Sydney at night People, places, and policies of the neoliberal city

Peta Wolifson

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Humanities and Languages Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of New South Wales

September 2018 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: Wolifson First name: Peta Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD Faculty: Arts and Social Sciences School: Humanities and Languages Title: Discourses of Sydney’s nightlife: People, places, and policies of the neoliberal city at night

Abstract This thesis examines nightlife in inner Sydney from 2012 to 2017, when it became a source of much consternation primarily due to a highly debated venue lockout implemented by the New South Wales (NSW) Government. An assemblage of articles mobilises correlative threads relating to the central thesis argument, that: neoliberal discourse has co-opted effective governance of nightlife. Through discourse analysis, interviews and mobile methods, data was generated on experiences, governance and activism relating to Sydney’s nightlife. Analyses of the City of Sydney Council’s 2013 ‘night-time economy’ strategy and the NSW Government’s 2014 lockout were critical threads of the thesis’ governance focus. This focus demonstrates the reliance on a neoliberal policy script, including its aspatial application across ‘global cities’, co-opting of consultation, and attempts to reshape urban identities and behaviours through economic shifts. Under the NSW Government’s agenda, nightlife is not socially and culturally valued, but rather economically dispensable. Applying a historical lens to contemporary debates around Sydney’s nightlife, I problematise the intent of a ‘civilised’ and deregulated nightlife and discuss how recent attempts at social and moral sanitation link the present-day situation to a legacy of class- based leisure. Fieldwork and analysis of activist discourses comprise further consolidating thesis threads. Using ‘go-alongs’ and walking interviews in the inner Sydney nightscape of Surry Hills, I connect encounters and embodied experiences at night to show the dynamism of personal relationships to place and the need for policy that includes diversity and considers embodied encounter. Scrutinising the performative discourses of activist groups ‘Keep Sydney Open’ and ‘Reclaim the Streets’, I demonstrated that the perception of activist success is increasingly shaped by their cohesion with neoliberal discourse. The final thesis article expanded public debate by nesting the thesis’ central contention – that neoliberal discourse has co-opted effective nightlife governance – in contemporary urban studies debates about the ‘right to the city’. Here, the thesis returns to its key purpose: to reframe public debate, primarily focused on the right to drink and alcohol-related violence, towards a more critical examination of the far-reaching social, cultural and economic consequences of urban nightlife governance. Keywords: Nightlife, night-time economy, discourse, neoliberalism, gentrification, global cities, encounter, mobile methods, activism, Sydney

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International.

Signature Witness Signature Date The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

ii I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which this thesis was written, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation.

I would also like to pay my respects to Elders past and present.

iii Originality statement

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

iv COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………...... Acknowledgements

Danielle Drozdzewski, thank you for the invaluable guidance of your supervision and for your friendship over this long journey. I’ve learnt so much from you and will be forever grateful that you stuck with me over the last six years, encouraging me and having my back. Chris Gibson, thank you for the instrumental direction you provided throughout this project and for sharing your knowledge and expertise. Thanks to Hazel Easthope and Gethin Davison for trusting in me to continue this journey when things were toughest, and for your always-useful advice and guidance. Many thanks also to Phillip Wadds, Adam Eldridge, Jordi Nofre, Chloé Wolifson and the anonymous reviewers and editors who provided constructive feedback on work presented in this thesis. Many others provided food for thought through conversations, questions and comments along the way. The research presented herein was undertaken with the support of an Australian Postgraduate Award. Thank you to those who walked with me around Surry Hills and welcomed me on their nights out. It was a pleasure spending time with each of you and, in the process, I learnt more than I could have imagined. Thanks also the government officials and activists for generously giving their time and providing insightful interviews. I’m lucky to have worked with and alongside a group of women who, in different ways, reflect so much of what I love about geography. Rebecca Cross, you are a generous and patient researcher, and your candour, curiosity and warmth has meant so much to me. Multi-talented Nerida Godfrey, you helped me to get through the toughest part of this journey and I can’t thank you enough for your friendship and openness. Caitlin Buckle, you continue to motivate me with your focus, professionalism and positivity. And, Charishma Ratnam, thank you for bringing your enthusiasm into the office every day, and for making thesis-writing not feel like a solo journey. The greatest challenge of the last six years was not this thesis but the illness I endured while producing it. Numerous health professionals and advocates helped me to manage this challenge (and still do) and their care, dedication and expertise allowed me to complete this thesis. Friends, thanks for being part of my (night)life, especially Mia, for sharing the dance floor, sure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the Serengeti. Chloé, thanks for more than I can possibly remember, for being the kinder sister, and for your unwavering support and help whenever it was needed. Mum and Dad, thank you for everything.

v Table of contents

Title page i Dissertation sheet ii Acknowledgement of Country iii Originality statement iv Acknowledgements v Table of contents vi List of articles and declarations ix List of figures, boxes, and tables x Abstract xii 1 Introduction

3 Research framework 5 Aims 7 Thesis outline

9 Conceptual inventory

9 Neoliberalism as discourse 12 Neoliberalism as performed 14 The global city 19 The creative city 24 The night-time economy 25 Gentrification

29 Case study selection and context

29 Sydney 31 Media ‘panic’ 34 Surry Hills

39 Procedural framework

39 Discourse analysis 42 Semi-structured interviews 44 A phenomenological approach 46 Mobile methods 49 Positionality and embodied research

vi 53 Introduction to articles

53 I Encountering the night 54 II Co-opting the night 55 III ‘Civilising’ by gentrifying 57 IV Performing neoliberalism 58 V Beyond lockouts

61 I Encountering the night

62 Study aims and objectives 63 Procedures 64 The locale 65 Methods 68 Go-alongs 70 Walking interviews 70 Recruitment 71 Vignettes of place 71 Emplacing biographical narratives 74 Contextualising (in)tolerance – encountering small bars and pubs 77 Probing discourse 79 Expectation and sociability 83 Conclusion 87 References

89 II Co-opting the night

90 Introduction 93 “Open Sydney” and “Sustainable Sydney 2030” 94 Case study and data 97 Cultural-economy: problematizing the economic imperative 97 Enacting the entrepreneurial shift 98 Defining acceptable consumption for a diverse NTE 100 Diversity and the misappropriation of data 100 Diversity and numeric 101 Public consultation 103 Conclusion 104 References

vii 109 III Civilising by gentrifying 112 Nightlife to night-time economy 105 113 Prohibition to ‘pokies’ in Sydney’s nightlife: regulation and rhetoric 115 ‘Global Sydney’: a new era in nightlife governance 116 Sydney’s night-time economy: Open late for everyone? 117 Lockout: Moral panic and neoliberal governance 122 The activist response 124 Neoliberalism co-opting nightlife: a city gentrified 128 References

135 IV Performing neoliberalism 137 Contextual background 140 Case study overview 145 Lockout responses 145 ‘Communities’, ‘Music’, ‘Planning’, ‘Culture’: RTS’ response to the lockouts 149 Keep Sydney Open – safe nights in a global city 151 Policy involvement 159 Conclusion 163 References

167 V Beyond lockouts

168 Is a global city a divided city? 169 Faux consultation 169 ‘Place-making’, soul-destroying 170 Beyond the lockouts 171 In-article links / references

175 Reframing nightlife 180 People 182 Place 184 Policy

187 Epilogue

191 Bibliography

261 Appendix

viii

List of articles and declarations

The following publications, completed during my candidature, are reproduced in this thesis:

Wolifson, P. 2016. ‘Encountering the Night with Mobile Methods’. Geographical Review, 106(2), pp.174–200.

Wolifson, P., and Drozdzewski, D. (2017). ‘Co-opting the Night: the Entrepreneurial Shift and Economic Imperative in NTE Planning’. Urban Policy and Research, 35(4), pp.486–504.

For this co-authored article I was responsible for the conception and design of the research, collection and analysis of data, the writing of the initial manuscript and the majority of subsequent writing. Dr Drozdzewski critically reviewed the article and contributed as secondary author during latter rounds of revisions.

Wolifson, P. 2018. ‘“Civilising” by Gentrifying: The Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning for Nightlife in Sydney, Australia. Exploring Nightlife: Space, Society and Governance. J. Nofre and A. Eldridge (eds.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield International, pp.35–52.

Wolifson, P. (commissioned and submitted). ‘Performing neoliberalism: the co-opting of pro- nightlife activist discourses’. CITY: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action.

Wolifson, P., and Gibson, C. (2016). ‘Beyond Lockouts: Sydney Needs to Become a More Inclusive City’. The Conversation, 17 March.

For this co-authored article I was responsible for the conception and the writing of the initial manuscript and subsequent edits. Professor Gibson refined the article framework and style, contributed as secondary author and provided critical edits throughout the publication process.

I certify that these five publications were a direct result of my research towards this PhD, and that reproduction in this thesis does not breach copyright regulations.

Peta Wolifson

ix List of figures, boxes, and tables

Non-article Figure 1 Greater Sydney with the location of the inner city case study 30 area, including Surry Hills. Source: Mapbox, Open Street Map, edits by author. Box 1 List of articles in major Sydney newspapers on the issue of 32-3 alcohol-related violence between July 2012 and January 2013. Source: Multiple (see box.) Figure 2 Satirical poster found on Oxford Street, Sydney. Source: 188 Facebook.com/RTSsydney.

Article I Figure 1 Location map of Sydney Metropolitan Area and Blue 65 Mountains. Source: Map data: Geoscience Australia. Edits by A. Baumber and the author. Figure 2 Selection of inner Sydney. Source: Map data: Google 2015. 66 Edits by the author. Figure 3 Looking Southeast over Surry Hills from Central Station, 67 1920. Source: Photograph courtesy of the Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW, SPF/3043. Figure 4 Renovated warehouses and terrace houses, Riley Street; post- 67 industrial Surry Hills today. Source: author.

Table 1 Selected Census data on Surry Hills, 2011 Source: Australian 68 Bureau of Statistics. Figure 5 Northcott public housing estate, Surry Hills. Source: author. 69

Table 2 Details of Research Participants. Source: author. 72

Figure 6 The Winery, restaurant and bar, Surry Hills. Source: author. 74

Figure 7 The Dolphin Hotel and Mr Fox small bar. Source: author. 78

Figure 8 The Clock Hotel, Surry Hills. Source: author. 79

Figure 9 Mexican-themed casual eatery ‘Burrito Cantina’, Surry Hills. 84 Source: author.

x Article II Figure 1 Map of the City of Sydney local government area. Source: City 95 of Sydney. Box 1 Location and characteristics of Surry Hills, Australia. Source: 96 Multiple (see Box). Table 1 Directions/Vision/Goals for 2030, Open Discussion Paper and 97 final Open plan. Source: City of Sydney. Figure 2 City of Sydney’s image of “Diverse Sydney” in 2030 with Open’s 101 actions fulfilled. Source: City of Sydney.

Article III Figure 1 Map locating the ‘CBD Entertainment Precinct’ (i.e., ‘lockout 118 zone’) in inner Sydney. Source: Mapbox, Open Street Map, edits by author.

Article IV Figure 1 Keep Sydney Open logo and protesters wearing the group’s t- 144 shirts. Source: Facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen. Figure 2 The Mike Baird Memorial Turd. Source: Josh Groom. 148

xi Abstract

This thesis presents an assemblage of research on nightlife in inner Sydney from 2012 to 2017, when the city’s night became a source of much consternation. It begins with the development of a ‘night-time economy’ plan by the City of Sydney Council, and continues to interrogate a highly debated venue lockout implemented in 2014 by the New South Wales (NSW) Government, which remains the most contentious legacy of this period. The case study of the City of Sydney – the city’s inner circle of suburbs – frames the thesis’ arguments. The central thesis contention is that: neoliberal discourse has co-opted effective governance of nightlife.

To corroborate this argument, I employ discourse analysis, interviews and two types of mobile methods to demonstrate the permeation of neoliberalism through the governmentalities and subjectivities of an aspirant ‘global city’. In doing so, I examine experiences, governance and activism relating to Sydney’s nightlife. By attuning to both embodied and lived experiences, and the discursive and structural implications of nightlife policy and planning, I argue that concerns for urban spatial justice demand consideration of nightlife and its governance.

This thesis is presented as an assemblage of research articles that substantiate the main argument – the neoliberal co-opting of Sydney’s nightlife governance. These articles each mobilise correlative threads relating to effects of neoliberal discourse on people, places, and policies in the case study location. A critical foundational thread in this assemblage is my analysis of governance through the City of Sydney’s ‘Open’ strategy. Scrutinising its grounding in a night-time economy framework, I argue that the plan is demonstrative of the government’s growing reliance on a neoliberal, creative city policy script, applied aspatially across global cities. This script co-opts the consultation process and (re)positions economic shifts in nightlife as improving identities and behaviours of nightlife participants.

As a further thread reinforcing my stance on neoliberal governmentality, the discussion of the lockout demonstrates that under the NSW Government’s agenda nightlife is not socially and culturally valued, but economically dispensable. Historical contextualisation of the lockout amid past examples of regulation and rhetoric of Sydney’s nightlife demonstrates how recent

xii government efforts to socially and morally sanitise the nightscape link the present-day assemblage to a legacy of class-based leisure. In this context, I also problematise public demands for a simultaneously ‘civilised’ and deregulated nightlife.

The fieldwork, using mobile methods of ‘go-alongs’ and walking interviews at night, explored encounters and embodied experiences in the nightscape of Surry Hills. The field methods revealed the dynamism of personal relationships to place and highlighted the need for policy that includes this diversity and consideration of embodied encounter.

In consolidating the thread of neoliberal subjectivities, I provided further evidence for my contention that the potential for meaningful, democratic policy consultation is co-opted and silenced by neoliberal discourse. Using an analysis of the performative discourses of two activist groups – Keep Sydney Open and Reclaim the Streets – I showed that the perception of activist success is increasingly determined by its cohesion with neoliberal discourse.

To draw the arguments of this assemblage back to the domain of public discourse, the final storyline – a media publication – calls public attention to issues of inequality underlying the governance of nightlife. By questioning the ‘global city’ and ‘creative class’ discourses, highlighting ‘faux’ consultation and placing the lockout in a geographical context to spotlight its significance, this thesis nests its argument about the co-opting of governance within contemporary urban studies debates about the ‘right to the city’. By engaging in public debate, this final article links back to the key purpose of the thesis: to reframe public concerns primarily focused on the right to drink and alcohol-related violence, towards a critical examination of governing urban space at night and its far- reaching consequences for the way the city functions socially, culturally and economically.

xiii xiv Introduction

…research is a process not just a product. – Kim England, 1994, pp.244

In this thesis, I present an assemblage of discourses on Sydney’s nightlife in its neoliberal context. This assemblage is emblematic of research as process; circumstances both personal and political significantly impacted the direction and ultimate shape of the thesis. When I began this thesis in 2012, a key focal point was observing the City of Sydney’s1 research and consultation processes as they developed their night-time economy strategy and action plan, Open (City of Sydney 2013c). This policy development represented the Council’s first use of its online consultation forum platform — SydneyYourSay. My analysis of Open, discussed in article II of this thesis, charted and critiqued the considerable publicity associated with the consultation process and release of the plan. Scaffolding from the City’s emergent interest in night-time specific policymaking, I established two main thesis objectives: first, to examine the divergences between experiential understandings of Sydney’s nightlife and government and other public representations of it; and second, to explore the impact of nightlife governance on the socio- economy of the city. These two objectives are embedded in my thesis aims (see page 5), which chart the process of my thesis’ scholarship through each article herein, and reflect the research journey amid its shifting contexts.

Upon establishing the thesis objectives, I certainly did not foresee how timely they would become as the research progressed, nor the impending contention over night-time policy issues in my case study city of Sydney. The one-punch killings of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie, in July 2012 and December 2013 respectively, and the media furore that followed each, culminated in then New South Wales (NSW) Premier Barry O’Farrell’s (long-awaited) announcement of a 1.30am inner-city venue lockout2, 3am last drinks and other regulatory measures (NSW Government 2014c) in January of 2014. Provoked by these events, intense public debate about Sydney’s nightlife issues ensued.

Prior to the announcement of the lockouts, I had designed emplaced methods to explore experience and encounter in the urban nightscape; in article I, I demonstrate the efficacy of these

1 The City of Sydney Council represents the Local Government Area (LGA) covering the Sydney Central Business District (CBD) and surrounding inner-Sydney suburbs. For a map of the City of Sydney LGA see page 91. 2 For an overview and map of the area in which the lockout has been implemented – the CBD Entertainment Precinct – see page 114.

1 methods, which sought to understand both what was being said about Sydney’s nightlife and how context, place and mobility influenced participant dialogue. Soon after my candidature began, and while implementing the emplaced ethnographic methods, I experienced a long period of ill health, undergoing major surgery less than a month after the Premier’s announcement. Several difficult months of recovery and ongoing management and treatment followed. My illness necessitated adjustments to my intended focus on experiential aspects of nightlife since I was no longer able to conduct fieldwork (see page 50). The intensified public discourse around Sydney’s nightlife, however, revealed new opportunities to explore this objective. Subsequently, I identified and interrogated conflicts between regulation and perceptions of the city’s nightlife – highlighted in article III.

As the story of Sydney’s nightlife continued to unfold – with continued policy debate, regulatory changes, and public scrutiny – the value and timeliness of the case study solidified; a commentary piece for The Conversation – article V – represented an opportunity to directly contribute to the public discussion. Allied to the strength of the overall case study, my second objective, to explore the impact of nightlife governance on the socio-economy of the city, also grew in importance. Amplified public concern about the future of artistic and cultural life in Sydney, particularly in relation to the redevelopment of the Kings Cross nightlife precinct, followed from the introduction of the lockout. In this context, the emergence of pro-nightlife group Keep Sydney Open, as an emphatic and influential public movement (particularly from 2016), demanded yet another shift in the focus of the project; results of this research component are contained in article IV.

Following a rich tradition in geographical studies, this thesis is a record of the events of a particular time and place – Sydney, NSW – as governance and public grapple with competing visions of the city at night. It records, and critically comments on, this significant moment in the transformation of both the nightlife of Sydney and the landscape of the inner city more broadly. Concurrently, the thesis’ themes echo debates on nightlife and urbanism globally. These debates have gained increasing prominence as global cities confront the destructive and often contradictory effects of neoliberal governance on nightlife. Much scholarship has explored the deleterious effects of nightlife expansion – “criminogenic, environmental and social” (Hadfield 2015, 607; Chatterton and Hollands 2003; Hobbs, Winlow, Hadfield and Lister 2005; Talbot 2007). Yet, there is less research addressing efforts by neoliberal governments to tackle these deleterious effects, particularly where consequences of such efforts have been so abrupt and drastic, and surrounding debate so amplified, as in Sydney. Key contributions of this thesis, then, are intellectual and practice-based; lessons can be learnt for future nightlife research, the development and implementation of related policies, and activist responses to neoliberal governance of the urban night. Further, I contend that the thesis’ narrative provides a telling

2 account of the implications of broader urban policy on nightlife and the implications of nightlife- specific policy on urban life more broadly.

While the overarching context of the thesis is the urban night, and particularly Sydney’s urban night, the ‘night’ itself did not ground my conceptualisation of the thesis. Rather, following Gallan and Gibson (2011), I understand nightlife and indeed the ‘night-time economy’ as a component of urban life more broadly, one whose discussion overlaps into wider academic debates on planning, urban design and governance, the character of work and leisure, urban encounters, the cultural-economy, global cities, and the methodological considerations for research. The global transformation of urban nightlife into ‘night-time economies’ (see page 24, and articles II and III) demands that such nightscapes be considered in terms of this broader context of urban research.

My conceptualisation of nightlife does not deny the unique affective qualities of the night. As Harvey (1996, 211) notes, “[t]o say that time and space are social constructs does not deny their ultimate embeddedness in the materiality of the world”. Nor through this research do I discount the historically changing character of nightlife. Both the materiality and shifting historical understandings of the night are subjects that are beginning to gain increased scholarly attention (see Edensor 2017 and Jayne and Valentine 2016 for example). Therefore, while the urban night serves as the contextual grounding of this thesis, discourse lies at its core, serving both as the conceptual and procedural framework for the heterogeneous discussion of Sydney’s nightlife that follows. Below, is an explanation of ‘discourse’ as used in this thesis, followed by a review of the research aims.

Research framework

The conceptualisation of discourse framing this thesis takes from Foucault’s (1972) work centred on the production and circulation of knowledge. Waitt (2010), among others, has drawn out key elements of this work, since Foucault’s discussions do not provide a straightforward definition. Discourse, Waitt (2010, 218) says, encompasses:

1. all meaningful statements or texts that have effects on the world; 2. a group of statements that appear to have a common theme that provides them with a unified effect; 3. the rules and structures that underpin and govern the unified, coherent, and forceful statements that are produced. Through this description, we can understand discourse as being “no longer simply about words (written or spoken) but about a whole set of words, actions, institutions, and infrastructures” (Cresswell 2009, 211; see also Rose 2007; Gregory 1994; Duncan and Duncan 1988). These elements are embedded with truth effects that “structure the way a thing is thought, and the way

3 we act on the basis of that thinking” (Rose 2007, 142). The disciplinary power of discourse is central to the idea that human subjects and identities are produced “through the operation of discourse” (Rose 2007, 143) and “not simply born” (Rose 2007, 141). This production also applies to “objects, relations, places, scenes: discourse produces the world as it understands it” (Rose 2007, 143). As Harvey (1996, 95) explains,

‘power’ operates through discursively informed and institutionally based social practices that are primarily organised as disciplinary powers exerted on the body. Discourses form through these relations between power, social practices, and institutions, internalising their forms and powers from these other moments in the social process.

