarding its application through policy and practice. Like ‘sustainability’ or ‘progress’ the concept, at least from a superficial perspective, is one that is rather agreeable and ‘fuzzy’ and difficult to contest. It seems counter-intuitive to argue that we should not become more resilient, particularly in the face of economic, environmental and social shocks or stresses that can prove to be deeply disruptive—even devastating—to everyday life. The passive reception of the term, as well as the considerable ambiguity regarding its articulation and application, has only assisted to catalyse the cascade of resilience through a broad variety of policy and practical agendas. Resilience has been heralded as a prime mobilizing concept upon which a host of strategies may converge to help society and cities better prepare for a range of risks across regional, national and global scales (e.g. Conservative Party, 2010; Cabinet Office, 2011; United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012). Resilient systems—be they cities, infrastructures, communities or commerce—are generally thought to support ‘business as usual’ (London First, 2003), or even business that is better than usual in the face of a threat. Resilience thus promises to be able necessary to carve order from chaos and to construct a capacity to respond (and adapt) to uncertain risks, ultimately fostering the circumstances necessary to support an efficient recovery from their impacts. Indeed, some interpretations of resilience make a discernible effort to treat the potential consequences of risk, not only as threats, but also as opportunities that may be capitalized upon so long as a certain predisposition to respond positively has been adequately accumulated or anticipated in advance (see, e.g. Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005; Shaw & Theobold, 2011).

Insurance as maladaptation: Resilience and the 'business as usual' paradox

Insurance and compensation are cited as critical elements of resilience to natural and non-natural hazards alike. As a strategy of risk management, it emphasises peace of mind, financial recompense and the swift restoration of a ‘business as usual’ status for civil, social and commercial life. Yet despite the contribution of insurance to risk management, the synergies with progressive or adaptive articulations of resilience are not sufficiently explicated. This paper explores the fundamental contradictions of insurance as a form of resilience through a study of flood risk management. It demonstrates how insurance regimes serve to structurally embed risky behaviour and inhibit change after detrimental events. As such, transformative interpretations of resilience conflict with the long-standing principles and operational norms of insurance that privilege normality. The paper concludes that, despite its currency within resilience discourses, insurance is maladaptive and that insurance regimes reinforce exposure and vulnerability through underwriting a return to the ‘status-quo’ rather than enabling adaptive behaviour.

Capacity building for community-led regeneration: Facilitating or frustrating public engagement?

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of European Union Objective 1 funding on the development and formalisation of a neighbourhood‐based group situated in a regeneration area in the UK. The role, function and impact of a Community Empowerment Network (CEN) (funded by the Labour Government as part of its Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy) is also examined and assessed.Design/methodology/approach – The findings of the paper are informed by a critique of the policy literature and the ways in which “leadership” roles and responsibilities are played out within neighbourhood settings. The empirical research derives from an analysis of the role and practice of CENs in England.Findings – The paper argues that the external initiatives restrict the autonomy and independence of community based groups. Furthermore, the paper makes the point that such externally driven programmes are often located within neighbourhoods with little reference to identifying the needs or priorities of residents.Resea...

Building for a Changing Climate: The Challenge for Construction, Planning and Energy

blages, thus, contain three functions: they support the evaluation of urban learning; they suggest a radical democratization of learning in the city and they also propose more ethical and just forms of urbanism. Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear how McFarlane’s learning assemblages can address these normative aspirations and what methodological implications this raises. Yet, an appetite for a more elaborate reflection on the relationship between the actual and the possible and the role of ‘generative critique’ (159) is certainly raised. A different point that McFarlane also deals with in setting out a critical geography of urban learning is the problem of comparison. Here, theoretical and methodological implications are carefully mapped out along two inter-related avenues, theory-culture and ethico-politics, which make explicit the importance of acknowledging different approaches to urban theory, inherent power relations as much as one’s positionality. Learning the city is packed with a firework of ideas, approaches and a myriad of illustrative material. At times, the argument is fairly dense and the illustrations do not go into much depth, yet, it proposes a challenging, inspiring and innovative research agenda. It is only a minor shortcoming that McFarlane sometimes misses to take into consideration other research perspectives that also encourage critical reflections on how cities can be known in his enthusiastic argument for a central role of urban learning. There will certainly be a range of contributors that join in on the exciting task of making these links. In Learning the City, McFarlane successfully manages to open the black box of urban learning in widening the perspective to acknowledge diverse urban learning practices, which may even bear a transformative potential in certain contexts.