Here, I recognise such practices as articulated through the performative character of discourse. ‘Performativity’ is understood as the “citational practices which reproduce and/or subvert discourse and which enable and discipline subjects and their performances” (Gregson and Rose 2000, 434). These “citational practices” refer to the intertextuality of discourse, with “the meanings of any one discursive image or text depend[ent] not only on that one text or image, but also on the meanings carried by other images and texts” (Rose 2007, 142). As McGuirk (2004; 1024) has articulated, the “power of a discourse… lies in its resonance with broader societal discourses and imaginaries and with other cultural and institutional formations”.

Foucault suggested that “the dominance of certain discourses occurred not only because they were located in socially powerful institutions… but also because their discourses claimed absolute truth” (Rose 2007, 144), with such (shifting) claims constituting what he called a ‘regime’ of truth. In this thesis, I deal with the discourse of neoliberalism, the truth claims of which have been interrogated and critiqued at length (Harvey 2005; Peck 2010). Neoliberalism’s metastasising in different contexts, however, requires that its contradictions and pernicious effects be called out at every opportunity. In examining Sydney’s nightlife through the lens of neoliberal discourse, its conflicts are able to be positioned within a need for broader, multi-scalar, structural change.

A framework of discourse buttresses the articles that comprise this thesis through dicussions of the various elements of nightlife experience, understanding, representation, governance and advocacy. As previously stated, I have used discourse to underpin both the empirical structure of the research and the wider theory and analysis. In this thesis, I deploy this framework broadly, using Rose’s (2007, 142) understanding of discourse as “articulated through all sorts of visual and verbal images and texts, specialised or not, and also through the practices that those languages permit”. In utilising this approach, I do not suggest that an exhaustive understanding of the social and cultural world can be found through methods that seek to ‘get at’ discourse. My use of discourse (and discourse analysis) instead reflects my intention for the project to interrogate the discursive relationships between a range of institutions and settings relating to Sydney’s nightlife.

4 As Laclau and Mouffe (1985, 108) explained,

the fact that every object is constituted as an object of discourse has nothing to do with whether there is a world external to thought… What is denied is not that… objects exist externally to thought, but the rather different assertion that they could constitute themselves as objects outside of any discursive condition of emergence.

Therefore, in seeking to understand the myriad effects of neoliberalism on urban nightlife, discourse provides a way into the heterogeneity of settings; at the same time, it facilitates accumulative intertextual understandings of each element of discursive formation being examined in these settings. In Harvey’s (1996, 89) words, “[i]ntertextual analysis can illustrate how discursive effects mark out a complex ‘trace’ across a variety of seemingly independent discursive domains”. For example here it allowed for pathways to interrogate the production of nightlife experiences, the utility of research methods, government policies and their effects, activist approaches and their efficacy, and so on. This framework follows from Fairclough’s (1992, 26) argument that discourse is a social practice embedded within “analysing the relationship between texts, processes, and social conditions”.

The conceptual inventory (on page 9) and procedural framework (on page 39), respectively describe how discourse framed both the theoretical and empirical work of the thesis. Between these is an overview of the case study selection and context (on page 29).

Aims

In this thesis, I draw from research undertaken in Sydney to examine various aspects of experience, understanding, representation, governance and advocacy of nightlife in this neoliberal ‘global city’. Shaped through an iterative process of research design and execution, the thesis aims reflect my attempt to best document and scrutinise this context and its dramatic shifts. Below, is an overview of these aims as they have been addressed in articles I to V.

Through the work presented in article I, I began to redress a lack of research on experience and encounter in nightlife settings. Consumers still present a largely “absent voice” in representations of nightlife (Roberts and Eldridge 2009, 185) despite a number of studies in recent years. To probe this research gap, and open up avenues for the application of nightlife research, in article I, I introduce the use of particular emplaced, mobile methods – ‘go-alongs’ and walking interviews – designed and adapted for use in (and on) the urban nightscape. The paper draws out the potential of emplaced and mobile methods both as investigative tools and resources to improve nightlife outcomes (based on an understanding of existing studies that have used similar procedures; see page 46).

5 Specifically, the methods presented in article I drew from subjective experiences of the nightscape under examination – that of the suburb of Surry Hills in inner Sydney. They interrogated how these experiences were framed by the multiple and multilayered discourses, memories, and world views of participants. The methods also revealed how meaningful and valuable encounters in the nightscape unveiled (more) complex narratives of those places. Further, I explored how experiences in, and perceptions of small bars were affected by the public discourse surrounding recent regulatory changes impacting these venues (see page 39). More generally, I scrutinised how expectations of place shaped experience.

In Article II, I aimed to interrogate the City of Sydney’s ‘night-time economy’ policy document, questioning the plan’s guiding mechanisms using discourse analysis. In doing so, I placed the local government’s plan – Open – within the global context of neoliberal, competitive and place-making strategies. In the context of global ‘night-time economy’ planning in particular, this research evinced the deployment of the cultural-economy as a ‘civilising’ agent. I used the example of Open to demonstrate some of the exclusionary outcomes of night-time economy planning, in the Sydney context. Further to this criticism, I highlighted, through Open, the co- opting of cultural policy to prioritise economic gains, and I revealed some of the mechanisms of this entrepreneurial shift (Harvey 1989) including in areas of policy mobility and in modes of consultation.

For article III I reviewed key factors involved in shaping Sydney’s nightlife, and perceptions of it, particularly in recent years. To do this, I scrutinised the City of Sydney Council and NSW Government approaches to nightlife governance and examined public discourse surrounding the city’s nightlife concerns, with a focus on activism. I subsequently demonstrated the pervasiveness of neoliberal discourse in relation to nightlife planning by revealing its almost ubiquitous use by those discussed. A review of the global policy context and local regulatory history in part explicated this pervasiveness.

By interrogating the State’s so-called ‘lockout laws’, I also demonstrated the government’s use of nightlife policy as efforts at state-sanctioned gentrification driven by a neoliberal government framework. As article III shows, in honing in on the conflicts and contradictions in policymaking and discourse, I identified specific structural and regulatory issues in need of redress in order to improve Sydney’s nightlife.

Article IV focused on ‘pro-nightlife’ social movements in Sydney – Keep Sydney Open and Reclaim the Streets – with the aim to demonstrate how their ‘success’ is increasingly determined by their cohesion with dominant neoliberal ideas and discourse. I examined the groups’ contrasting performative discourses, with specific regard to strategy, popular appeal and lobbying status. The aim was to reveal the co-opting of activism by a neoliberal ‘global city’ discourse, and

6 some of the mechanisms of such co-opting, through analysis of interviews, policy submissions and other media. For instance, through examination of historical public discourse in response to nightlife regulation, I elucidated some of the pathways to public and institutional receptivity of the activist groups’ (and the government’s) discourses.

In article V, I added to the public debate on nightlife in Sydney by focusing on the inequality underpinning its governance. I highlighted entrenched inequalities that emerge from global city governance and its gentrifying goals, expanding the debate beyond that of nightlife businesses struggling with regulatory change and the perception of a ‘nanny-state’ government. As Shaw (2004, 188) has noted, in the context of urban inequality, what is needed beyond the research itself is “effective communication of what we already know and principled discussion about the nature of the cities we want to inhabit in the twenty-first century”; it was this aim that drove the motivation for this article.

Thesis outline

The articles presented in this thesis are supported with supplementary sections to situate the work within the broader thesis narrative. Preceding the articles is a conceptual inventory (from page 9), an outline of the case study selection (from page 29) – Sydney and the inner suburb of Surry Hills – and a procedural framework (from page 39). In the former, I overview key literature that frames and supplements the thesis articles, including a discussion of neoliberalism and the central discourses of neoliberalism interrogated in the thesis articles – ‘global cities’, ‘creative cities’ and the ‘night-time economy’. There is also an overview of gentrification, framing the thesis’ discussion crucially around urban spatial in/justice. In the procedural framework, I discuss discourse analysis and other methods deployed throughout the research process, and reflect upon (my) positionality and its influence on research design and implementation. A summary of articles I to V (from page 53) precedes them. Lastly, in the concluding discussion (from page 175), I point to a reframing through the article threads of people, place and policy to demand the ‘right to the city’, as an imperative for nightlife.

7

8 Conceptual inventory

In this conceptual inventory, I sketch out the concepts that frame the individual articles of this thesis and the linkages between them. Following from the thesis’ framework of discourse, I utilise an understanding of neoliberalism as performative discourse, to frame concepts herein and their discussion in the articles that follow. My conceptualisation of neoliberalism as discourse seeks to reconcile the numerous and variegated usages of the term elsewhere. This selection allows for the multiple elements examined in the thesis’ articles to be understood as related and intersecting components that both serve to reproduce and unsettle neoliberalism.

Specifically, this framing couches the discussion of the mobile ‘fast policy’ (Peck and Theodore 2015; McCann and Ward 2011) discourses of ‘global cities’, ‘creative cities’, and the ‘night-time economy’, insofar as they have become naturalised mechanisms of neoliberalism. Important linkages between these discourses, with regards to their development and strategic adoption, are also elucidated here in relation to nightlife governance. I also discuss gentrification, pertinent in the context of this thesis as both an intended and unintended consequence of neoliberal governance. The discussion of gentrification seeks to point to the real-world effects of the examined discourses in the context of this study. The ongoing ‘class remake’ of Sydney, and the exclusion and displacement rooted within it, I contend, should be a central concern of nightlife planning.

Neoliberalism as discourse

Since the “emphatic turn” towards neoliberalism in the 1970s (Harvey 2005, 2), it has become the hegemonic political-economic governmentality of our time. Initially characterised by the ‘roll- back’ (Peck and Tickell 2002) of pereceived anti-competition regulation, via “deregulation, privatization and withdrawal of the state” (Harvey 2005, 2), the subsequent ‘roll-out’ (Peck and Tickell 2002) phase, showed neoliberalism to be more persistent and adaptable than was previously understood. In demonstrating its power to “internalise its contradictions in new and innovative ways” (Keil 2016, 391), neoliberalism has had profound, wide-ranging impacts around the world from health, welfare, education and housing, to the diminution of workers’ rights and environmental destruction (Springer, Birch and MacLeavy 2016; Sassen 2014; Peck 2010; Harvey 2005). These effects have emerged from the way neoliberal “objectives and practices [have worked] to privilege particular interests – capital over labour, men over women, white over black, straight over queer, adults over children and young people, and so on” (Davidson and Iveson

9 2015, 544; Imrie 2004; Brenner 2009). In its ‘roll-out’ manifestations, in particular, there has been an “ever-more aggressive, invasive and neopaternalist attitude towards the regulation of the poor” (Tickell and Peck 2003, 178; see Wacquant 2009). As an ideology, neoliberalism proposes that:

human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices (Harvey 2005, 2).

So-inspired policies have been spatially, institutionally, and historically variegated, and imbued with contradiction; many of these tensions are explored through articles II-V of this thesis and highlight the need for multi-scalar, structural change. Reflecting neoliberalism’s multi-scalar effects, Peck and Tickell (2002) identified ‘in here’ and ‘out there’ processes of institutional change within both ‘roll-back’ and ‘roll-out’ forms of neoliberalism – all four types are resonant in the discourses discussed throughout this thesis. In terms of locally-specific or ‘in here’ practices, these diverge from deregulatory attacks on welfarist structures to the “invasive moral reregulation of the urban poor” and “continued crisis-management” of roll-back deregulation (Tickell and Peck 2003, 180). As a wider constitutive force, neoliberalism’s ‘out there’ processes have transformed from a global extension of its market pressures to the normalisation of its ‘fast policy’ logics and their mobility (Tickell and Peck 2003). Enwrapped in the latter has been the emergence of a ‘softer’ neoliberalism – unbridled “enthusiasm for the ‘urbanist’ programmes of economic development” (Keil 2016, 391) – exemplified by the ‘global city’, ‘creative city’ and ‘night-time economy’ discourses, discussed below. In seeking to clarify the contested term, Peck (2010, 16) argues that it is the “oscillations and vacillations around frustrated attempts to reach [neoliberalism’s] fundamental goal – frictionless market rule” that define its form. The understanding here, of neoliberalism as discourse, seeks to reconcile multiple treatments of the term while drawing out the linkages between components throughout the case study that serve to reproduce (or interrupt) neoliberal processes.

As Springer (2016) outlines, and in line with understandings of discourse more broadly, conceptualising neoliberalism as discourse does not deny its real-world effects. Rather, understanding neoliberalism as discourse – implying both truth effects and power effects – encompasses both ‘actually existing neoliberalism’ (Brenner and Theodore 2002) and neoliberalism as ideology. Further, the conceptualisation brings together what Springer (2012, 133) calls a “false dichotomy” that has emerged between Foucauldian understandings of neoliberalism as governmentality and Marxist-influenced discussions of neoliberalism as hegemonic (see also Larner 2000; 2003). Crucially, the conceptualisation of neoliberalism as discourse here seeks to avoid the “confusing and inconsistent” (Peck 2010, 13) usage of the word

10 that has oftentimes served to distract from the damage inflicted by neoliberalism. Relatedly, this conceptualisation also seeks to open routes to alternatives to neoliberalism amidst a global context that has “effected a certain defeatism among its critics” (Keil 2016, 392). As Peck (2010, 15) has identified:

the term’s troubled life reflects the fraught and polarized ideological fields that it has controversially occupied, while its sprawling and yet uneven reach may also signify something perplexingly “real”, if methodologically inconvenient, about the diverse and tentacular manifestations of market rule.

Conceptualising neoliberalism as discourse is helpful in scrutinising particular ‘constructions of neoliberal reason’ (Peck 2010) – (such as the ‘global city’, ‘creative city’ and ‘night-time economy’ frameworks) – and their effects – (such as gentrification) – as this thesis endeavours to do. The normalisation of neoliberalism via such ‘soft’ policy discourses has been called “roll-with- it” neoliberalism (Keil 2009), where “political and economic actors have increasingly lost a sense of externality, of alteratives (good and bad) and have mostly accepted the ‘governmentality’ of the neoliberal formation as the basis for their action” (Keil 2009, 232). Such discursive constructions operationalise and serve to (re)produce class power. As Davidson and Iveson (2015, 544) observed, the privileging that takes place as a result of neoliberal urban policies “is most successful when the techniques and technologies of urban governance that support particular interests are normalised, such that particular ways of doing things become entrenched as the taken-for- granted”. Interpreting these ‘techniques and technologies’ through a discursive lens allows for scrutiny of the taken-for-granted. Further, comprehending neoliberalism as discourse exposes the various elements – the people, places and politics – of the city both as potentially (re)productive and resistant forces to neoliberalism.

The discourse approach recognises neoliberalism as neither wholly ‘top-down’ nor ‘bottom- up’, but as “a mutable, inconsistent, and variegated process that circulates through the discourses it constructs, justifies and defends” (Springer 2012, 135). In this way, neoliberalism as discourse takes into account both global processes (‘out there’), and local specificities (‘in here’) via “historical contexts [see articles III to V] geographical contexts [I to III and V], institutional legacies [II to V], and embodied subjectivities [I and IV]” (Springer 2012, 136; see also Peck and Tickell 2002). Through a framework of discourse, I was able to scrutinise these various contexts with a range of empirical tools that allowed for incorporation with discourse analysis (see page 39). More particularly, a focus on performativity in examination of these processes, discussed next, allowed my analysis to draw out discursive resonances in these contexts – resonances vital to neoliberalism’s dominance – and shed light on the contradictions and tensions inherent therein.

11 Neoliberalism as performed

Rooted in the conceptualisation of neoliberalism as discourse, I further utilise an understanding of neoliberalism as performative discourse. Within a performative discourse framework neoliberalism is understood as “created and recreated as the consequence of active and embodied practices” (Glass 2016, 353). A focus on such practices – both “the declarative actions of sovereign power and the response to those declarations by the public” (Glass 2018, 237) – allows for the associations between governmentality and subjectivities in the neoliberal city to be drawn out. In this thesis, the practices I examined, using techniques outlined in the procedural framework, are in nightlife policymaking (articles I to V), pro-nightlife activism (III to V) and urban nightscapes (I and V). It is the performative character of discourse “that grants power to the discourse, and that reshapes the way neoliberalism manifests in different contexts” (Glass 2016, 352). This conceptualisation follows from neoliberalism as discourse in that it understands the power effects of neoliberalism not solely as a top down hegemonic project, but as shaped through its interactions and circulation in these contexts. In understanding neoliberalism as a discourse that is performed, its associations with and constructions of other ‘normative’ discourses such as the ‘global city’, ‘creative city’, and ‘night-time economy’ can be revealed. This framework also allows for performative acts that contest the dominant discourse to be examined, demonstrating both the adaptability and contradictions of neoliberalism through the discursive responses to such challenges.

The performative discourse approach is useful for understanding both the ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ practices through which neoliberalism is (re)produced, transferred and resisted. In nightlife governance for instance, ‘night-time economy’ discourses are (re)produced and transferred between places through policy networks. This (re)production also plays out in the tangible effects of policy on businesses, consumers and others in nightlife settings (with wider flow- on effects). Springer (2012, 141) contends that understanding “discourse as a coupling with practice is of paramount importance” (see Foucault 1972), particularly given that neoliberal discourse is able to mobilise between geographic and temporal contexts yet metastasises differently between them. Glass (2016, 351) clarifies the broad characterisation of this ‘performativity’ and its utility in relation to understanding neoliberalism:

There are multiple actants at play here who produce and perform neoliberalism, including those who define and carry out the political and economic policies considered neoliberal, those recipients of policy who must determine how to respond, and those who assess the influences of neoliberalism and make claims about its value.

Acknowledging both the relative levels of authority (Foucault 1980) and the possibilities of counter-performances, the notion of neoliberalism as performative discourse is used in this thesis

12 to frame the discussion of the production and dissemination of policy (articles II and III), responses to policy by activist groups (IV), and expressions of “the everyday life of people in the city” (Miles 2012; 216; article I and V).

Following from Butler (1993), this thesis’ discussion of practices of neoliberalism grounds the idea of subject formation in terms of performative discourse (see especially articles I, III and IV). Within it, I understand subjects as perpetually in-formation productions of “consequences of past and present mediations of power structures and context… continually reiterating their agency and identities through rhetoric, policy and everyday practices” (Glass 2016, 357; Gregson and Rose 2000; Butler 1993). From this position it follows that neoliberalism be understood as both intentionally and unintentionally (re)produced (Larner 2003). This (re)production frames its value in the context of this thesis’ discussion of both subjectivities and governmentalities relating to nightlife in the neoliberal city.

As Larner (2012, 359) has observed, there has been a growing interest in identifying and examining neoliberal subject(ivitie)s, “to explore what they might mean for broader economic processes, and assess how and why particular subject positions are either taken up or resisted by various individuals and groups”. In the context of experiences of nightlife, research that has examined the relationship between consumption and subjectivities is particularly pertinent in this regard. The pivotal drawing together of economic and cultural geography enabled recognition “that consumers actively construct identities and subjectivities through their consumption practices” and highlighted that consumption is “a valuable means to understand broader economic and social processes” (Larner 2012, 361). This research pathway has been especially relevant in the context of the neoliberal ‘creative city’ and its ‘creative class’ subjects (see page 19), revealing new ways for spaces and subjects to be (re)produced in the neoliberal city (Larner 2012). The methods introduced in article I present an opportunity for further research in this area; they have a demonstrated ability to interrogate some of the complex associations between nightlife ‘consumers’ and their (per)formative encounters in and with urban nightscapes.

As the government’s performance of its (disciplinary) power, governmentality has a key role in shaping subject formations in the neoliberal city. It is defined as the “ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics, that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power” (Foucault 1979a, 20). Here, it is used here to refer to the discursive performances through which neoliberal rationalities are disseminated via governance. Hae (2012, 16) explains that neoliberal governmentality “seeks to produce and reward the entrepreneurial, voluntary and responsible citizen-subject who is capable of self-care and self-management of risks”. This neoliberal governmentality is a key theme of this thesis and is examined in articles II and III, where I deploy a discussion of the discourses outlined

13 below – ‘global cities’, ‘creative cities’, and the ‘night-time economy’ – to scrutinise the City of Sydney and NSW Government’s nightlife policies and their development.

In calling for concerns around nightlife to be reframed in terms of the broader socio-spatial effects of its governance, in this thesis I reiterate Gregson and Rose’s (2000, 434) plea for space to be considered “as brought into being through performances and as a performative articulation of power”. Throughout, I point to ways that the geography of the neoliberal city is bound up in its iterative performances of neoliberal discourse. ‘Global city’, ‘creative city’, and ‘night-time economy’ discourses are crucial to these renderings.

The global city

The competitive aspiration for global city status – achieving, maintaining, and improving upon it – has been a key construct through which urban governance has operated in the contemporary neoliberal era. Sydney, as will be discussed (see page 29) is no exception, and is the Australian city where this aspiration has been most fervently pursued. It is within these aspirant global cities that the mobile ‘fast policies’ (Peck and Theodore 2015) of the ‘creative city’ and ‘night-time economy’ models, with their kindred designs for economic growth, are typically operationalised. Exclusion, displacement, homogenisation, gentrification and capital accumulation (Harvey 2001) are concealed by the ‘progressive’ planning rhetoric of ‘diversity’, ‘liveability’, ‘creativity’, ‘vibrancy’ and ‘community’. Global cities – and specifically Global Sydney – are a key focus of articles II to V of this thesis. In those articles, I analyse how both governance (II, III and V) and activism (III- V) are constrained and co-opted by Sydney’s (depoliticised) global city aspirations.

The global city, as Leon (2017, 6) has recently put it, “began as a theoretical construct of the scholarly left [and] has been commoditised by an emergent discourse seeking to present the neoliberal city as unchallengeable”. Sassen’s The Global City (2001; see also Friedmann 2002; Castells 2004), sought to conceptualise the effects of a globalising economy on the life of cities by examining ‘the geography and composition of globalisation’ and both the economic and social order of the so-called ‘global cities’. The term ‘global city’ captured,

both the dispersion and centralisation processes of economic activities in an integrated global economy, that is, the dispersion of production and retailing activities across the world and the centralisation of specialised services and command within a few global cities (Hu, Blakely and Zhou 2013, 436; see Sassen 2001).

The global cities model has become an urban policy normative, despite significant critiques (Robinson 2006). It has also couched further troublesome discourses deployed by neoliberal governments, including the ‘creative city’ and ‘night-time economy’ discourses discussed below.

14 The harmful effects of policy oriented around attracting global capital (Leon 2017) are central to the critique of the global cities thesis. These effects have served to realise Sassen’s (2001) assertion that inequality would thrive in such places. The shift from managerial to entrepreneurial cities (Harvey 1989; see article II) saw a focus on competition between cities for urban growth, with the aspiration of attaining ‘global city’ status cementing this competition in the discourse of urban governance (Hall and Hubbard 1998; Searle 2004). The multi-scalar policies of economic rationalism and welfare reform have created a ‘suburbanisation of disadvantage’ (Randolph and Holloway 2005) in global cities, with inner-city areas earmarked for growth amid a backdrop of uneven development. Policies have been (re)written with the goals of attracting investment and maximising urban output, and numerous indices developed to measure and compare ‘global city’ attributes (Leon 2017). A further critique of the global cities model argues that the economic rationale of global city making fails to consider a broad range of urban uses as well as the particular intrinsic values and complexity of non-‘global’ cities (McCann 2004; Bell and Jayne 2006; Edensor and Jayne 2012; Robinson 2006).

Jennifer Robinson (2002, 2006) has demonstrated how this global city discourse tends to privilege a narrow range of economic and cultural activities that are considered to be ‘global’ and, consequently, neglect other kinds of economy and culture that do not fit the model.

As such, a concentration on global city-ness can work to limit ideas about what constitutes a successful city; the discourse acts as a ‘regulating fiction’ (Robinson 2002, 546) which is imposed extra- locally, through structural adjustment and development programmes, and locally, through the pursuit of placemarketing strategies (Davidson and Iveson 2015, 545).

A proliferation of league tables, used to rank cities in relation to each other, reflects this ‘regulating fiction’, with (primarily economic) measures of global city status (Leon 2017; Bontje and Lawton 2013). While Sassen (2001) has observed the problems in both selecting and measuring relevant indicators, Baker and Ruming (2015, 72) have concluded that regardless, these comparisons problematically “entrain urban–global imaginations and direct the aspirations and energies of policy actors”. A noteworthy device has been the Globalisation and World Cities (GaWC) research programme, which, having placed Sydney in the third tier of global cities, has led the city’s strategic planners to seek to maintain and improve on this position by responding to the particular criteria of the index (Baker and Ruming 2015, 72). Despite the directed use of such criteria in policy development, a multitude of such indices contain varying criteria, undermining the value of the term for comparative purposes. This inconsistency, the use of rankings as promotional material for cities seeking to attract capital, and increasing public/private partnerships, explains much of the proliferation of ranking systems.

15 Most problematically, and as highlighted through the prominence of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measure (Leon 2017), these comparative techniques direct cities to emphasise “capitalist economic development, as distinct from other standards and pathways relating to social and community development” (Baker and Ruming 2015, 73), contributing to the taken-for- granted privileging of particular (troublesome) interests over others (Davidson and Iveson 2015). Article II’s analysis of the City of Sydney’s ‘night-time economy’ strategy discusses their proposal for a new ‘Night Cities Global Index’, on which they aimed to be in the top three. While (understandably, given the changed circumstances resulting from the State’s introduction of the lockout; see article III) the City has made little mention of plans for the index since, the setting of criteria for success through such indices is another pathway through which policymakers are compelled to create aspatial, standardised nightscapes with little consideration for local culture or place identity.

Place branding strategies have formed a key component of the style over substance urban governance responses to the global cities rat race (Gertner 2011). Aspiring ‘global cities’ have pursued image-based policies, designed to attract capital via an appealing city brand. The widespread adoption of the ‘creative city’ model in shaping these branding images has served to stifle alternative and inclusive place-based discourses, “frequently subsum[ing them within] corporate rhetoric” (Paganoni 2012, 26), serving to obfuscate the “actual identity or reality experienced by various communities” (Trueman, Klemm and Giroud 2004 cited in Paganoni 2012, 26). Indeed, as Jansson (2003, 478) has noted, in their desire “to formulate clean-cut attributes and values that can promote the city” aspiring global city governments overlook the complex character of urban life and promote exclusionary planning practices (see page 29). As discussed in articles I and II, consultation and other research processes for strategic planning can, by design, serve to reiterate these homogenised images of urban (night) life. This shortcoming highlights the need for qualitative research (such as that demonstrated in article I) that gets at the diversity of urban identity and experience to allow for policymaking to recognise and support a genuinely diverse nightlife.

High-profile mobile consultancy has also formed an integral part of the image-based policies of aspirant global cities, driving the diminution in consideration of place-specificity, particularly with regards to subcultures and countercultures. The City of Sydney’s vision of ‘fine-grain’ urbanism, for instance, asserts “a narrative of publicness” in inner-city spaces, while allowing developers to retain “strong commercial control over how the space is used, and by whom” (McNeill 2011, 164). Renowned Danish urban designer Jan Gehl for instance, was in recent years hired as a consultant for the City of Sydney. This decision came with the remit to provide guidance on how to better utilise the city’s public spaces, however it also reflected the city’s attempt to build support around their vision. Referencing the competitive and aspatial character of

16 the ‘global city’ aspiration, McNeill (2011, 165) described how it has been “important for [Lord Mayor, Clover] Moore and her supporters to gain as much leverage from external benchmarks as possible”. In the context of entrepreneurial cities, such consultancy also speaks to Harvey’s (1989, 13) detection of a growing “penchant for design of urban fragments rather than comprehensive urban planning”, one that favours investment in ‘desirable’ inner-city areas and neglects the outer suburbs in particular.

Research has long suggested that place-making has profound inequality effects, however there has been a less troubled (although closely related) rhetoric that the built environment has a key role to play in creating convivial urban spaces, a notion that urban planners and architects have been keen to promote (Richards 2012; Talen and Lee 2018; Brenner 2017). Urban governments’ use of various urban planning tropes in the global city context, including ‘urban villages’ (Bell and Jayne 2004) and ‘liveability’ for instance, have operationalised their desires to attract ‘civilised’ consumers through strategies of social and moral sanitation via displacement and the commodification of the complexities of place. Hae (2012; see also Peck and Tickell 1994) for instance, has discussed the use of punitive, so-called ‘Quality of Life’ policies, particularly under the former Giuliani administration in New York City, to displace ‘undesirable’ people from urban spaces, while so-called ‘designing out crime’ policies using ‘hostile architecture’ have become a familiar tactic around the world (Raymen 2016). This raises a contradiction of global city branding in that it must continually allocate resources to obscure the deepened social inequalities that arise from the city’s neoliberal policies (Ho and Douglass 2008).

Sydney is certainly no exception to the penetration of the global city discourse, particularly with Melbourne positioned as ongoing rival (McNeill 2011; Hu, Blakely and Zhou 2013), and “the quest to secure global city status… remains evident in ongoing policy ambitions at all levels of government” there (Baker and Ruming 2015, 67). As Baker and Ruming (2015, 66; see McGuirk 2004) observed, “[f]rom the early 2000s, the push for a ‘Global Sydney’ was promoted across public and private sectors as a means to facilitate economic growth and address declining levels of productivity”. At the NSW State Government level, this has meant promoting Sydney as Australia’s global city, evidenced through numerous planning documents (Baker and Ruming 2015; McGuirk 2004; 2005). The recent Greater Sydney Commission’s (2018) Regional Plan continues this trend, and was accompanied by continued criticism of the framework (Farrelly 2017a).

As discussed in article II, at the local level, the global city framework was cemented in the City of Sydney’s (2008b) strategic plan, Sustainable Sydney 2030: Green/Global/Connected (Kornberger and Clegg 2011), a document that aligns heavily with the State government’s rhetoric (Baker and Ruming 2015). The aspirational global city’s adoption of the ‘sustainability’ model – an “urban policy normative” (Davidson 2009, 607) – is further evidence of economic imperative

17 in their policymaking (Kornberger and Clegg 2011). Emerging out of a perceived need for a formalised conception of ‘sustainability’ the three-pillar Brundtland model (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987; see article II) (of environmental, economic and social sustainability) has led to its use as “an all encompassing term… that acts to consolidate existing policy regimes” (Davidson and Iveson 2015, 545; Keil 2007; Gibbs and Krueger 2007), and facilitate capital accumulation in the neoliberal city. Davidson (2009, 610) has further argued that the City of Sydney’s use of the mobile framework is emblematic of how “an engagement with defining ‘the social’ has become completely absent from policy-making”. He explains how:

[w]ith the aid of private consultants, the City initially adopted a triple- bottom-line approach to sustainability; briefing documents on the economic, environmental and social sustainability were commissioned. However, upon formulating the final draft plan, the commissioned “social sustainability” briefing was dropped (Davidson 2009, 611).

The contradictions embedded in the global city framework are laid bare in the case of Sydney, whose governance at all levels has managed its global city growth poorly. As MacDonald (2015, 211; see also Waitt 2004; O’Neill and McGuirk 2005) has discussed, the city’s aspirational vision, highlighting “entertainment, events, and lifestyle” has come at a cost to the city’s inhabitants, particularly those in the outer western suburbs (see page 29) – a cost that is increasingly reflected in global comparative indices measuring transport, infrastructure and, most dramatically, housing affordability. Consequently, media reports of Sydney’s global ‘rankings’ are now increasingly likely to contain headlines akin to Living In Sydney Will Now Fuck Your Wallet Harder Than London & New York (Hopkins 2018). As MacDonald (2015, 211) has put less brusquely: “While the entrepreneurial New South Wales (NSW) state government has succeeded in driving the metropolitan area’s global rise, it has been less successful in urban management functions”. Without doubt, the global city’s framework of accumulation without distribution has long served “a group of highly interdependent social and cultural elites” (O’Neill and McGuirk 2005; 301).

18 The creative city

The creative city model has been a prominent element of global city planning. In line with other global cities, the increasing domination of Sydney’s inner city by advanced producer services has been accompanied by a regulatory push “to achieve a particular social and cultural mix of activities in its downtown” (McNeill 2011, 176). Sydney’s adoption of creative city policies is evident in current cultural policy documents at all levels of government. Within these plans, nightlife is seen as a vital element for attracting the ‘creative class’, whose consumption practices strategically align with city imaging ideals. The ‘night-time economy’ model is embedded in the development of the ‘creative city’ framework, in order to counter urban decline; the latter is discussed here, backgrounding an overview of the former in the next section. Given its integral role in Sydney’s nightlife planning, the creative city script is a theme underlying the discussion in all five of the thesis articles; I interrogate how creative-city inspired planning in Sydney’s nightlife has led to aspatial planning, with little concern for place specificity (articles I and II); the script has co-opted consultation (II-III) and activism (III-IV) and re-positioned economic shifts in nightlife as improving identities and behaviours of nightlife participants (I-III and V). The entrenched focus on attracting the ‘creative class’ has played a key role in state-sanctioned gentrification strategies. Under these strategies, remaking appealing inner suburbs for the wealthy is prioritised over a fairer distribution of services across the city and a more inclusive and diverse cultural landscape.

The cultural economy has long been utilised by entrepreneurial cities (Harvey 1989) for economic growth (Peck 2005). In this urban shift towards neoliberalism however, and the growing ‘global city’ imperative, there has been movement “from cultural production to cultural economies, to an intensified economic colonisation of the cultural realm [and] to the representation of the ‘creative city’ not as a means of redemption but as a means of economic accumulation” (Ley 2003, 2542). The shift to post-industrial economies in the context of emerging neoliberal governance saw the development of urban cultural policy gain significant momentum from the 1980s amid a “‘rediscovery’ of downtowns [by] city boosters and property developers” (McNeill 2011, 162). Such strategies aimed to capitalise on the consumption practices of a changing inner-city demographic through a focus on place branding relating to urban cultural amenity (Grodach 2017; Zukin 1996). While initially seen to facilitate the urban economy in the context of a loss of manufacturing bases, the resulting orientation of policy around consumable leisure, arts and culture has become a key element of more contemporary ‘creative cities’ policies. This period signalled the start of a discursive shift in perceptions of artistic enterprise. It began to be viewed less for its intrinsic value and increasingly for its ability to be exploited for economic gain. Cultural intermediaries were identified as central to this commodification of culture (Bourdieu 1994; O’Connor 1998; Grodach 2017). Relatedly, as Grodach (2017, 83) explains, artists were increasingly being understood as having a key role in gentrification processes, “while

19 simultaneously becoming the ‘victims’ of the process they purportedly engendered”. This rudimentary recognition of a link between artists and gentrification began to inform state- sanctioned gentrification policies, with governments increasingly viewing the arts and culture as tools to boost development and consumption. Arts organisations responded by seeking to highlight their economic value (Grodach 2017; Myerscough 1988), while place-based cultural policies saw the emergence of branded cultural quarters (Bell and Jayne 2004).

This context framed the emergence of Charles Landry’s (2000) ‘creative city’ strategy, developed throughout the 1990s and, along with Richard Florida’s (2002) correlative ‘creative class’ theory, informing the global neoliberal policy toolkit of the last two decades. Both Landry and Florida have implored urban governments (often directly) to deploy creativity “to attract tourists and (affluent) inhabitants, to provide jobs, to stimulate productivity and innovation and to play an important role in local branding strategies” (van Boom 2017, 357). For Florida (2002), cities need to orient all manner of urban policies in order attract a mobile ‘creative class’ since their economic power has the potential to make or break a city. Against a normative interpretation, this ‘creative class’ were a “workforce defined by their education, specialised knowledge and mobility” (Grodach 2017 86), with many of their specific indicators conflations of socio-economic measures3.

As Ley (2003, 2528) observed, in ‘creative cities’, creativity “is seen to act as an independent variable as a promoter of economic development. Relations are rarely quite this simple, of course, but it is worth noting the way causality is seen to work by decision-makers”. Numerous governments have reframed cultural policy around ‘creativity’, under this embryonic assumption of causality, while also shifting cultural offices “under the umbrella of economic development” (Grodach 2017, 86) – this has been particularly true in the realm of ‘night-time economy’ planning, which has additional significant concerns around zoning and public health, for instance. To “lure consumption flows” (Miles 2012, 218), the image of the ‘creative city’ is prioritized over the need to improve conditions for people living in the city (Harvey 1989). Indeed, “the semiotic dimension of the marketing process has become more important than the actual product on offer” (Flowerdew 2004; 584). While Landry (2000, xii) argued that cities need to “think, plan and act creatively”, the result of the global mobility of this model has been cities adopting distinctly uncreative policies, with outcomes that both stifle local creativity through commoditisation and gentrification, and create homogenised city spaces.

3 The ‘creative class’ included the “super-creative core” – comprised of scientists, university professors, artists, actors, designers and architects as well as think-tank researchers and “other opinion-makers” – and the “creative professionals” – knowledge-based workers of technology, healthcare, finance, law and business (Florida 2003).

20 The mobility of the ‘creativity script’ has been a key determinant of its popularity. Both Landry and Florida have become celebrity urban consultants, commercialising their ideas and promoting them on global speaking tours (including for both, in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia). As Peck (2010, 224) explained, “packaged, creativity strategies”:

travel with great speed through interlocal policy networks, facilitated by a sprawling complex of conferences, web sites, consultants and advocates, academic camp followers, policy intermediaries and centres of technocratic translation, the combined function of which is to establish new venues and lubricate new channels for rapid ‘policy learning’.

Consequently, in Australia, these theories have permeated policy at all three government levels, and have encouraged a move away from public welfare to increased public/private partnerships. A noteworthy local example of this mobility has been the Australian Local Government Association, which regularly commissions reports and undertakes presentations in order to share policy frameworks among local councils across the country. Their commissioned publications have included several permeations, either directly or indirectly, of a ‘creativity index’ and other ‘creative city’ ideas (Gibson and Klocker 2004; 2005; Grodach 2017)4. As Peck (2010, 224) continued, creativity strategies:

discursively and institutionally select subnational scales, highlighting, in particular, gentrifying urban neighbourhoods as the preeminent sites for both privileged forms of creative action and necessary modes of political proaction, the places that can and must act (Peck 2010, 224).

This mobility was clear no more so than when the City of Sydney invited Charles Landry (2011) to present a ‘City Talk’ on ‘The art of city-making’ at the State Theatre in Sydney. Despite saying very little about Sydney specifically, his speech touted the absolute necessity of ‘creative city’ planning for the city, concluding that the question is not so much about the benefits of these changes but more so the cost of not utilising the creativity fix:

So, really it’s about switching the question. It’s not: ‘what is the value of creativity, culture, soft infrastructure all of these things?’ [Rather,] ‘what is the cost of not thinking in this way? What is the cost of ugliness? What is the cost of bad design? What is the cost of not taking culture into account? So, in the end all I can say is, let’s not let the next generation down (Landry 2011).

4 Throughout the many government and non-government talks, conferences, meetings and other events that I attended during this candidature, there were numerous occasions where ‘creative city’ ideas were (either directly or indirectly) advocated for, including a memorable ‘Vivid Ideas’ talk (during the ‘Vivid’ festival), ‘Sydney Unlocked: Charting a course for Sydney’s cultural Future’ where a speaker from PricewaterhouseCoopers plugged Richard Florida’s work to the entire audience.

21 The “clichéd repertoire” (Peck 2010, 224) of interventions that emerge from these ideas highlight the ironic lack of creativity of city governments globally who continue to adopt ‘creative city’ planning frameworks. Issues around the transferability of such policies have been a key concern of a number of authors (Luckman, Gibson and Lea 2009), echoing those who emphasise the lack of localised cultural analysis in night-time economy policymaking (Rowe and Bavinton 2011). Works like Florida’s and those of the jurisdictions that have adopted his ‘creative city’ vision generally rely on quantitative data on cities, along with the odd convenient anecdote; rigorous qualitative work largely eludes this planning, ignoring that the so-called ‘creative class’ is full of unique individuals with their own intersectional identities and subjectivities, and certainly ignoring that the same is true of the maligned ‘others’ under this framework (whose creativity – if indeed they have any – is deemed to be of little value; see Wilson and Keil 2008). Further, as evidenced by Landry’s (2011) above quotation, creative place-making assumes significant community gains from urban design elements, resulting in further government spending on the cult of celebrity urban planning for what are effectively gentrification strategies, while critical services and infrastructure go wanting.

Those advocating for ‘creative cities’ have benefitted from the ‘fuzzy’ appeal of ‘creativity’ (van Boom 2017; Markusen 2014) to build shared agendas among diverse stakeholders. At the same time, these ideas “work quietly with the grain of extant ‘neoliberal’ development agendas, framed around urban competition, gentrification, middle class consumption and place-marketing” (Peck, 2005, 740-1). The idea of the ‘creative city’ has hence, become one of the clearest examples of neoliberal discourse “co-opting and subsuming ideas that intuitively appear to challenge its orthodoxy” (Gibson and Klocker 2005, 100). Van Boom (2017) notes that the discursive shift from cultural to creative industries signalled a deliberate dissociation from subsidised arts and culture, and consequently the increasing precarity of those enterprises. As Ley (2003, 2530) observed, between artist and entrepreneur there are, of course “different concepts of value at stake”.

This neoliberal policy framework demanded that creativity provide economic returns, utilising arts and culture as an economic driver. As a result, and perhaps counter-intuitively, it has been the “big players who [have been] really (and increasingly) assuming control of our local creative fates” (Banks and O’Connor 2017; 648). The international proliferation and growth of corporatised mega-events for instance – such as the Vivid Festival and New Years Eve in Sydney5 and the international network of Nuit Blanche (White Night) festivals – has been a well-defined strategy of aspiring global cities attempting to raise their international image in order to attract tourists and international investors. As Mercer and Mayfield (2015, 528) recognise however, while these

5 Partners and sponsors include Huawei, Ford, American Express, Allianz, Canon, Google, Coca-Cola and Hahn SuperDry (Destination NSW 2018; City of Sydney 2017b).

22 events encourage “passive engagement with ‘spectacle’”, there has been a “disturbing parallel trend” of a rampant closure of arts and cultural spaces.

As Miles (2012, 220) points out, this “approach that, at face-value, purports to be about creativity, [is actually] underpinned by notions of consumption”. This prioritisation of consumption is evident in Florida’s extensive use of comparative tools, including quantifications of culture and nightlife under the ‘coolness index’. The appropriation of ‘creativity’ by governments is so popular “because of its ability to act as a catalyst in the cultural transition of individuals from ‘citizens’ into ‘entrepreneurs’ and ‘consumers’, the ‘idealised companions’ of the neoliberal state” (Gibson and Klocker 2005, 94 from Peck 2004, 395; Miles 2012). As evidenced in article I, this preference serves to ‘other’ the ‘flawed consumers’ (Bauman 2013) from those whose economic status deems them compatible with the consumer landscape, and those for whom the city “appears to be a mirror to their aspirations” (Miles 2012, 219). In the entrepreneurial city, governments are seen as acting as cultural intermediaries, intervening in the interpretation – and relative appreciation – of cultural products (Ley 2003; Zukin 1991). As Florida (2005, 101) affirmed, “high human-capital individuals, particularly younger ones, are drawn to places with vibrant music scenes, street-level culture, active nightlife, and other signifiers of being ‘cool’”. Critical to this, however, is that desirable ‘creative’ “aesthetic disposition, affirming and transforming the everyday, is a class-privileged temperament” (Ley 2003, 2531). This results in a “damaging conflation of socio-economic inequality and cultural attributes” (Gibson and Klocker 2005, 98 from Haylett 2003). The tying of observed inequalities to ‘problematic’ subjects, has resulted in exclusionary policymaking (Talbot 2007).

Key results of creative city planning are social exclusion and displacement of poorer residents through state-sanctioned gentrification (Harvey 2012; Mayer 2013; Gibson and Homan 2004). Many, including Peck (2010), have long argued that Florida’s theory represents an elitist claim to the city that devalues huge numbers of urban populations. Even Florida (2017), in his most recent book, The New Urban Crisis, laments the impacts of the uptake of his ideas as a ‘crisis of success’. In Florida’s case however, this concern arises through growing socio-spatial inequality now displacing even higher-income knowledge workers of the ‘creative class’, and despite the acknowledgement of urban inequality, there is little serious revision to his original theory.

23 The night-time economy

Closely related to ‘global city’ and ‘creative city’ discourses, the ‘night-time economy’ reflects the integration of many elements of these frameworks into urban nightlife planning. There has been substantial critique of this reorientation of inner-city nightlife planning into a boosterist regime, (Hobbs, Winlow, Hadfield and Lister 2005) particularly over the last two decades. The shift from ‘nightlife’ to the ‘night-time economy’ that emerged alongside the shift to entrepreneurial cities is outlined in article III. Critiques of this shift are detailed in article II, with reference to their relationship to the ‘creative cities’ discourse. In addition to the problematic effects outlined in the section above, the placing of an economic imperative into nightlife policymaking is immeasurably further complicated by the character of key nightlife industries, and the complex histories of their regulation. The thesis articles that follow explicate and expand upon many of the complications and contradictions brought on by discourses of neoliberal ‘night-time economy’ governance, and so this background below will be kept brief.

Presented with the opportunity to ‘double’ urban economies (Bianchini 1995), UK governments in the 1990s embraced the concept of the 24-hour city, promoted by Charles Landry’s creative cities think tank, Comedia (Montgomery 1995). A liberalised licensing landscape was assumed to bring an improved, more ‘European’, drinking culture (Tierney 2006), however resulted in “unanticipated outcomes: criminogenic, environmental and social” (Hadfield 2015, 607), through consolidation of the alcohol industry. The knowing stimulation of the conditions for pernicious consumption in the interest of capital accumulation was labelled a ‘violent hypocrisy’ (Hobbs, Winlow, Hadfield and Lister 2005). Moreover, as argued by Chatterton and Hollands (2003), Talbot (2007) and others, the ensuing widespread development of the neoliberal ‘night-time economy’ resulted in corporatised and standardised nightscapes alongside the destruction of spaces of racial resistance (Talbot 2004; 2007), subcultural creativity (Talbot 2007; Gallan 2012) and political radicalism (Hae 2012); this ‘gentrification of nightlife’ (Hae 2012) is highly spatialised, with inner-city, typically post-industrial, areas targeted under these boosterist schemes. As Gallan (2015, 556-7) observed, the growth of the ‘night-time economy’ has paradoxically meant that “spaces and practices of nightlife [that] are recognised for their difference or alternative status… remain tied up with processes that inhibit their development, commodify their perceived difference or threaten their survival”.

The exclusionary flaws in then emergent night-time policies (see articles II and III) led Roberts and Eldridge (2007) to explore and argue for a more nuanced approach to consumption in the ‘night-time economy’. Subsequent approaches engaged with the material elements of nightlife as “a necessary accompaniment to the interactions between people and place” (Hubbard 2005, 132; Yeo and Heng 2014; Brands, Schwanen and van Aalst 2015), with calls to consider “more axes of social differentiation… and their intersections with each other” (Schwanen, van

24 Aalst, Brands and Timan 2012, 2084; Hubbard 2005). Shaw (2014, 87; see also Jayne, Valentine and Holloway 2010) took issue with the term ‘night-time economy’ itself, using an assemblage urbanism approach to argue that the term reflects “just a portion of the practices which generate the affective atmosphere of the night-time city centre”. Similarly, Jayne and Valentine (2016, 75), in their approach to alcohol studies, have oriented their research around “emotional and embodied encounters in urban public space”, and challenged the “widely held view that violence and disorder are ubiquitous” in academic approaches to alcohol, drinking and drunkenness (Jayne and Valentine 2016, 81; Gallan 2015). Article I of this thesis draws from these and similar approaches that engage with emotion, encounter and affect (see also Hubbard 2005) via the phenomenological approach described on page 44.

Despite the deleterious outcomes of, night-time economy planning, this “deliberate stimulation of after-dark leisure” (Tomsen 2014, 468) has continued to inform urban governance strategies, including Sydney’s, as examined in article II. While cities may now appear to take a more cautious approach to deregulation, ‘night-time economy’ governance continues the problematic prescription of ‘civilised’ nightlife consumers and venues in targeted inner-city leisure and tourist areas in line with the desired ‘global city’ image and ‘creative city’ approaches. Consequently, their associated problems, including those tied to gentrification, align with those in the synopses of the ‘global city’ and ‘creative city’, above. Articles II and III take a closer look at these linkages and critique the ‘night-time economy’ model in more detail. Below is a discussion of gentrification in order to frame these linkages, and the issues raised in this thesis, within a concern for urban (spatial) justice.

Gentrification

The term ‘gentrification’ was coined by sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964 to describe central London’s “invasion… by the middle classes” (Glass 1964, xviii), which she indicated would “lead to [uncontrolled] land values” (Glass 1964, xix) and consequently described it as the “survival of the… financially fittest” (Glass 1964, xx). Indicating the highly contextual character of the process (Ley 1996; Smith 2002), she explained that it was “an inevitable development, in view of the demographic, economic and political pressures” to which London was subjected (Glass 1964, xviii-xix). It is these changing pressures that have shaped much of the discussion around ‘gentrification’, which has been “perhaps the most politically loaded word in urban geography” (Davidson and Lees 2005, 1187):

Whereas gentrification has been seen by some as the saviour of the inner cities… others regard it as a threat to inner city working class areas [through the] conversion of parts of the inner city into a bourgeois

25 playground (Hamnett 1991, 174).

Oriented around Bell’s (1973) paradigm of post-industrial society, opposing ‘production’ and ‘consumption’ theories of gentrification6 (Smith 1979; 1987; Ley 1980; 1996) were respectively marked by Smith’s (1979) ‘rent gap’ theory and Ley’s (1996) ‘new middle class’. These theories have long given way to a consensus of both (Lees 2000; Shaw 2002; Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008), while various case studies have adopted terms such as ‘studentification’ (Nofre, Sánchez-Fuarros, Martins, Pereira, Soares, Malet-Calvo, Geraldes and Díaz 2017), ‘touristification’ (Nofre, Giordano, Eldridge, Martins and Sequera 2017), ‘super-gentrification’ (Lees 2003a), and ‘gay gentrification’ (Bell and Binnie 2004; however see Curran 2017), in pointing to the particular character of gentrification in place. Understandings of gentrification have also broadened from the inner cities to elsewhere (Butler 2007; Clark 2005), from building ‘upgrades’ to new-builds (Davidson and Lees 2005; 2010), from residential to commercial (see page 34), and with a growing focus on nightscapes (Chatterton and Hollands 2003; Hae 2012). A largely theoretical focus has also diminished in favour of a more policy-oriented approach (Slater 2006) with greater practical implications (Van Weesep 1994; Clark 2005; Curran 2017).

The use of gentrification as a “crucial urban strategy for city governments in consort with private capital in cities around the world” (Smith 2002, 440) has ensured its role in broader debates around globalisation, capitalism and neoliberalism (Harvey 2005; 2012). The ‘third wave’ of gentrification saw governments readily take up gentrification strategies – albeit under the guises of ‘revival’, ‘regeneration’, ‘redevelopment’, ‘revitalisation’ and ‘renewal’, to strip the process of its class associations (Slater 2008). These government strategies have aimed to reconfigure urban economies and cityscapes, reflecting the shift to entrepreneurial governance (Harvey 1989), and highlighting growing tensions between governments and private agents of urban change (Zukin 2010). There is now clear acknowledgement of the role of neoliberal governance in gentrification, with Clark (2005, 261) arguing that “the root causes of gentrification are: commodification of space, polarised power relations and a dominance of vision over sight”. As Marcuse (2015b, 1264) notes, any cases of ‘upgrading’ constituting gentrification, even where led by private agents:

are typically done in combination with some public actions, even if this involves only the granting of building permits. What to do about gentrification is thus an appropriate and indeed important issue for public policy, and the relationship of gentrification to social justice and ethical public policy is an important matter for public concern and governmental policymaking.

6 Production theories of gentrification were based on the economic restructuring of post-industrial cities while consumption theories focused on related changes to the characteristics of inner-city inhabitants including the demands and preferences of ‘gentrifiers’, with their distinctive habitus (Bourdieu 1984; Ley 2003).

26 As Davidson (2007a, 490-1) describes: “gentrification has become bound-up in a global circuit of urban policy transfer where the promises of inner city ‘revitalisation’ and ‘renaissance’ have lured countless national and metropolitan governments into promoting a return of the middle classes back to the city”. These global processes and flows are now viewed as key to understanding gentrification (Atkinson and Bridge 2005) and its relationship to the construction of urban identities and behaviours (Butler 2007). Recognition of gentrification’s causes and effects, as part of a globalised system of capital accumulation, has led to the conceptualisation of ‘planetary gentrification’ (Lees, Shin and López-Morales 2016), which appreciates the spatial differentiation of gentrification while still acknowledging such broader power effects.

Slater (2014b, 521), has noted that while the debate around gentrification has often been represented as a “moral conundrum”, with gentrification and urban ‘decline’ framed against one another, they are “not opposites, alternatives or choices, but rather tensions and contradictions in the overall system of capital circulation, amplified and aggravated by the current crisis”. The slippery character of gentrification and its ability to camouflage itself amid a complex swathe of multi-scalar urban processes has seen many urban researchers disengage with the use of the term. As Slater (2014b, 519) reminds us however, gentrification “has always been about class struggle”, and, in the context of neoliberal cities, where class inequality and its spatiality demands attention, gentrification should continue to remain a key conceptual focus.

Gentrification, therefore, is relevant to this thesis insofar as it can “simply not detach itself from concerns regarding the neoliberalisation of urban space and consequent displacement… [A]s gentrification has spread, mutated and diversified it has remained, if not become more, intertwined with socio-economic difference and capital’s spatial logics” (Davidson 2007a, 504; Butler 2007; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007). While nightlife may appear relatively insignificant compared with other manifestations and processes of gentrification, the development of ‘night- time economies’ has drawn it increasingly into focus for those concerned with urban inequality. Hae (2012), for instance, identified the ‘gentrification with and against nightlife’ in New York as exacerbated particularly through a policy shift towards ‘place-making’; as mentioned, this process has seen subcultural closure (Talbot 2006) in the nightlife settings of ‘global cities’ around the world, with the loss of important social, cultural and political spaces of revelry and resistance (Chatterton and Hollands 2002).

Moreover, as this thesis explores, the shaping of nightlife has far-reaching consequences for the production of urban space and therefore, for urban justice. It is simultaneously reflective of more widespread gentrification processes under neoliberalism and imbued with its own multifarious particularities. The (sub)discourses of neoliberalism discussed throughout this thesis are each elements of “gentrification’s global narratives” (Davidson 2007a, 493); that is, entrepreneurial urban strategies that effect land use in the city. The ‘global city’, ‘creative city’ and

27 ‘night-time economy’ are brought into dialogue with gentrification in the thesis articles through the discussion of Sydney’s nightlife.

28 Case study selection and context

Sydney

In 2012, Sydney (Figure 1) was selected as the site for this study due to the then emergent interest by the City council in the development of night-time economy planning. The Open ‘strategy and action plan for Sydney at night’ was in development as part of a series of strategic documents by the City, following on from their wide-ranging, 2008 strategic plan Sydney 2030, which sought to reinvent the inner city. Also released in 2008, their Fine Grain strategy (City of Sydney 2008a), sought to reinvigorate the city’s laneways, and could be placed amid a growth in policies that sought to increase the city’s cultural offerings in order to attract the ‘creative class’. The high profile international consultancy of Jan Gehl, along with guest ‘City Talks’ from ‘creative cities’ proponent Charles Landry (2011), Carol Coletta (2013) of ‘creative placemaking’ group ArtPlace America and others, signalled a clearly articulated entrepreneurial shift in the Council’s vision. This vision was reflected throughout Sydney 2030 and other strategic planning documents embedded with assumptions about the design of public spaces to improve ‘diversity’ and ‘liveability’ (see Richards 2012; article II).

The optimism espoused by the City in the development of Open, which was proposed as an international blueprint for night-time economy planning, emerged from what was, for them, a far more concerned outlook about the state of the inner city’s nightlife. Although under their plans Sydney was perceived as having an “unsophisticated late night bar and hospitality culture” (City of Sydney 2008a in McNeill 2011), as Van den Nouwelant and Steinmetz (2013, 31) noted in 2013, “[t]he City of Sydney Council considers itself at the vanguard of promoting and managing a vibrant, diverse, and sustainable [night-time economy]”. As discussed in article II, the City’s Open policy was in process at a time when many of the deleterious outcomes of night-time economy planning worldwide were already apparent, and from this basis I set out to scrutinise the plan and its guiding mechanisms.

While the growing city of Sydney “emerged as an expanding though socially divided city notable for its class divisions” (Tomsen 2014, 463), these divisions have heightened in the era of neoliberalism (and, indeed, in the tenure of this research project). As articles I, III and V demonstrate, the relational discourses of place in Sydney – particularly between the inner city and the outer western suburbs (Hage 1997; Powell 1993) – have had significant implications for nightlife. As MacDonald (2015, 211) has noted, Sydney’s emergence as a ‘global city’ has been

29

30 fraught by a failure to manage its growth, and the Council’s aspirational “green, global, connected” branding “sharply differentiates” from the realities of life in much of greater Sydney. As McGuirk and O’Neill (2002, 302) outlined, “prosperity has presented Sydney with localised instances of the problematic side of globalised capitalism: uneven social development, skewed settlement patterns, demographic imbalances, infrastructure stress, and environmental deterioration”; this situation that has only deepened in the decade-and-a-half since McGuirk and O’Neill’s words were written, with the “peculiary suburban nature of poverty” starkly contrasting with the increasingly “concentrated wealth in inner Sydney” (Dowling 2005, 771). Moreover, significant shifts in nightlife policy in recent years have played out amid a highly public debate around governance and a contentious broader political context in NSW (see article III), with many issues related to the city’s uneven development only heightened throughout the course of this research (during which time there were three Liberal7 State Premiers).

Prior to regulatory shifts in the late 2000s, the preceding decades had already seen significant elements of a once thriving (though at times troublesome) inner city nightlife dramatically reduced (Homan 2003; see article III). Further, and, as Tomsen (2014, 476; see article III) observed:

In contradictory state initiated campaigns and imagery to both deter and promote drinking, the ideal neoliberal night users are consumerist, hedonistic and self-governing individual selves oscillating between the uncertain polarities of safe and dangerous consumption.

In other words, Sydney’s nightlife was heavy with discursive baggage, ready to be unpacked. Moreover, as the inner suburbs have become increasingly “shiny, wealthy and inward-looking” (Pryor 2016), the value of inner Sydney’s nightlife spaces has become an important question for governments and, in response, nightlife advocates. While the case study selection for this research partly signalled my anticipation that this would become an area of interest to others, the dramatic policy shift of the lockout by the NSW Government, and the significant response that would follow, underlined the complexity, contradictions and importance of inner Sydney’s nightlife as a subject of research.

Media ‘panic’

As discussed in article III, this thesis draws from existing work on media reporting in the lead up to the NSW Government’s introduction of the lockout (Quilter 2013; Wadds 2015; Homan 2017). The media onslaught that occurred – characterised by a ‘panic’ around alcohol-fuelled

7 The Liberal Party is Australia’s major conservative party, named for their platform of individual freedom and free enterprise.

31 violence and rhetoric of ‘enough is enough’ – undoubtedly played a significant role in the decision to implement the lockout however, and so is significant here to the case study context. Then Premier O’Farrell, bombarded with accusations of political impotence around the issue, was pressured to revert on his own prior arguments against the introduction of a lockout in Sydney. As Homan (2017, 4) recalls,

Beyond the initial media reportage, calls for legislative action increased upon the sentencing of [Thomas Kelly’s killer, Kieran] Loveridge... Subsequent events followed a familiar pattern to prior Australian panics: the State government simultaneously appealed the Loveridge sentence; radio and print media began sustained campaigns for tougher assault laws; and the families of the young male victims became vocal critics of the existing judicial landscape.

Below, in Box 1, I have included a list of headlines that appeared in News Corp’s The Daily Telegraph and Fairfax’s The Sydney Morning Herald newspapers from the time of the attack on Thomas Kelly in July 2012 and Premier Barry O’Farrell’s announcement of the lockouts and accompanying measures in January 2014. These were collected using key word searches in the media database Factiva. Quite simply, the number of articles, and the clear perspective espoused, highlights the significant pressure on the Premier from these mainstream media organisations. In the next section I overview Surry Hills, which provided the case study site for the early stages of the research project.

Box 1. List of articles in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Daily Telegraph on the issue of alcohol-related violence, 11 July 2012 to 20 January 2014

• Cross marks spot where violence is all too common • Enough is enough with Kings Cross lawlessness • Attitude to drink must change, say Kelly family friend • Trauma chief says doctors alone can’t cut alcohol deaths • Streets get tough, laws get tougher • We all need to act on drinking problem • Six decades spent easing liquor laws • Time to end the violence • Hospital slams AHA for 'denial' of alcohol problems • No Cross revolution on way while politicians are under influence of liquor trade • Minister's blitz Alcohol-fuelled violence in focus Plan to halt liquor violence urges 1am lockouts • Sobering-up cells just a PR exercise • Where’s the justice in king-hit killer’s plea? • No time to waste in making Sydney's streets safer at • night • Ban new booze licences in George Street, urges police commander • Master plan to clean up Kings Cross Lockouts a lesson in making streets safer • Drinkers get loaded before, between venues and after • their big night out • One-punch laws a knee-jerk reaction that protects alcohol industry, claims legal group • NSW worst at tackling alcohol abuse • Unite to fight underbelly of violent rage • Four years for a life: Kelly family's outrage

32 • Tough talking will not fix Kings Cross • Punch-drunk culture needs to stop celebrating alcohol abuse • Review calls for risk-based liquor licensing fees for pubs and clubs • 'Powerless' on booze • Rising acts of random city violence put medics on edge • Public needs to find stomach to stop boozed- up violence spree • Booze and youth make violent cocktail • We must redouble our efforts against a culture • Experts demand trial of lock-outs of violence • Newcastle measures worth a try but much more is needed • City's violent epicentre • New year, same mayhem • Let’s make 2014 a year of no excuses • Coward’s blow symbolises new culture of • Premier is simply too scared to take up gauntlet on unbounded violence drunken violence • More than booze behind thuggery • On brunt end of a coward’s low act • It ads up: Sending a message to stop the • Enough is enough: time to stop alcohol-fuelled violence is drunken violence now • Alcohol link to young hoons • Time to act Lockouts turn off alcohol before the violence can begin • King hit a deadly trend. A culture of violence. A plea for • peace • Nothing but silence from O'Farrell • Family calls for justice to be done • Here is your hit list premier • Kings Cross peace patrol. Trouble spotters are extra • Booze trap set for kids. Youngsters groomed to drink eyes for police on city mean streets • No more talk, time for action Cops call for action on booze • • Expect more 'senseless violence': paramedic • No more madness • Premier dodges tough issue • Barry takes soft option on violence • Violence is killing our cities Curb on trading key to cutting violence – expert • • O’Farrell’s job to make streets of Sydney safer Cracking down on boozy violence • • Hotels resist trial aiming to cut alcohol violence • Breaking booze culture • Calls to end the curse of cheap booze • 12 angry cowards… and their 12 innocent victims • Cross tragedy brings drinking controls closer • Sucker punch the mark of a coward – real heroes walk • Young men and alcohol make a deadly cocktail away • Three key steps to finally prove we've had enough • Energising drunks on a violent bender • Kings Cross crackdown ‘won’t stop violence’ • Door shut on Cross lockouts • Call to lift legal drinking age to 25 • For a life cut short, Christies call for change • Families shattered as fear rules Sydney streets • The Cross gets safer as laws get tougher • Arresting the alarming jump in street violence • Courts put bounce on boozy violence • Alcohol warnings fail to get message through • Courts fail society when one-punch cowards are set free to repeatedly bully their victims • Barry, how much more evidence do you need? • Drunk tanks get watered down a bit • Moves to cut booze violence come up short • Shut pub and stop violence • Courts lack courage to bring thugs to account • Our Angry Mile of mindless violence • Demand for tougher laws on drunken violence • No tolerance for bloody thuggery • Cocktails too risky • Agony hits again • Going to war on alcohol • It’s time to end all the stupid carnage on our streets • It’s time Barry O’Farrell acted on alcohol-fuelled violence • Where’s Barry? Silence speaks volumes as alcohol debate rages • It’s a jungle out there of the violent and psychotic • We can stamp out violence • Daily Telegraph launches campaign to end alcohol- fuelled carnage • Demand for tougher laws on drunken violence Source: see Appendix • No kidding, it’s time for action

33 Surry Hills

Surry Hills is an inner-city suburb of Sydney, located within the City of Sydney Local Government Area (Figure 1). Just south-east of Sydney’s Central Business District and bordering Central Station along its western edge, Surry Hills’ landscape reflects much of its varied history (Keating 2008); the Victorian terrace houses and former factories and warehouses of the city’s industrial period dominate its streetscape. Surry Hills’ accessible location sees it accommodate a number of government offices and social service providers (DeVerteuil 2015) including the Oasis Youth Support Network, Wesley Mission’s Edward Eagar Lodge and the NSW Users and AIDS Association’s Needle and Syringe Program8, as well as the Sydney Police Centre. Despite displacement pressures, the suburb also retains a significant number of social housing residents, many in the tower blocks of Northcott Estate (articles I and II; Bowden 2004).

It is the significant gentrification of the suburb however, that for many, characterises Surry Hills. This process has seen marked changes to the suburb in the last few decades (articles I and II; Sherry and Easthope 2016; Gibson 2006) following the de-industrialisation of inner Sydney (Forster 1999, 48). The predilections of the ‘creative class’ influx to the suburb have affected shifts “in both the physical landscape and the social community” (Zukin 2010, 229). The suburb is now known for its trendy cafes, restaurants and bars, and its ‘creative industries’, with the City of Sydney labelling (or rather, attempting to label) part of Crown Street ‘SOGO’ (South of Goulburn Street) to encourage economic development in the area (City of Sydney 2008c). Early September 2016 saw one four-bedroom warehouse conversion sell for AU$7.95 million (Melocco 2016), reflecting Sydney’s unruly housing market and the high desirability of inner-city locations such as Surry Hills. Articles I and II include further overviews of this case study area relevant to the thesis, including demographic data.

Surry Hills was selected as the case study site when research began for this thesis, and this selection carries through articles I and II. At that initial selection stage, the lockout, and the impacts and public debate that would follow it, were yet to unfold, and the City of Sydney had not yet released their finalised night-time economy plan, Open. The Council’s City of Villages strategy however, with local action plans in development from 2005, had seen Surry Hills identified as one of the ‘villages’ to which Council projects would be targeted. The City has subsequently directed policies at the ten ‘village precincts’ “to foster the best possible standard of city living in each one through delivering an appealing urban environment and attractive leisure and recreation and community facilities” (City of Sydney 2017a). Crown Street, Surry Hills (with adjoining Baptist

8 As Gorman-Murray and Nash (2014) have noted however, there has been a growing trend of social service providers shifting out of these traditional inner-city suburbs to the inner west and western suburbs of Sydney.

34 Street in neighbouring Redfern) was identified as an ‘activity hub’, “home to a vibrant retail and dining scene that attracts visitors from across Sydney” (City of Sydney 2015)9. This type of policymaking points to the privileging of inner-city locations such as Surry Hills as part of the overarching ‘global city’, ‘creative city’ and ‘night-time economy’ agendas. Such narratives of privilege contrast with the narratives of disadvantage that emerge from the policy neglect of outer urban areas. This juxtaposition emerges throughout this thesis with regards to relational discourses of place in Sydney, most notably in article I.

One of the most recent significant policy interventions in Sydney’s nightlife at that time was the mid-2008 State government introduction of a small bar liquor license via the State’s Liquor Act 2007 – effectively a significant price reduction in the licensing fee for smaller venues10. The build-up to this intervention had been highly politically contentious, involving questionable and divisive rhetoric by various parties involved. A key impetus for the small bars regulation had been to open up a new night-time economy in Sydney’s Central Business District (CBD), which was seen as an under-activated area for after-dark leisure. Within this inactivity was the potential for economic growth through re-characterising the inner city as a ‘vibrant’ place at night. The changes enabled, within a few short years, a proliferation of new bars, particularly in the inner-city suburbs. Although many of these were indeed located in the CBD, the adjacent cultural destination of Surry Hills, with its established drinking and dining reputation quickly (and inevitably) became a key location for many new small bars.

It is worth noting here that there were also other significant changes to nightlife regulation in Sydney across this period, including a liquor license freeze from mid-2009, and the creation of the Kings Cross precinct Plan of Management in late 2012. These would prove of interest to later examinations of Sydney’s nightlife regulation undertaken during the development of this thesis, due to the importance of the regulatory detail to analysis and critique of government discourse. At the time, however, and as outlined in the thesis introduction, I was interested in the divergences between experiential understandings of Sydney’s nightlife, and representations of it by government and media. Those, like the Lord Mayor Clover Moore, who had advocated for small bars, had sold the idea on the basis that they would enculturate the city, providing a Melbourne-like atmosphere, and a much-needed nightlife alternative to ‘beer barns’ (see article II). The apparent alternative public rhetoric being espoused – namely, by the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) – was starkly contrasting. The AHA’s then President, John Thorpe, somewhat infamously argued

9 In 2014, the City of Sydney undertook a program to “improve pedestrian amenity, help calm traffic, and encourage outdoor dining” in a section of Crown Street, which largely involved replacing the existing footpath with large paving stones. 10 At that time small bars were classified as venues with up to 60 patrons. This was amended in 2016 to allow venues with up to 100 patrons to qualify as small bars. The City of Sydney continue to advocate to the NSW Government for this to be increased to 120.

35 that Sydneysiders “don’t want to sit in a hole in the wall with a book and a glass of Chardonnay”. The polarising voices in this debate raised questions for me about the impact of such discourses on perceptions and experiences of these nightlife venues. Small bar advocates had also claimed that small bars would diversify the nightlife by enabling live music, and provide more sociable environments. These were claims I questioned based on my rudimentary knowledge of the city’s nightlife’s regulatory history and my experiential understanding of the city’s nightlife.

My second intention for the thesis at that time had been to explore the impact of nightlife governance on the socio-economy of the city. Small bars presented themselves as a timely example in this regard, as they presented a significant shift in the character of Sydney’s nightlife based on a broader (and questionable) view of what urban nightlife should be – a view that was increasingly shaping global nightlife policy. Since Ducatel and Blomley’s (1990, 225) appeal that “retail capital and its transformation” be given “urgent attention”, examinations of retailing in geography have acknowledged the role of “spaces, places and practices of consumption [in] redefining the economic and cultural horizons” of contemporary society (Crewe 2000, 275; Bell, Holloway, Jayne and Valentine 2007). Crewe (2000, 275) observed that geographers, through an inability to appropriately utilise economic and cultural theory, had failed to adequately examine the ways in which consumer spaces are both “sites for commodity exchange and symbolic and metaphoric territories”. Whilst the relationship between consumption spaces and identity had long been examined separately within various fields, it was this shift that led to research collaborations and greater insight in these areas (Crewe 2000; Larner 2012). The recent growth in small bar numbers in Surry Hills, and high profile character of the debate surrounding the licensing change, presented an opportunity to explore the linkages between these consumption spaces and urban identities, in the broader context of change in Sydney’s nightlife. Were these spaces generating the ‘diversity’ they were assumed to?

While “the defining feature of gentrification is conspicuous consumption” (Shaw 2002, 42), gentrification literature has primarily focused on residential rather than commercial components (Bridge and Dowling 2001; Hubbard 2017). Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of cultural capital, Bridge (2006b, 728) noted that the “valorisation of one set of tastes in economic, symbolic and social terms results in the displacement of other tastes”, with gentrification being the most prominent manifestation of these taste boundaries operating in inner urban neighbourhoods. This work has had continued relevance to research on subject formation and subjectivities in the neoliberal city (Larner 2012), with growing interest in the relationships between the cultural economy and urban inequalities (Grodach, Foster and Murdoch 2018). Studies that have examined changes in the retail landscape (Ley 1996; Sassen 1998; Bridge and Dowling 2001; Zukin 2009; Hubbard 2017) have shown how such changes are central to the “class remake” (Smith 1996, 39) of entire areas, by interrogating the inherent links between the residential and

36 commercial landscapes and the potential of gentrification as a force for displacement and exclusion (Slater 2009; Sassen 2002; Marcuse 1985). This link would prove of growing importance throughout the research project, with a shift in focus to Kings Cross, as the epicentre of lockout impacts.

37 38 Procedural framework

In this section, I provide supplementary details of, and reflections on, the methods used throughout the course of the research project, in order to frame the thesis articles. I begin with discourse analysis, which permeated through the research project. The overriding discourse analysis approach allowed me to become familiar with, and reflect on the materials collected throughout the project, building on the analysis with new and existing themes as the contextual narrative evolved over time. This maintenance and continued interrogation of themes allowed for rigour and consistency throughout the research project. The topics selected for analysis throughout, and the ultimate subjects of the thesis articles, reflected my ongoing engagement with these themes and with the initial project objectives. This critical engagement is reflected in the way that the conceptual themes presented above are brought into dialogue throughout the thesis articles. Following the methods discussion, I reflect on the role of my embodied positionality in conducting the research project.

Discourse analysis

In its various forms, discourse analysis is broadly based on Foucault’s understanding of the production, circulation and maintenance of knowledge. This constructionist view recognises that understanding such processes requires an acknowledgement of spatial and temporal context, and that dominant or ‘naturalised’ discourses result from unequal social relationships, technology and power. Discourse analysis connotes not a specific set of methods, but a broad theoretical framework for research. This framework enables investigation of discourse (in its many forms) as social construction, imbued with power and the social and temporal context through which social practice is constructed.

Consistent with the framework outlined above, a critical interpretive approach to discourse analysis has been deployed at several stages throughout this research project. As is common in the use of discourse analysis in geographical research, a largely intuitive approach was taken, particularly at the latter stages, in which the specific technique has been left implicit. Despite this, there are elements of the approach that can be pointed to as guidelines for practice and as strategies that were used in developing this “craft skill” (Potter 1996) in the early research stages.

Waitt’s (2010, 217) “methodological template” for discourse analysis, adapted from Rose’s (2007) guidelines for the analysis of visual materials, provided the basis for the approach adopted

39 for this thesis11. This template was followed more systematically in its use for analysis of the City of Sydney’s Open plan (article II), compared with the approaches taken in the latter stages of research, as presented in articles III, and particularly IV, for instance, when many of the project themes were already well understood. In each case however, (as was always true,) the approach was not employed exhaustively, but in a select manner that fit within the parameters of the research.

The seven stages for this template for discourse analysis (Waitt 2010, 220) are as follows:

i. Choice of source materials or texts ii. Suspend pre-existing categories: become reflexive iii. Familiarisation: absorbing yourself in and thinking critically about the social context of your texts iv. Coding: once for organisation and again for interpretation v. Power, knowledge, and persuasion: investigate your texts for effects of ‘truth’ vi. Rupture and resilience: take notice of inconsistencies within your texts vii. Silence: silence as discourse and discourses that silence

The detail of these seven stages in a general sense will not be outlined here – it can be found in the work of Waitt (2010), Rose (2007) and others, and will be familiar to most readers. As is evident both in the articles themselves and in the conceptual inventory above, the analysis undertaken was grounded in an extensive understanding of the discourses and governance of urban nightlife broadly, and in the context of Sydney and Surry Hills. The materials scrutinised are outlined in each article.

Existing research that uses discourse analysis to look at the cultural economy of the neoliberal city has typically looked at either ‘production’ or ‘consumption’ forces in the post-industrial city – that is, examining ‘place-making’ or ‘branding’ strategies (Flowerdew 2004), or focusing on consumer culture and its role in shaping urban identities (Cronin and Hetherington 2008). This thesis does both, examining multiple discursive elements to explore the production, circulation and maintenance of neoliberal discourse in the global city at night. The significance of discourse analysis for examining knowledge production through power-laden processes makes it ideally suited for studies involving processes of gentrification and other urban injustices. Relatedly, the attentiveness to social and cultural context in discourse analysis makes it suited to examining such an area of policymaking that has been criticised for a lack of engagement with contextual cultural complexities.

11 Rose (2007) divides her approach into two forms of discourse analysis – ‘text intertextuality and context’ and ‘institutions and ways of seeing’ – although in practice, the distinction between these is blurred.

40 In this thesis, discourse analysis is primarily deployed to critique the (multiple) strategies of neoliberal urban governments. In the case of the City of Sydney, the starting point for examination, was their night-time economy strategy and action plan Open, taking inspiration from studies such as Flowerdew’s (2004) analysis of three government-produced texts in Hong Kong. Additional material, as outlined in article II, was selected as it related to the development and release of the plan. In particular, the selected material sought to uncover relationships between the research involved in the plan’s development – including consultation – and the final product.

In the case of the NSW State Government’s ‘lockout policy’, as discussed in article III, the analysis was broadened to include a wider scope of materials and a deeper look at the historical development of Sydney’s nightlife. This analysis highlighted the association between the regulatory transitions in the city at night, and the shifting character of nightlife culture, a culture integral to contemporary perceptions of the city’s nightlife, both from government and elsewhere. Given the heated contextual climate under which the government’s interventions were announced, the article incorporates discussion of the key issues of public debate in the analysis, using a wide range of materials, collected using Evernote12, over an extended period of time. Article II also readdresses the City of Sydney plan. The added historical context illuminates mechanisms through which the City serves to (re)produce neoliberal discourse.

Both articles II and IV made explicit use of data from interviews (see page 42) with government officials and/or activists. This material provided context and a more in-depth understanding of the public discourses of these government and activist bodies. Their use is discussed in the next section. The analysis of activist discourses also incorporates a range of sources, as outlined in article IV. Many of the differences between the two social movement groups discussed – in strategy, popular appeal and lobbying status – are explicated through this analysis, and the context provided therein.

Article I also implicitly made use of discourse analysis by using emplaced methods (as will be discussed below) to get at the multiplicity of experiences in Surry Hills’ nightscape. By observing attitudes and behaviours in context, their relationship to broader discourses on the nightscape could be interpreted. The analysis in article I utilised Rose’s (2007) broad conception of discourse as encompassing visual as well as linguistic texts, including place. As Harvey (1996, 221) has claimed:

The discourse about the thing, or evaluative discourses more generally, are fundamental to the spatio-temporal practices of valuing both the thing and the person. Without naming, memory, discourses and the like, the whole process of constituting a mediated world of space-time

12 Evernote is a computer program and application in which you can clip and archive a range of online materials that you can then tag and annotate.

41 relations would fall apart.

Relating to studies analysing consumer culture through examination of the aesthetics of consumer products and places, discourse analysis allowed for the Surry Hills nightscape and places within it to be analysed as both produced and consumed. The techniques used to explore experience and encounter in place, in article I, are grounded in phenomenology, which will be outlined below, and its use alongside discourse analysis discussed, before the discussion of the mobile methods used. First, however, I outline the project’s use of semi-structured interviews.

Semi-structured interviews

Six semi-structured interviews were conducted throughout the research with then current and former government officials from the City of Sydney and NSW Government and with the campaign co-ordinators of two social movements, Keep Sydney Open and Reclaim the Streets. These interviews were undertaken with those as outlined in articles II and IV. The differences in identifying information in each case correlate to the permission granted by each participant. Most were conducted in person, with one conducted over the phone due to geographic distance. All were recorded with participant consent. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their involvement with either the government policies or the activist groups being analysed, as they were able to clarify, provide opinions on, and further contextualise other resources being analysed.

Semi-structured interviews were selected as they allow for a flexible interview structure, where an interview guide is utilised to facilitate questions deemed to be most relevant to the study by the researcher (Dunn 2010). This format allows for a natural interview flow, by reshaping the interview structure in situ. The interview guides were amended for each interviewee based on the particular role of the interviewee and based on the development of the research ideas – including the impact of previous interviews. Semi-structured interviews require active participation from the interviewer, including “constant focus on the information being divulged by informants and the use of cues and responses to encourage them” (Dunn 2010, 116). To maintain focus and rapport during the interviews, I took notes only in cases where the interviewee made a particular suggestion for a document to look into or another person to talk to, or in order to cue further prompts, to ask an additional question, or reword an existing question based on the interviewees response or to shift the question route in order to allow for a better flow of discussion as the interview progressed. These notes and modifications reflected the maintenance of a critical inner dialogue (Adelman 1981 in Dunn 2010, 116) to “constantly analyse what is being said and simultaneously formulate the next question or prompt”. The inner dialogue also required consideration of the time remaining throughout the interview, to ensure that follow-up prompts still allowed time for remaining questions.

42 Interviewees were approached via email where they were provided with information about the project and the range of issues intended to be discussed in the interview. While this was the case for all interviewees, some requested further details of questions prior to the interview, in which cases they were emailed an interview guide, with questions. This provision allowed interviewees to consider responses in more detail than if they were provided only a broad topic list. I did not volunteer the questions without such requests however, as given the roles of the interview subjects, I hoped to gauge interviewee opinions and attitudes that were not overly prepared.

Interviews would begin with an informal chat and the participants were asked to sign a consent form and were provided with a retraction of consent form (UNSW Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel Approval Number 145138). Given that the interviews were being recorded, I also made it clear to interviewees that they need only say, either during or after the interview, if they wanted something “off the record”. Questions were grouped into a structure that allowed for a positive rapport to be maintained. As such, interviews generally began with questions about the circumstances in which the interviewee began in the role they were being interviewed about. This strategy allowed me to contextualise their knowledge based on the impetus for their involvement and, in the case of government officials, the particular policy work they were involved in. It also allowed the interviewees to ease into the interview with a question that was easy to answer, and prompted a somewhat chronological thought process to begin the interview. Interview length was typically between one and two hours and interviews ended with an informal chat.

Where permitted by the interviewee, interviews were video recorded by Go-Pro and audio recorded as a backup via iPod. In one instance, I was not granted permission to video record, and so the Go-Pro was used as an audio backup – facing away from the interviewee, with the iPod acting as the primary device. In the case of the phone interview, I used an audio recording application installed in the phone, with the iPod as a backup. The video-recording was preferable in order to gauge non-verbal cues and gestures that may affect the intended meanings.

All interviews were transcribed and quality checked in preparation for coding and analysis. On completion of the transcripts I again reviewed the recordings, and using an interpretivist approach, made notes and highlighted selected areas of text on the transcript, grounded in discourse analysis and the nascent themes of the project. Participant checking occurred via email where agreed upon with the interviewee during the consent process. Selected areas of text were manually analysed in the context of the other research materials, and discussed in articles II and IV.

43 A phenomenological approach

A renewed interest in phenomenology has been referred to as a “new humanism”, following “20 years of dominance of different anti-humanist and posthumanist approaches in human geography” (Simonsen 2013, 10). Humanistic geography, with its central interest in the role of place in human experience, emerged in the 1970s in the works of Relph (1976) and Tuan (1971), with further critical interventions by Ley and Samuels (1978), Buttimer and Seamon (1980) and Pickles (1985). While behavioural geographies had focused on the use of quantitative methods, humanistic geographers stressed qualitative methods, with grounding in phenomenology, to elucidate lived experience in place. Phenomenology, then, refers to:

the interpretive study of human experience, [which aims] to examine and to clarify human situations, events, meanings, and experiences as they are known in everyday life but typically unnoticed beneath the level of conscious awareness (Seamon and Sowers 2008, 44).

Casey (2001, 684) has further informed contemporary phenomenological approaches in his work on the relationship between self and place as one of “constitutive coingredience”.

Phenomenologically-inspired methods consider that participants (including researchers) are informed and assisted by their emplacement during the interview or other method. Hitchins and Jones (2004) and Evans and Jones (2011) have demonstrated the value of emplaced mobile methods to produce richer data than ex situ and sedentary methods. Such methods have been found to:

create enabling research environments, encounters and exchanges, generating time and space for participants and researchers to co- generate and communicate meaningful understandings of everyday lives (Ross, Renold, Holland and Hillman 2009, 605).

The emergence of new mobile methods such as those employed in article I has coincided with renewed debates over representation (and non-representation) in geographical research (Thrift 2008; Dewsbury, Harrison, Rose and Wylie 2002). While phenomenological methods have been beneficial to many researchers interested in non-representational theory, others have questioned their use. As Miller (2014, 207) asks, “how can we justify the claim of accessing something ‘hidden’ yet present among us?” By employing a discursive framework (that recognizes the constructedness of representation), I was able to demonstrate the value of phenomenological techniques for illuminating moments of significance between people and place, while beginning to get at how these moments (re)produce discourses of note (see article I).

Discourse analysis can enrich phenomenological approaches with consideration of the politics of both place and (through an interest in subjectivities) people. Harvey (1996, 80) claimed

44 “discursive effects suffuse and saturate all other moments within the social process (affecting, for example, beliefs and practices as well as being affected by them)”. Briefly, in the sense that place is a social product (Lefebvre 1991), it is imbued with layers of discursive significance. The potential hegemonic effects of place, as in cases of gentrified landscapes for instance, is testament to that. Such places empower privilege and disempower others. As Harvey (1996, 221) explains, the:

construction of discourses… becomes a vital facet not only in the construction of space-time relations but also the constitution of the value, however fetishized, of both people and things. The power of objects and things over us, the fact that they seem to have a life of their own and to posses value on their own account depends entirely on the way discourses of value envelop them and invest them with symbolic meaning.

The use of phenomenological methods in this research required participants to illuminate their subjectivities in relation to the nightscape, revealing elements of their biographical narratives and engaging with discourses as prompted by their surroundings. As argued in article I:

The involuntary selection of material raised in the context of the research site has valorised its significance… In the field, the participant makes connections between moments in their narrative and their experience and understanding of their surroundings and encounters there (Wolifson 2016, 196).

By considering the discursive elements of space, the analysis was able to position non- discursive aspects of social life, such as encounter, in relation to discourse and its productive effects. While demonstrating how the methods enabled me to get at the moments of significance between person, place and discourse, article I also shows how the prompting of place allowed for the questioning of discursive power and the effects of such power on urban encounter. Discursive elements interact with our own memories and experiences in complex ways that effect how we conceive of and interact in and with its spaces. As with any discursive formation (Foucault 1972), there is “a multiplicity of points of resistance” (Foucault 1979b, 95 in Rose 2007) where “discourses jostle and compete in their effects” (Rose 2007, 144). Hence, while article I takes a phenomenological approach to reveal some discursive formations of the gentrified nightscape, it also demonstrates how such methodological tools can be used to generate encounters that challenge normalised, often hegemonic discursive elements of these formations. Research on “the role of reflexivity in managing difference” (M. Butcher 2017) has provided further insights and cautions in this regard. Melissa Butcher (2017, 16) notes the varying character of reflexivity:

The choices of maintenance of exploration that result from reflexive process are inflected by disposition: some have the will to put their

45 body into unfamiliar situations and see what happens while others weigh up extant cultural frameworks, particularly relationship networks, as a better option.

While contemporary phenomenological approaches have been criticised for focusing too much on human subjectivity (Roberts 2012), the framework of discourse used in this study allowed for an understanding of such subjectivities in the context of wider discourses, and acknowledged the co-production and consumption of space. Centrally, for phenomenological approaches and discourse analysis:

although the place concept is constructed as a subjective relation between individuals and a place, it is not seen as a particular relation of one person to one place. The word ‘subjective’ signifies the relevance to subjects and not to the particular individual… Although places are unique in terms of their content they are nevertheless products of common cultural and symbolic elements and processes (Stock in Gold, Stock and Relph 2000, 616).

This commonality has significant implications for encounters with and in place. Recent work on ‘everyday’ encounter has sought to elaborate on the complex and conditional nature and significance of encounter itself (Hewitt 2016). In the realm of nightlife, May’s (2014, 11) concept of ‘integrated segregation’ suggests that social binding in such spaces – between those of similar cultural, ethnic and class backgrounds – stalls opportunities for meaningful interactions. This binding limits our potential for exposure to the “different normativities” (Valentine and Sadgrove 2012, 2052), which may produce fruitful encounters with difference. May’s (2014) discussion aligns with other authors who stress the limits of everyday encounter or ‘co-presence’ for producing longer-term outcomes for urban sociality (Amin 2002; Valentine and Sadgrove 2012; 2014). In his work on the “Night as Frontier”, Melbin (1987, 80) suggested that camaraderie may appear through the shared risks endured through the experiencing of the night – a “solidarity born of sameness” – although of a different kind than that which May (2014) observed. In the next section I review the mobile methods – grounded in a phenomenological approach – used to interrogate these encounters and experiences in the nightscape of Surry Hills.

Mobile methods

Despite the global popularity of night-time economic planning in recent years, there has been relatively little research undertaken on experiences, encounters and perceptions in such nightscapes (Roberts and Eldridge 2009). Grazian’s (2008) urban ethnography of downtown Philadelphia is a notable exception. In the tradition of Chicago School theorists, Grazian provided detailed descriptions of urban nightlife in Philadelphia based on a significant body of participant

46 observation-based fieldwork over a five-year period. Such representations of the city are important for understanding our imaginings of urban nightlife and the production and consumption mechanisms in urban nightlife settings. Mobile methods, such as the ‘go-alongs’ (Kusenbach 2003) and walking interviews used for this thesis, provide an opportunity to harness some of the value of Grazian’s work within a more manageable research framework13. The specific methods themselves are outlined in article I.

The last decade has seen a rapid evolution in the development and adoption of such mobile methods. Mobile methods relate broadly to methods that engage both researchers and participants with movement and environmental stimulation. This development has been viewed as an “inevitable emergence” (Merriman 2014, 167) from the ‘new mobilities paradigm’ (Büscher, Urry and Witchger 2010; Sheller and Urry 2006), which saw that “accounting for mobilities in the fullest sense challenges social science to change both the objects of its inquiries and the methodologies for research” (Hannam, Sheller and Urry 2006, 5). Evidently, given my use of a range of methods in this research project, I concur with Merriman (2014) that the imperative for these methods has been at times overstated, and there is still significant value to be found in the use of sedentary interviews and other non-mobile methods. As has always been true, method selection and design remains paramount to any research project.

The mobilities paradigm accounting for these new techniques allowed for a reassertion of the significance of place in geographical methodology, through the re-emergence of phenomenologically grounded methods. As Evans and Jones (2011) discuss, however, there are numerous differences between the practical uses of such mobile methods. In this case, by allowing the interviewees to choose their own routes – what one participant in my research named their ‘travelogue’, I was able to encourage a collaborative approach between researcher and researched (Anderson 2004), allowing for dynamic and free-flowing interviews (Ross, Renold, Holland and Hillman 2009). While the ‘go-along’ method I used did not explicitly encourage interview-style interaction, the nature of the situation – an otherwise regular night out with an unusual guest – casually ignited discussion around the subject of research. The ease and comfort of the situation (assisted oftentimes by alcohol) allowed for a more flexible and comfortable discussion than that of a traditional interview. As well, the emplacement of the discussion in a setting that is both more relevant to the study and generally more comfortable and ‘natural’ for participants, such as a frequented pub, bar or other nightlife venue, provided for a more informed, insightful and variable discussion. Forays in and out of the research topic were typically unaffected and the discussion of other things was, more often than not, still insightful and relevant to the study’s

13 Fieldwork for Grazian’s ‘On The Make’ spanned five years and included the recruitment of his students at the University of Pennsylvania for narrative accounts of Philadelphia’s nightlife as a course requirement, alongside additional interviews, focus groups and four years of extensive participant observation.

47 broad objectives. While Kusenbach (2003, 464) suggested that 90 minutes provided a “productive time window”, this style of go-along often tended to improve with time, as the conversation was often increasingly ‘lubricated’ with alcohol, and motivations for, and in some cases side-effects of ‘going-out’ were revealed.

My own observations of the use of these methods support those of similar methods elsewhere, which show that the surrounding environment supports a more fruitful and relaxed discussion, prompting associations and memories with the landscape, compared with sedentary semi-structured interviews (Kusenbach 2003; Bingley 2003). As Bingley (2003) has discussed, at different sensory levels there are complex conscious and unconscious relationships between self and landscape. Emplaced methods facilitate access to memories in place “whilst staying connected with the present experience” (Bingley 2003, 330). The use of these techniques will of course vary significantly with regards to the discipline, ontological and epistemological perspective of the researcher, and the goals of the study. They will also produce different data on the construction of discourses. The potential loss of an older and less mobile demographic also bears consideration (Evans and Jones 2011) on a case by case basis; in article I, I show how I was able to amend the method for a less mobile participant.

Selection of participants for the mobile methods was based on the idea of purposive sampling (Patton 2002), where the ‘representativeness’ or ‘typicality’ of participants, as in random sampling, is replaced with selection based on the assumed value of the participants to the study. This idea is echoed throughout examples of qualitative research, where statistical sampling has been deemed inappropriate (Bradshaw and Stratford 2010; Robinson 1998; Ward 1972). By getting at the linkages between participants’ biographical narratives and their experiences and understanding of the nightscape settings, the methods used acknowledged the intersectionality of participant identities, in contrast to work that seeks to understand “group positions” (Valentine and Harris 2016, 4). Those participants selected for discussion in article I provided revealing insights into the themes discussed, while also reflecting a mix of demographics and methods used.

As discussed here and elucidated in article I, mobile methods allow for a tapping into some of the complex ways that the nightscape is understood and experienced. While in no way do these methods provide an exhaustive pathway into the complex person/place relationship, in article I, I demonstrated that they enabled identification of distinct pathways for understanding and being in place. Further, the article demonstrates the potential of such methods to build an image of the multiple meanings of this nightscape; such meanings problematised the ‘night-time economy’ model by questioning its inherent cultural partialities.

48 Positionality and embodied research

“Though fieldwork is often portrayed as a classical colonial encounter in which the fieldworker lords it over his/her respondents, the fact of the matter is that it usually does not feel much like that at all. More often it is a curious mixture of humiliations and intimidations mixed with moments of insight and even enjoyment” where knowledge is coproduced “by building fragile and temporary commonplaces”

– Thrift 2003, 106 and 108 quoted in Crang 2005

Reflection on positionality is crucial to acknowledge linkages and, as Rose (1997, 318) has said, “keep these worries, and work with them”. This advice is particularly useful when using mobile research methods that produce encounters that aim to “create empathetic, experiential ways of knowing participants’ and researchers’ worlds” (Hurdley and Dicks 2011). The need to reflect on positionality in cultural research generally, is well acknowledged (Dowling 2010; Crang and Cook 2007). Here, I locate my positionality as a lifelong resident of Surry Hills and briefly discuss the impact of my health on the research project.

Having lived in Surry Hills for my entire life, and having worked there from time to time, I have my own personalised understandings and perceptions of the area based on my experiences and observations. Given my lived experience of Surry Hills, where both the suburb and myself have changed considerably, I have developed a complex, (although overall untroubled) relationship with Surry Hills. I have also developed a significant “embodied practical knowledge” (Wacquant 2015) of the area and many of its nightspaces. As Surry Hills apparently ‘improved’ around me, my knowledge and experiences allowed me access beyond the shiny veneer of its gentrification. With this positioned knowledge I embarked upon my research.

While I expected that through this process I would meet different people, I did not anticipate the pleasure I would take in getting to know different sections of my community, whether they had lived there since 1960 or 2006. As a resident, I had grappled with my own misled cultural claim of entitlement in the suburb, uncomfortably accompanied at times by an ‘existential outsideness’ (Relph 1976) as the area rapidly transformed. The encounters produced through the mobile methods catalysed my own behavioural shifts, opening me up to the nightlife and those in it. In performing the required “social spunk” of “enactive ethnography” (Wacquant 2015, 2), I was able to step outside of the limitations inherent in the performances of my existing positional knowledge. Simultaneously, I was able to draw upon my own knowledge of my surroundings to perform the ‘social competency’ (Wacquant 2015) required for the ‘co-production’ (Caretta and Riaño 2016) of fieldwork, enabling a ‘joining in’ on the performative character of ‘going out’ at night. This ‘competency’ therefore was tied my ability to perform the required ‘cultural capital’

49 (Bourdieu 1973) of this gentrified nightscape.

Drawing from Bingley (2003), and as previously noted, my use of mobile methods allowed my cognisance of the different sensory levels of complex conscious and unconscious relationships between self and landscape (article I). My positionality provided grounding for my comprehension of these relationships, and in particular, my inbetweenness both gave me greater access to, and rendered me more cognisant of, participants’ feelings of comfort and discomfort in this particular nightscape. Here, I refer to my familiarity with experiencing feelings of both ‘existential insideness’ and ‘existential outsideness’ (Relph 1976) in the Surry Hills nightscape. I was able to utilise this embodied knowledge to support rapport-building, engaging participants by relating both to vulnerability and indecisiveness about place, and to feelings of insideness and other positive points of discussion. Effectively, assisted by my inbetweenness, my positionality was able to shift and adapt to maintain rapport, and my experiences suggest that nightlife research lends itself well to ‘enactive ethnography’, given its essentially performative character. Although I was somewhat concerned that my long-term residence may impact on rapport, perhaps affecting discomfort or an unwillingness to interact in and with place ‘authentically’, this did not appear to be the case. In some cases, it appeared to prompt a greater openness, perhaps acting to legitimise participants’ feelings or views when I was able to engage with them.

Despite this overall benefit, there was one occasion of note where my embodied knowledge of Surry Hills acted as a limitation. This occasion was a group go-along with several younger students, all in their early 20s. I observed very early on that waitstaff at the nightlife establishment were unhappy with the presence of our group. In this situation I felt a conflict between attempting to ‘fit in’ and build effective rapport with the group and fitting in with the place because (given the attitudes of the staff) the two did not coalesce. In this situation I felt protective of the group, which affected a difficulty in relating and maintaining rapport. Despite this outlier, many of the moments of relating prompted others’ self-examination of attitudes towards the places and people there, allowing for conscious moments of challenging prejudice (Valentine and Sadgrove 2014). This signals the potential of the inbetweener researcher as an intermediary of understanding to promote encounters productive of improved sociality (Laurier and Philo 2006).

My challenges in conducting this PhD research were distinctly different from those that I had anticipated when I began planning the research, and this thesis would feel incomplete without some discussion of the impacts of my health on the research. As mentioned, central to my challenges, and to the numerous reshapings of this thesis, has been a long illness throughout, marked by a long overdue diagnosis through surgery, and a lengthy period of recovery and ongoing management. The unpredictable character and timing of my symptoms prevented me from undertaking further fieldwork, which was originally intended to form the bulk of the research process, fairly early in the process. When I did feel well enough physically to return to

50 fieldwork, I found that brain fog, fatigue and impacts on my memory rendered me unable to engage participants in a way that was necessary and which fully utilised the value of the closely- selected and redesigned methods. As a geographer who thrives on the processes of research – central to which is being able to utilise learnt and refined craft skills to maximise the engagements with others through interviews and the like – the feeling of being unable to do so is extremely difficult, particularly when accompanied by the emotional and physical distress of chronic pain.

The centrality of health to all of our lives every day is a universal truth, however it is one that researchers often hesitate to discuss in our own work, even when, as in this case, it has significant effects on the shape of our research projects. Doing so more would, I believe, enrich the researcher toolkit by opening up the adaptability of research processes in measured and rigorous ways. By revealing pathways for more diverse participation, both for researchers and subjects, it would also enrich our knowledge of people and place.

51 52 Introduction to articles

This section provides a brief overview of the five articles that form the bulk of this thesis. Articles I to IV– three journal papers and a book chapter – are presented in the order in which they were written, in order to best reflect the shifting narrative of the study. Article I is a methodological paper describing the use of mobile methods to study experience and encounter in nightlife settings. Article II is a discourse analysis of the City of Sydney’s 2013 night-time economy strategy and action plan, Open, Future directions for Sydney at night. Article III interrogates neoliberal nightlife planning in Sydney with a particular focus on the NSW Government’s lockout and a historical contextualisation of regulation and public attitudes to nightlife governance. Article IV is an analysis of the performative discourses of two pro-nightlife activist groups in Sydney.

Article V is a media piece, included as a reference to my contribution to public debate. The article critiques the neoliberal governance of Sydney’s nightlife and argues for a reframing and reassertion of public critique, linking together key themes of the four other papers. Article V reflects the purpose of this thesis – to reframe the contemporary debate over urban nightlife and its ostensibly irreconcilable concerns about the right to drink and alcohol-related violence, towards a critical examination of governing urban space at night and its far-reaching consequences for the way the city functions socially, culturally and economically.

I. Encountering the night with mobile methods

In this thesis I examine the use of emplaced, mobile methods to study nightlife in Surry Hills. I discuss the surge in the use of mobile methods in recent years, and outline the two specific techniques employed for this study – a walking interview and go-along. Using vignettes from four participants, I draw out distinct but related themes – emplacing biographical narratives, contextualising (in)tolerance, expectation and sociability, probing discourse (encountering small bars and pubs), and compatible and flawed consumers (fitting the mould).

Using participant vignettes outlined in the paper, I show how meaningful and valuable encounters in the nightscape can unveil complex narratives of those places. Participants are shown to have tapped into their personal biographies, prompted by the altered performance of ‘going out’ or the heightened experience of walking around the area. This echoes Law’s (2005, 440) comment that “the street looks and feels differently depending on the perspectives of those inhabiting urban spaces”. I contend that the involuntary selection of material raised in the context of the research site valorises its significance, in contrast to a biographical narrative produced in a

53 more deliberate way, outside of the research site. In the field, the participant makes their own subconscious connections between moments in their narrative and their experience and understanding of their surroundings and encounters there. This process of self-clarification produces the possibility of change in their encounters with place.

My discussion of go-alongs and walking interviews in the article also shows how dominant discourses penetrate into everyday language that may incorrectly reflect the complex individual character of experience and understanding of place. I discuss how the participant vignettes reveal that their expectations of place had a strong bearing on their behaviours there, despite conflicting or alternate desires and dispositions. In the gentrified nightlife of Surry Hills, these expectations worked to sustain behaviours and feelings of marginalisation. Using the methods to draw out the multiplicity of experiences and understandings of place, however, privileged images of the city shaped by cultural intermediaries and increasingly neoliberal governance slowly erode. In the article I observe that the participants’ and my own emplacement enabled moments of rupture in otherwise pervading discourses and understandings of place based on personal narratives.

Methodological proposals for the work in this paper were presented at the New Zealand Geographical Society Conference in Napier in 2012 and at the Institute of Australian Geographers Conference in Perth in 2013. Various research findings were presented at the Institute of Australian Geographers/New Zealand Geographical Society Conference in Melbourne in 2014 and at the Association of American Geographers Conference in Chicago in 2015. I also took part in a roundtable discussion on innovative methods in qualitative research at the RC21 in Berlin in 2013.

II. Co-opting the night:

the entrepreneurial shift and economic imperative in night-time economy planning

In this article I examine the night-time economy strategy and action plan of the City of Sydney, Open, Future directions for Sydney at night, using it as a lens to focus attention on the neoliberal co-opting of policy and the entrepreneurial shift evident in such plans. I use discourse analysis to critique the plan’s grounding in, and constraining by, a mobile neoliberal framework, one in which there is a notable attempt to engage the ‘creative class’. I begin the article with an overview of the neoliberalisation of global cities following deindustrialisation to ground an extended overview of the ‘night-time economy’ framework. This overview includes a discussion of its emergence, outcomes and key critiques of its adoption both internationally, and in Sydney. I also include a brief background to Sydney’s contemporary regulatory landscape. The Council’s

54 strategic plan, Sustainable Sydney 2030: Green/Global/Connected is discussed as representative of their shift to entrepreneurial strategic planning. The Open plan follows from this broad vision and I position it as of interest due to its framing as a blueprint for global cities elsewhere. I also outline the case study area of Surry Hills.

In the article, I demonstrate Open’s constraining in the framework Sustainable Sydney 2030, one that assumes that cultural and social benefits would follow from economic targets. Through the discussion, I reveal the ease of mobility of such strategies and elusiveness of their intended outcomes. The Council’s goal to “improve” subjectivities and foster more “acceptable” consumption is drawn out of the plan’s analysis by underlining their preferences for specific demographics and business types, with a particular focus on small bars. I also problematise the plan’s use of ‘diversity’ with a focus on the use of an ‘aesthetic of numbers’ to add legitimacy to ill- justified (economic-led) objectives and a critique of the City’s consultation process in the development of the plan. I conclude that Open’s constraint by the neoliberal framework of Sydney 2030 saw it overlook known misgivings around ‘night-time economy’ policymaking.

A proposal for this research was presented at the Institute of Australian Geographers Conference in Sydney in 2012. Early findings were presented at the Royal Geographical Society – Institute of British Geographers Conference in London in 2013.

III. ‘Civilising’ by gentrifying:

the contradictions of neoliberal planning for nightlife in Sydney

This invited book chapter examines the contradictions of neoliberal nightlife planning in Sydney by both the NSW State Government – with particular reference to the current ‘lockout’ – and the City of Sydney, as well as public responses to this governance. In it, I describe the political embrace of gentrification and ‘creative city’ planning for a more ‘civilised’ nightlife in Sydney, in the context of a ‘moral panic’ around alcohol-related violence in the city at night. Despite an open embrace of (neo)liberalism, the NSW government has effectively succumbed to ever-more powerful interests, instituting targeted regulations to benefit (most notably) gambling and developer interests, with the result of stifling more diverse forms of nightlife activity along with their own moral authority. In this chapter, I contend that despite apparently contrasting ‘visions’ for Sydney, both the State and the ‘progressive’ local government have both sought to employ nightlife for economic growth, and have both adopted strategies that have contributed to gentrification. I also argue that the pervasiveness of ‘global city’ discourse has muffled public critique of these troublesome policies.

55 In the chapter, I trace Sydney’s fluctuating sentiments and regulation around nightlife industries, noting the key role of alcohol and gambling, the development of Kings Cross as a key nightlife precinct, and exploring the parallels between historical and contemporary attitudes and responses to nightlife governance. This background helps to ground an understanding of current attitudes to Sydney’s nightlife regulation, including in pro-nightlife activism, in relation to a demographic shift and the city’s emergent ‘global city’ status. I contend that the government is now faced with regulating a city intent on a simultaneously civilised and liberalised nightlife, and feeling denied of both. I argue that the depoliticisation of neoliberal discourse in the ‘global city’, including that of ‘night-time economy’ planning, has infiltrated activism not best served but this messaging.

I also used this chapter to outlines key criticisms of the existing lockouts and the manner in which they were introduced, pointing to their contradictions as arising from the government’s embrace of neoliberalism. In particular, my discussion of the regulation of the Star casino in contrast to the transformation of Kings Cross as a result of the lockouts point to a key flaw in the government’s approach, including their moralising rhetoric. Overall in the chapter, I demonstrate a lack of consideration in Sydney’s governance of nightlife and its spaces as socially and culturally significant. The focus instead, on economic growth and, somewhat contradictorily, alcohol-related violence, has a negative impact not only on the city’s social and cultural landscape at night, but on the socio-economy of the city more broadly. I argue for a more diversified nightlife, contending that the significant impact of the lockout can in part be attributed to an economic reliance on alcohol-consumption.

Research components from this paper were presented at The Australian Sociological Association Conference in Melbourne in 2016, at the Tourism and the Night Symposium in London in 2017 and, in poster form at the ICL-TUM Global Fellows Programme in Burghausen in 2017.

56 IV. Performing neoliberalism:

the co-opting of pro-nightlife activist discourses

In this article, I study the roles of pro-nightlife groups, Keep Sydney Open and Reclaim the Streets, in the public debate on Sydney’s nightlife, and the controversial ‘lockout laws’ in particular. My analysis of their performative discourses examines their strategies, popular appeal and lobbying status, contextualising them in the context of the neoliberal city. Throughout the paper, I use analysis of the two pro-nightlife groups to theorise how activist discourses are co- opted in the ‘global city’, contending that such co-opted activism has come to be understood as successful resistance. My contemporary analysis is contextualised with a selected historical background to nightlife industry regulation and related public responses. This historicising helps to ground an understanding of the efficacy of the discourses discussed. An overview of the two groups leads into my discussion of their responses to the lockouts and involvements in policy processes.

In the article, I acknowledge that both movements have struggled against a largely inflexible government position, a reality that has effected notable strategic changes for Keep Sydney Open (most recently their transformation into a political party). I examine how the group’s performed discourse has been received well by both the public and government, explained in part by historical shifts in the regulation of Sydney’s nightlife industries alongside the growing pervasiveness of neoliberal discourse. Keep Sydney Open’s discursive synchronicities with key neoliberal manoeuvres have allowed them to benefit from widespread popularity and invitations to engage in discussions with government. Despite this, they have been unable to affect their key desired change – the removal of the lockout. I further argue that the embeddedness of economic competitiveness in their performed discourse has led them to dampen their critique due to perceived ‘reputational’ impacts on ‘global Sydney’.

I also discuss how Reclaim the Streets have used their own experiential knowledge to assert an alternative discourse to the government’s – one that argues the benefits of a thriving and diverse nightlife and reaches beyond the group members’ personal concerns to broader issues around the regulation of nightlife industries. I contend that despite the limits to the group’s policy impact under the current government, their discursive targeting of the corruption of the city by capitalist forces should be considered of value; as demonstrated, there are limits to the effectiveness of public popularity and institutional receptivity as determinants of activist success. In the article, I observe that while Keep Sydney Open’s socially liberal, and well-branded image gives the economic rationale of their adopted ‘global city’ discourse a progressive appearance, theirs reflects the co-opting of activism into effectively performing the work of neoliberal governments –

57 work that conflicts with the values of many of the group’s supporters and is likely to prove an issue for the group in their likely imminent foray into politics.

An early version of this paper was presented at the Institute of Australian Geographers Conference in Brisbane in 2017 and a later version at the Association of American Geographers Conference in New Orleans in 2018.

V. Beyond lockouts:

Sydney needs to become a more inclusive city

This article was published on The Conversation site on March 17, 2016, amid a significant period of public debate in Sydney around the lockouts, which had at the time been in place for just over two years, with a review imminent. Keep Sydney Open had held a large protest only a few weeks earlier on February 21, and Reclaim the Streets were preparing for one just two days later, on March 19. I intended the article as a provocation to problematise and reframe the existing debate. On the anti-lockout side of the debate, there was significant momentum at the time around an article published by Matt Barrie (2016b), of Freelancer.com that emphasised ‘nanny-state’ rhetoric around nightlife regulation and promoted a free market perspective, while for many years, lockout advocates had advocated an ‘enough is enough’ discourse with regards to alcohol- related violence (Homan 2017; Wadds 2015, Quilter 2013).

For this article, I primarily drew on arguments developed in article II to situate the lockout debate in a broader discussion around inequality in Sydney. This reframing included questioning the ubiquitous usage of the ‘global city’ rhetoric for cultural planning, given its prioritisation of economic growth. I also pointed to Sydney’s worsening inequality as a result of its aspiration for global city status, with various prominent examples. The effects of unequal distribution in the global city were noted in reference to perceptions of nightlife users. Here, I drew upon findings from article I that saw the potential of cognisance and reflexivity to shift subject’s prejudices in the nightscape.

I also reframed a significant concern raised by anti-lockout campaigners – lack of consultation – to highlight the systematic character of the problem. Pointing to research in article II as well as prominent public concerns around the WestConnex road project and local council amalgamations, I argued that even where consultation is undertaken, policy frameworks typically stay in place. This point hoped to attune readers to the lofty rhetoric deployed by governments during policy consultation phases in order to rally support and diminish opposition to troublesome policy.

58 The NSW Government was, at the time of this article’s publication, being highly criticised over the lockouts (and, quite rightly, numerous other issues). Here I hoped to point out that the Council’s more stealth ‘civilising’ by gentrifying strategy was also a significant threat to the city’s nightlife, particularly given that many of their ideas had penetrated into broader public discourse. To do this, I introduced the concepts of ‘place-making’ and the ‘creative class’, pointing to the City’s governance for the latter, and the deceptiveness of ‘creativity’ planning discourse. This section intended to reiterate the rootedness of Sydney’s existing nightlife problems in issues of inequality, arguing that gentrifying strategies will exacerbate, not fix them.

Here, I pointed to the recent displacement of a homeless tent community from Belmore Park (a recurring event in inner Sydney over the past few years) just weeks before Keep Sydney Open’s protest there, as part of the cruelty and inefficacy of Sydney’s global city vision and the ‘place-making’ it entails – a suggestion to activists to consider the type of city and nightlife this ‘vision’ is creating, and to work towards an alternative.

Following the publication of this article I was contacted directly by Tyson Koh, Campaign Manager of Keep Sydney Open, in order to further discuss the ideas presented in the paper. I was also invited to participate in an ‘Arts Futuring’ discussion on Sydney’s lockout laws at Frontyard – a community arts and research institute in Marrickville. Tyson and I met at this event and both travelled to Amsterdam soon after to attend the Night Mayor Summit organised by the Nachtburgemeester Amsterdam. At these events and on various occasions since, we have had numerous productive conversations including most recently, at the Global Cities After Dark Conference in Sydney. As at 1 April, 2018, the article had 11,396 reads on The Conversation.

59

60

I. Encountering the night with mobile methods

61 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS

PETA WOLIFSON

ABSTRACT. Nightlife settings both facilitate urban sociality and act as sites of social con- flict, however little research has focused on experience and encounter in these places. This paper addresses this gap in the context of night-time economic planning and recent research on encounter. The use of mobile methods in nightlife spaces is shown to garner a more nuanced understanding of how forays into planned night-time spaces are experi- enced and understood by people using those spaces. I argue that emplaced, mobile methods unveil complex narratives of place, revealing prejudices and discourses at play in place. These narratives begin to erode privileged images of the city shaped by increas- ingly neoliberal governance and other cultural intermediaries, and draw out the poten- tial of these methods to improve the lived inclusivity of place. Keywords: mobile methods, encounter, nightlife, biographical narratives, emplacement, discourse.

In recent years, Sydney, Australia, has joined a host of cities in which the governments, as part of broader neoliberal shifts, have enacted policies promot- ing more vibrant nighttime economies (Chatteron and Hollands 2002; Roberts and Eldridge 2009; City of Sydney 2013). The gentrified, postindustrial spaces of the city’s inner suburbs—most notably, Surry Hills—provide key spaces for such development (van Liempt 2013); the economic foci of these policy shifts support the continued gentrification of these nightlife areas. Nightlife settings facilitate the degree of urban sociality—that is, conviviality, participation, and cooperativeness among people in these urban environments. Nightlife settings may also be sites of social conflict—both overt and covert (Hae 2012; Brands, Schwanen, and van Aalst 2013; van Liempt 2013). Despite an awareness of both the potential benefits and drawbacks of nighttime economies, little research has focused directly on understanding people’s experiences and encounters in nightlife settings. This paper addresses this gap, and positions such an explo- ration in the context of nighttime economic planning and recent research on “encounter.”

STUDY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Recent work on encounter suggests that contact through everyday life may not produce longer-term outcomes for urban sociality (Amin 2002; Valentine and Sadgrove 2012, 2013). This contrasts to the long-held belief that social contact— such as that available in nightlife settings—offers opportunities to break down social barriers and promote inclusiveness and understanding (Allport 1954; Pettigrew 1998; Laurier and Philo 2006). In Surry Hills, an inner-city locale with a mixed residency of high and lower socioeconomic outcomes, promoting inclusivity and cohesion should be a key aim of social planning. Gill Valentine

k P. WOLIFSON is a PhD student in geography at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; [[email protected]].

Geographical Review 106 (2): 174–200, April 2016 Copyright © 2016 by the American Geographical Society of New York

62 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS and Joanna Sadgrove have discussed the difference between conscious and nonconscious encounters with difference by using biographical narratives (2013). They stress the significance of mobility and emplacement for allowing those conscious moments in which prejudices are “developed, challenged or interrupted” (Valentine and Sadgove 2013, 1981). This paper scaffolds from their work, and attempts to address an apparent diffidence in the outcomes of peo- ple’s encounters in the night spaces of Surry Hills. In doing so, the paper illus- trates the use of mobile methods in nightlife spaces to garner a more nuanced understanding of how forays into planned nighttime spaces are experienced and understood by people using those spaces. This exploration involves the use of two emplaced, mobile methods—adapted versions of the “go-along” (Kusenbach 2003) and walking interview (see Methods section)—for examining urban sociality in gentrified nightlife scenes. Mobile methods are increasingly used for research that examines mobile practice(s) and/ or uses mobile techniques (Buscher€ and Urry 2009). I use the term “emplaced” here to describe the setting of methods within the physical spaces and locales being examined: the nightscape of Surry Hills, and particular night spaces within it, including “pubs,” small bars, restaurants, and music venues. These techniques were employed to reveal individual experiences of Surry Hills at night and to interrogate how these experiences were framed by multiple and multilayered discourses, memories, and world views of participants. By using these methods in place, and moving through place, I sought to reveal how meaningful and valuable encounters in the nightscape unveil complex nar- ratives of those places. I was interested in the way in which experiences in 1 small bars were affected by popularly espoused discourses about these spaces, such as those outlined in formal nighttime economy planning documents. More generally, I sought to interrogate how expectations of place shaped expe- rience. As a resident of Surry Hills, my familiarity afforded me insights into the effects of the gentrification on this nightscape and how this mediated partici- pants’ experiences and feelings of belonging in place.

PROCEDURES To contextualise the discussion of experience and encounter in the nightlife, I begin by describing the case-study location of Surry Hills. Within a changing political-economic context, shifts in both residential and commercial elements in the suburb highlight this timely examination of encounter in its nightlife. I then describe the methodology used in place, in Surry Hills, and introduce the 2 participants: Jon, Stan, Ned, and Anna . In the discussion section, I use vignettes from the four selected research participants to elucidate the multiple types of encounters produced and revealed through the use of the two emplaced, mobile methods. Through utilizing Surry Hills and its night spaces as the setting for our conversations, participants drew from memories and experiences of those places, and

63 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW others, to explicate and interrogate their encounters in and with Surry Hills at night. Concluding, I argue that emplaced, mobile methods shape our encounters in a way that valorises their significance, revealing a multitude of individual experience and unveiling complex narratives of place. These narratives begin to erode privileged images of the city shaped by increasingly neoliberal governance and other cultural intermediaries, and draw out the potential of these methods to improve the lived inclusivity of place.

THE LOCALE Surry Hills is located in inner Sydney, immediately southeast of the city’s cen- tral business district (CBD) (see Figures 1 and 2). The suburb is characteristi- cally postindustrial (see Figures 3 and 4), with a relatively young and increasingly upwardly mobile residential demographic, including a large gay male population and a significant number of professional singles and double- income couples [Table 1; Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011]. The sub- urb also retains over 700 public-housing dwellings, including the largest public housing block in Australia: Northcott Estate (Bowden 2004; see Figure 5). Aus- tralian census data has shown the suburb’s public-housing blocks to be outliers in a number of social and economic measurements compared with the rest of the suburb (ABS 2006). Alongside its residential elements, Surry Hills has a growing number of small to medium business headquarters, particularly in the creative sector (The Surry Hills Creative Precinct 2015). The suburb has thriving, and increasingly upmarket, day and nighttime hospitality economies that have developed geographically beyond the suburb’s main commercial thoroughfares. In particular, in Surry Hills’ nighttime econ- omy, a growing number of small bars have opened following state-wide legisla- tive changes that introduced relatively inexpensive liquor licenses for these smaller establishments (Moore 2012). The already popular area has since then received increasing domestic and international attention for its bar and restau- rant scene (Kimble 2012). The rise in urban nighttime economy strategies has coincided with the worldwide rise in neoliberal city planning (Peck 2010; Shaw 2010). Sydney’s case is no exception, with the City of Sydney’s (2008) strategic plan—Sustain- able Sydney 2030: Green, Global Connected—critiqued for its adoption of a now typical neoliberal planning approach (Kornberger and Clegg 2011), one which translates into their nighttime economy plan, Open Sydney (City of Sydney 2013). The centrality of the economic tier within these plans requires all policies to have economic outcome, “assuming that a growing economy would result in a culturally diverse, socially inclusive...city” (Kornberger and Clegg 2011, 146). The resulting discourse privileges the most economically viable components of the nighttime economy, thereby framing the city at night with an image of exclusion and privilege. In the increasingly gentrified suburb of Surry Hills,

64 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS

Kellyville Blue Mountains

Sydney Metropolitan Area Sydney

N

20 km

FIG. 1—Location map of Sydney Metropolitan Area and Blue Mountains with suburb of Kelly- ville. Box indicates location of map in Figure 2. (Source: Map data: Geoscience Australia. Edits by A. Baumber and the author) which retains a significant lower socioeconomic population, this image of an exclusionary and privileged nightlife poses a threat to the actual diversity of experience there. To better understand how residents and visitors, from a vari- ety of socioeconomic backgrounds, use Surry Hills at night, it was necessary to draw out narratives that frame understandings of this place and reveal diversity in experience. To do so, I utilized a mixture of emplaced and mobile qualita- tive methods in place and at night in Surry Hills.

METHODS The last decade has seen a surge in the innovation and use of mobile methods to study mobilities—the journeys themselves—in place-making practices (Shel- ler and Urry 2006). The growth of mobile methods has seen a renewed focus on the study of human experience “in place,” with a particular role identified for phenomenology (Relph 1976; Tuan 1977; Seamon 2015). These methods focus on the relationship between people and place: the significance of place to the human experience and identity, and the significance of human perception to place. Emplaced, multisensory techniques that examine aspects of everyday life acknowledge the importance of the bodily experience of place and perceptual memory alongside the built environment (Degen and Rose 2012). Utilizing

65 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG. 2—Selection of inner Sydney. A. Surry Hills; B. Newtown; C. Mosman; D. Sydney Central Business District (CBD). Kings Cross is a small, undefined locality within the suburbs of Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay; Kings Cross Railway Station is indicated by the small box. (Source: Map data: Google 2015. Edits by the author) place as a probe to isolate narratives of significance, “go-alongs,” and ‘walking interviews” were used in this research. Through altering the performance of “going out” and moving through social space within the setting of the gentri-

66 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS

FIG. 3—Looking Southeast over Surry Hills from Central Station, 1920, with Tooheys Brewery in the center of the image. Indicates the extent of the industrial and residential landscape at that time. Note the smokestacks and rows of terrace houses. (Source: Photograph courtesy of the Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW, SPF/3043)

FIG. 4—Renovated warehouses and terrace houses, Riley Street; post-industrial Surry Hills today. (Source: Photograph by Peta Wolifson, August 2015)

67 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

TABLE 1—SELECTED CENSUS DATA ON SURRY HILLS, 2011

SURRY HILLS AUSTRALIA

Population Total 15,342 21,507,717 Male 57.8% 49.4% Female 42.2% 50.6% Age Median age 33 37 19 or younger 6.9% 25.8% 20–44 65.9% 35.9% 45 or older 27.2% 39.3% Marriage (over 15 Registered married 19.2% 49.2% 3 years) De facto married 24.1% 9.5% Not married 56.8% 41.3% Attending Total preschool to secondary school 9.3% 52.6% educational University 27.4% 14.3% institution Employment status Both employed, worked full time 45.4% 21.7% of partners aged 15 years+ Occupied private Separate house 1.4% 75.6% dwellings Semidetached, row or terrace house, 27.7% 9.9% townhouse, etc. Flat, unit or apartment 69.7% 13.6% Occupied private Owned outright 11.4% 32.1% 4 dwellings Owned with a mortgage 23.5% 34.9% Rented 62.0% 29.6% Household Family households 42.0% 71.5% composition Single (or lone) person households 42.7% 24.3% Group households 15.3% 4.1% Household income Less than $600 gross weekly income 20.1% 23.7% More than $3,000 gross weekly income 20.8% 11.2% Rent Median rent $450 $285 Households where rent payments are less 77.6% 89.6% than 30% of household income Households where rent payments are 30%, 22.4% 10.4% or greater, of household income

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011)

fied urban night, these techniques present alternative and more in-depth ways of understanding urban sociality.

GO-ALONGS “Go-alongs” (Kusenbach 2003), and more specifically “walk-alongs,” (Lynch 1960) are a microethnographic method (Smith 1967) of the mobilities turn (Sheller and Urry 2006). The technique involves combining participant obser-

68 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS

FIG. 5—Northcott public housing estate, Surry Hills. (Source: Photograph by Peta Wolifson, August 2015) vation and interviewing while accompanying subjects on their familiar outings to understand their “authentic practices and interpretations” (Kusenbach 2003, 464). This combination has the effect of grounding research in situ, prompting access to participants’ experiences in and perceptions of the surrounding envi- ronment. Go-alongs were selected in part because of their capacity to engender a col- laborative approach between the researcher and researched (Anderson, 2004). Accompanied by the more “natural” environment of the go-along, this power shift allows for a dynamic and free-flowing interview (Ross, Renold, Holland, and Hillman 2009). The use of go-alongs involved accompanying participants on evenings out in the study area of Surry Hills, beginning by meeting at a predetermined 5 location, such as a bar. Go-alongs were not filmed , but extensive field and research notes were taken immediately after and in the days following the go- alongs, when memories were freshest. Drawing from Amanda Bingley’s observation, I found that this approach enabled me to remain cognisant of the different sensory levels of complex conscious and unconscious relation- ships between self and landscape (2003). Moreover, the emplaced methods facilitated access to memories in place “whilst staying connected with the pre- sent experience” (Bingley 2003, 330). The informal settings and ample time-

69 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW frames of the go-alongs, which usually lasted from three to five hours, allowed for comfortable forays in and out of the semistructured interview, revealing insights on attitudes, behaviors, and understandings relating to Surry Hills’ nightlife.

WALKING INTERVIEWS Coupled with the go-alongs, a variant of the “talking whilst walking” method was employed in this research (Anderson 2004). This method focused on the emplacement of the interview, using place as a probe (De Leon and Cohen 2005) with the understanding that “walking creates powerful recollections because it provokes a distinct and familiar tactility with the world” (Hill 2013, 391). As used in this study, walking interviews combine participant-guided walk- ing tours of the suburb of Surry Hills, as understood by the research subjects, with a semistructured interview. Participants were equipped with a small camera and microphone, allowing them to record the interview (Pink 2007; Carpiano 2009) as well as their location throughout (Jones, Bunce, Evans, Gibbs, and Hein 2008; Miller 2014). This allowed the camera to record the sur- roundings from the perspective of participants, meaning the audio content could be analysed in the context of their foci. Walks generally lasted between forty-five minutes to one hour, as well as a prewalk briefing that enabled me to formally meet the participant, establish rapport, and begin a comfortable conversation during the walk itself. The brief- ings also gave participants access to the questions and the format of the walk to follow, including determining the route and places with which the partici- pant identified knowledge. Questions asked during walking interviews related to: the participant’s back- ground, their nightlife activities both in Surry Hills and elsewhere, their under- standings of and senses of place in Surry Hills at night, their social behaviors and attitudes in Surry Hills at night, their knowledge of and engagement with various discourses on Surry Hills at night, and their opinions of Surry Hills at night and changes to it. The same list of questions guided the semistructured interview of the go-alongs. Go-alongs, however, were more informal and had a looser timeframe. Unlike go-alongs, walking interviews were usually undertaken in daylight hours to allow for higher visibility.

RECRUITMENT Participants were recruited for both go-alongs and walking interviews through three chief avenues. Two hundred flyers were distributed to houses and apartments in Surry Hills, including some left at the neighborhood center of Northcott estate. Large flyers were also posted in a number of pubs and bars in Surry Hills, at the Surry Hills library and around the researcher’s university. These strategies produced low response rates, so some participants were

70 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS recruited through informal personal networks and snowballing. In total, four go-alongs, three walking interviews, and one amended interview were employed. Of the participants interviewed, I have selected Jon, Anna, Ned, and Stan’s (Table 2) response for discussion in this paper as their accounts tied in most closely with the themes of “encounter” and “living with difference.” Their selection also represented the variety of methods used, recruitment, and demographic diversity.

VIGNETTES OF PLACE The vignettes of place were drawn from a mixture of personal stories, reflections, and comments about the nightlife of Surry Hills experienced during “go-alongs” and walking interviews with Jon, Anna, Ned, and Stan. This assem- blage of encounters is grouped into distinct but related themes pertaining to emplacing biographical narratives, contextualising (in)tolerance, expectation and sociability, probing discourse—encountering small bars and pubs, and compatible and flawed consumers (fitting the mold).

EMPLACING BIOGRAPHICAL NARRATIVES Biographical narratives of participants were drawn out through conversations emplaced in the study site. These narratives have significant bearing on partici- pants’ subsequent framing of Surry Hills at night. Experiences of Surry Hills were notably diverse, despite the commonality of drawing on personal histories. The biographical accounts relate to upbringing, medical conditions, significant life changes, and previous places of residence. Jon is a seventy-year-old fashion designer and Surry Hills local of fifteen years. His go-along revealed a strong connection between his personal back- ground and his local encounters in Surry Hills. He spoke a lot about his “past life” living in the suburb of Mosman on Sydney’s lower north shore (Figure 2), before his children grew up and he “came out,” got a divorce, and moved to Surry Hills. Jon spoke negatively about the demographic in Mosman: its aloof- ness and vanity. His move to Surry Hills was associated with these significant life changes, and Jon reflected on the peace and happiness he felt his first morning in his new home, recalled through the memory of the sound of birds chirping. These positive feelings seemed to have translated into the social life Jon built around himself in the suburb, as revealed in the sociability of the go- along itself and his comments throughout the night. Jon very much considered himself to be a “local” in Surry Hills. He lived in several other cities, including London, throughout his life, but selected Surry Hills as his favorite nightlife area. Jon associated this with his life stages, noting that when he was in Lon- don and other areas, his family situation would have had an impact on how much he was going out at night. A sixty-five-year-old retired forklift driver, Stan was a local public-housing tenant and Surry Hills resident of thirty years. Stan’s attitude towards Surry

71 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

TABLE 2—DETAILS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

JON ANNA NED STAN

Gender Male Female Male Male Age 70 29 39 65 Method Go-along Walking Walking Amended 6 interview interview method Recruitment Home flyer Personal Snowballing Flyer at network Northcott estate Profession Men’s fashion Social worker Freelance Retired forklift designer journalist driver Resident of Yes. For past 15 No. Never. No. Was for the Yes. Past 30 years Surry Hills? years. 9 years up to in public 2011. housing. Previous/ other Born northwest Grew up in Grew up in Perth; Born in Sri residences U.K.; early lower-Blue 9 years in Surry Lanka; lived in adulthood in Mountains, Hills; moved to Melbourne in London with NSW; past 10 Newtown. youth; public wife and young years in and housing in children; around King’s Cross; moved to and Newtown. past 30 years in raised kids in Northcott Mosman with estate, Surry wife; divorce Hills. and move to Surry Hills 15 years ago. Personal traits Open, sociable Sociable with Sociable with Does not consider and nightlife and friendly. friends. Enjoys friends. Enjoys himself a social habits Goes out in pubs in and small bars in person. Regular most nights, around Newtown and at weekly jazz usually in Newtown or Surry Hills. jam in Surry Surry Hills. friends’ homes. Hills and Occasional karaoke night dinner/drinks in in Sydney’s Surry Hills with CBD. Otherwise friends. doesn’t go out much. Restricted mobility.

Hills’ nightlife presented as strongly influenced by his personal background: his tenancy in public housing, his medical condition (diabetes), and his upbringing by fundamentalist Christians with an interest in music. Once a week, Stan par- ticipated in a free, local jazz jam. He described a congenial atmosphere of a

72 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS diverse crowd brought together by a shared interest in jazz—a reflection that my observations of the evening, and his behavior there, mirrored. Overall, however, Stan had a negative perception of Surry Hills’ nightlife, which he associated with an overall decline in human standards. While many of his com- ments were specific to Surry Hills, his attitudes about nightlife there were often tied into his broader perceptions about the state of society, and “human nat- ure,” more generally, which he discussed in the context of a number of anec- dotes relating to the public-housing block where he lived, and where the interview was undertaken. The effect of diabetes on his life seemed to shape Stan’s attitude towards nightlife and society in general. When asked about the type of person he thought nightlife spaces in Surry Hills appealed to, he reflected on his own disease:

Oh, the younger set. Those who are fit and young enough to be able to do that sort of thing. As they get older they’ll either look back on it with fondness or regret, because a lot of the lifestyle they lead now is going to have an impact as they get older. I can cite myself as a case in point. Diabetes comes about through a decadent lifestyle and there’s no doubt about it that people lead life- styles in this decadent society of ours which are going to have its impact later in life. Stan described himself as having never been one to “go out” as such, which he put down to his upbringing as a fundamentalist Christian. His interest in music and his singing in particular—and by association his only regular night- time outings—Stan also tied to his parentage. He recalled with fondness his singing and playing instruments with his parents as a child, experiences that had clearly shaped his life-long love of jazz. Ned, a freelance technology journalist, had lived in Surry Hills for nine years before moving out in 2011. Having grown up in the suburbs of Perth, Ned, now thirty-nine, tied his appreciation for Sydney, and Surry Hills’ night- life in particular, to his years in Perth, and the distinctions between the two cities; namely, the availability, breadth, and desirability of nightlife activities and the diversity and numbers of people. These days, Ned strongly identified with Sydney’s inner city, and with the nightlife of the area. “Here it’s that inner city dweller. This is where we hang out... we tend to be progressive thinkers... champagne socialists,” he com- mented as we sat at popular restaurant and bar The Winery during our pre- walk chat (Figure 6). He appreciated many aspects of nightlife in Sydney, mentioning he enjoyed going to the theater and comedy shows, as well as fine dining and patronising bars and pubs, which he pointed out along our walk. On being a local in Surry Hills he said:

Even though all the people I knew in the area were people I met through work, I still felt like I was a Surry Hills person and I liked that. To come from Perth, which is the arse end of nowhere and to be part of such a hip, cool, bustling,

73 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG. 6—The Winery, restaurant and bar, Surry Hills. (Source: Photograph by Peta Wolifson, August 2015)

energetic suburb was awesome...In Perth you go to a bar and you know every- one there, so if you sleep with someone everyone knows, whereas here...there’s just so many people that you’re always anonymous.

CONTEXTUALIZING (IN)TOLERANCE Relating to their biographical narratives, dialogues drawn out of the emplaced, mobile methods used also shed light on participant’s prejudices in Surry Hills at night. Participants expressed both feelings of marginalization and marginaliz- ing attitudes in this place, drawn from understandings often produced outside of Surry Hills. Participants all expressed issues with certain groups of people in relation to their experience of Surry Hills at night. For each though, this group was different, and based on their own understanding (or lack of understand- ing) and experience (or nonexperience). The diversity in terms of their particu- lar problems with these groups was also tied to the participants’ biographical narratives. Ned’s major concern with the nightlife of inner Sydney was safety. When I asked him to describe the feeling of being a local when he lived in Surry Hills, he said, “I felt safe... I guess ‘cos I’ve been mugged a couple of times in Perth for me that’s [important]. I mean, I’ve brought it up several times so obviously it’s important to me.” Ned said that he felt much safer going out in Surry Hills

74 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS than nearby nightspot Kings Cross, for instance (Figure 2), where there had been a number of notorious incidences of violence in recent years.

You get a lot of these dickheads coming in from the suburbs who are just out 7 to get high on fucking ice or whatever and start fights and...like all this king 8 hit stuff happening in Kings Cross. It just doesn’t happen in Surry Hills. Having grown up in Perth, Ned had relatively little knowledge of Sydney beyond its inner suburbs, where he strongly identified. He repeatedly men- tioned the outer northwestern Sydney suburb of Kellyville (Figure 1) from which the problematic “fucking Neanderthals” of inner-Sydney’s nightlife, including Kings Cross, hailed. When I eventually asked him about the signifi- cance of Kellyville he admitted, “I don’t know many places in Sydney. I just know Kellyville’s a shithole.” Jon expressed a clear pride in himself as a warm, welcoming, and sociable person, and his openness to and enjoyment of the diversity and “quirkiness” of Surry Hills. This was reflected both in my own experience during the go- along and in his many comments about encounters with a diversity of local people. Jon revelled in an anecdote about his friend visiting from interstate who asked him if anything ever happened in Surry Hills, at which point a transvestite rode past in an electric wheelchair, a man cycled past with a parrot on his shoulder, and two women had a passionate embrace next to them. It was this openness of diversity that Jon embraced in Surry Hills. His negative experiences in Mosman caused him to relate a threat against that attitude to the Mosman area. Although Jon was very positive overall about Surry Hills’ nightlife, he talked about an increasing negative influence on the suburb in recent years, an influx of “young, pretentious people” specifically “from the lower north shore.” Jon’s described this group as having an air of superiority towards others in the area, alongside a lack of understanding about, and respect for, Surry Hills. Through- out our go-along, Jon reflected on this increasingly unfriendly presence in Surry Hills, observable in such simple acts as people not smiling when walking down the street to the more malicious writing of harsh restaurant reviews. Anna, twenty-nine, was originally from the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney (Figure 1), but had been living in and around the Newtown area for the past decade (Figure 2). She described feelings of unease in Surry Hills, tied to her initial impression of the suburb upon moving to Sydney ten years prior. She explained that at that time, she was unable to reconcile the idea of the affluent and impoverished that she witnessed living side by side in Surry Hills. These initial feelings fed into her understanding of Surry Hills’ night spaces as exclu- sive and image-focused. The aesthetics of both the night spaces and those who utilized them were a major subject of conversation in Anna’s walking interview, prompted by her emplacement. She described an exclusive nightscape in Surry Hills where “you

75 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

do have to look a certain way to be accepted.” Drawing on her observations of passersby and clothing-store window displays, she noted:

What people wear ‘round here is quite different...and even just the way people walk and how they interact [is] more insular to what I’m used to. There is a sense of “us” and “them” more than other areas. Anna’s major issue with Surry Hills’ nightlife was that she felt like an out- sider, being unable to identify with the people there. A “cliquey,” “inaccessible” social scene that she was for the most part unable to penetrate explicated Anna’s assumption that “locals” were the cause of the problem that she per- ceived in Surry Hills at night. Throughout the interview, however, this attitude was reconsidered as she reflected upon her attitudes and assumptions as she moved through place. While other participants targeted their issues at particular groups, Stan’s concerns were with “human nature” more generally. Having lived in Surry Hills for thirty years, many of his observations there, and in the public-housing estate where he lived (and where I interviewed him, see Figure 5), were drawn on in his analysis of societal decline.

Something I’ve been observing probably the whole time I’ve been living in housing. There are people with very expensive cars. A lot of these people are transitioning either out of or into jail. You join the dots you know...

There are undesirables patrolling the streets at night. It’s one of the reasons I don’t go out at night as often as I possibly would...Surry Hills is a particular case in point. It happens universally but Surry Hills has a reputation for being one of those places where that sort of muggings and things can happen and has happened. On his disillusionment with nightlife in particular, Stan cited his observa- tions of negative behaviors he had witnessed in the suburb.

What worries me is the human tendency to take things to excess...Human nat- ure’s like that. Give an inch. Take a mile...I see people wheeling their young children ‘round in prams at two o’clock, three o’clock in the morning... What the hell! If our society tolerates that sort of thing it should send off alarm bells in every thinking person.

People should be in bed sleeping at night not going out and carousing and cre- ating mayhem for the neighbors and getting unbelievably drunk and urinating, defecating, vomiting all over our public roads which is what they do on Thurs- day, Friday, Saturday night... Using (in)intolerance as an identifying theme reveals that participants’ views of undesirable behavior in Surry Hills’ nightlife have drawn on more widespread discourses. These discourses are multiple and contested, involve elements of

76 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS

“othering,” and draw on particular incidences and geographic trends, but here is not the place for their analysis. It is the selection of these views in the context of the study site and relating to participants’ particular biographical narratives, their experiences and understandings, that is central to their discussion here.

PROBING DISCOURSE—ENCOUNTERING SMALL BARS AND PUBS With the use of emplaced methods, participants’ existing understandings of small bars were questioned, particularly in comparison to larger pubs. Many of their existing understandings reflected dominant discourses considered either mainstream or counterculture. The emplacement allowed discourses to be dis- turbed by drawing on past or present experiences in and of place, highlighting the dynamism of experiences in Surry Hills at night. Jon’s nightlife outings in Surry Hills were predominantly confined to the area’s larger pubs. Although he frequented and enjoyed several such pubs, he used the term “beer barn” to describe them, repeating the derogatory language espoused by local politician Clover Moore and others during her “Raise the Bar” campaign that led to the introduction of the more affordable small-bar liquor license. Despite being aware of the legislative change, he had little knowledge of Surry Hills’ burgeoning small-bar scene, and believed that most of the new small bars were confined to the nearby CBD of Sydney. He was only aware of one small bar in Surry Hills, and indeed believed it to be the only one. After several hours at local pub, The Dolphin, we visited this small bar— Mr Fox—on our go-along at the call of one member of the group who was particularly enthusiastic about it (Figure 7). Jon was noticeably less comfortable there compared with being at The Dolphin, and although he said he liked this bar, he clearly felt more relaxed in the surroundings of the larger pub. Ned had a fairly detailed knowledge about legislative changes affecting Surry Hills’ nightlife in recent years. At the start of the interview, before we started walking, Ned reflected positively on his memory of the influx of small bars in the suburb, repeating much of the discourse espoused at the time, around 2007 in support of the initiative.

It was like bringing that Melbourne vibe to Sydney. So, up until that point there was only big bars in Surry Hills...there were no really small, intimate bars. And suddenly within six months there were just dozens of these little hole in the wall places and it was just a bit cruisier, you know?...A little bit quieter, so you could have a conversation...They catered to different tastes, so instead of just one bar that ten different types of people went to, you could find the place that fitted what you wanted to do. Further along in the interview however, Ned’s comments began to shift as he reflected on the places themselves as we walked through Surry Hills. Asked whether he found different crowds in different small bars in Surry Hills, he said, “Um... well, we tended to go to similar sort of bars. So, all the smaller

77 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG. 7—The Dolphin Hotel (above) and Mr Fox small bar (below right). (Source: Photograph by Peta Wolifson, August 2015)

bars had a similar sort of crowd,” and later on continued, “They were all tar- geting the same kind of people.” For Anna, Surry Hills’ small bars added to her view of this nightscape as exclusive, extending her feelings of unease in the suburb.

Because of the trendy new bars...it just seems so selective...You do have to look a certain way to be accepted. Everything’s just been so carefully placed and so carefully crafted and that gives me a sense of unease...The more mod- ernish places which I think places are in Surry Hills, they seem a bit colder...

78 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS

Prompted by place, she contrasted this view to her experiences in some of the larger pubs of the suburb. In doing so, Anna stepped back from her assumption about locals in such establishments, seemingly aligning them more with the suburb’s small bars. Anna paused for a moment along the walk when we reached the Clock Hotel (Figure 8), one of the better known and more pop- ular of Surry Hills’ larger pubs. She commented:

Right now, we’re in front of the Clock and you can see on the veranda thing all these different groups of people and I’m sure some are from Surry Hills, some aren’t from Surry Hills, so there’s a bit more of a sense of a larger com- munity coming from different places, whereas in small bars, they really cater to a kind of niche or clique or something and... they’re not usually my kind of niche. Prompted by their surroundings, participants were seen to articulate and interrogate a range of dominant discourses that had framed their understand- ings. A more mindful (re)consideration of understandings and experiences in the context of their surroundings is shown to prompt a breaking down of these discourses.

EXPECTATION AND SOCIABILITY Expectation was shown to have a strong bearing on participants’ encounters in and with place, particularly relating to the types and extent of conviviality in Surry Hills at night. Participants revealed an expectation of not socialising with strangers that withstood despite distinct personalities and social sensibilities, many of which conflicted with such an expectation. Positive and contrasting social experiences elsewhere did not motivate behavior shifts, but rather levels

FIG. 8—The Clock Hotel, Surry Hills. (Source: Photograph by Peta Wolifson, August 2015)

79 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW of conviviality seemed tied to expectations of this place. These expectations related to discourses that framed the nightscape with an image of exclusion and aloofness, feeding into feelings of marginalization. Soon after I first met Jon at our go-along, he made a point to mention that he enjoyed chatting to those he called “street people” in Surry Hills, of which he cited several examples. When I asked him about the demographics in Surry Hills’ nightlife establishments and whether those people had a presence, Jon hesitated to respond. After some consideration, he commented that you might see some such people downstairs at one of the larger pubs of an evening. This hesitation suggested an unwillingness by Jon to acknowledge a divergence between his beloved Surry Hills by day and that of the night, where the pres- 9 ence of “flawed consumers” (Bauman 1997) was perhaps less likely to be accepted as a neighborhood quirk. The go-along with Jon was the friendliest and most welcoming experience for me as a researcher, despite perhaps being most demographically different to myself. I was surprised then, that the group agreed that they mostly stick to themselves on nights out. The group displayed a clear pride in being open and friendly people; this certainly accorded with my personal experience of them. There was evidently a discord, however, between this understanding and the group’s actual interactions with others in Surry Hills’ nightlife. Anna admitted that her unease in Surry Hills’ nightlife gave her negative expectations when trying out new bars in the suburb, expectations that meant she chose not to talk to other people in bars there.

It’s always a little but exciting but I’m always aware that I’m dressed differ- ently, aware of those subtle differences... Like, I’ll go out with my friends and in those smaller bars I don’t talk to other people. Anna also suggested that this discourse was one shared amongst many of her friends.

A lot of conversations I have about these bars, people turn their nose up at it ‘cos they think it’s, I guess a bit wanky or something like that. People, they look down on it. Not just people who live in Newtown but people that aren’t from Surry Hills, who’ve never lived here, they’re the ones that think like that. This comment reaffirms Anna’s assumption of the divisions between Surry Hills locals and others—the “us” and “them”—in Surry Hills at night. I asked Anna whether people in Surry Hills lived up to her expectations of being unfriendly. She replied:

Yeah, I mean that is a massive generalisation. I definitely have had conversa- tions with locals and they’re fine but it’s just coming in and that sense that you get when you come in, that first impression I guess, is that you’re an outsider and you’re unwelcome.

80 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS

As the walk continued, Anna reflected more on her judgements of people from Surry Hills. Towards the end of the interview, she said:

It’s just the ones that grab your attention, your eye, are the ones that want to grab your attention so they’re the ones that are wearing those ridiculous high heels or the loud clothing, but if I just sit and think about it the majority of people are going to be laid back. Although in this qualification, Anna restated her focus on aesthetics and attire in Surry Hills as associated with aloofness, her comments also indicated her reflexive process throughout the walking interview. On his nine years living in Surry Hills, Ned said, “I had a few friends that lived in the area, but I didn’t meet many people that I didn’t already know.” He, too, admitted that he only spent time with existing friends in Surry Hills nightlife. In contrast, Ned spoke enthusiastically about his many social encoun- ters in Newtown, particularly at the Town Hall Hotel, where there was an expectation of friendliness with strangers. It was only since moving away that he had noticed the relatively unsociable atmosphere of Surry Hills, as revealed here:

Ned In Surry Hills you wouldn’t get a lot of strangers coming up and chatting to you. It was quite a rare occurrence, whereas in Newtown it happens every night. Researcher Do you feel that as a loss when you’re in Surry Hills?

N I’m starting to appreciate it more in Newtown definitely. Ned was increasingly aware of a distinction between sociability in Surry Hills and Newtown’s night scenes. He associated this difference with the differ- ent images of the two areas he saw people, including himself, attempting to fit in. Although he clearly expressed enjoying the sociability he found in Newtown, his expectations of nightlife in Surry Hills seemed to be a stronger influence on his own behavior there. Indeed, he expressed being able to fit the mold in either suburb’s nightlife.

COMPATIBLE AND FLAWED CONSUMERS: FITTING THE MOLD Fitting the mold in Surry Hills was also tied to subjects’ ability to participate as consumers in the nightlife through their economic status. This fed into participants’ attitudes towards Surry Hills and how comfortable, or at home, they felt there. While Ned had, for the most part, moved on from Surry Hills, he continued to feel comfortable in its nightlife, and while acknowledging its expense and exclusive image, felt able to fit in there when he wanted to. Anna related her increasing number of nights out in Surry Hills to her ability to pay for them, as she continued to develop her career and moved on from her stud-

81 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW ies. While Stan’s views on certain aspects of nightlife were clearly strong moti- vators against his participation, his dining-out experiences were limited by his financial situation. Now living in Newtown, Ned felt that Surry Hills was more suited to a younger demographic, and that he had grown out of it, with many of his friends moving to the inner-west as he had. “It just feels a bit older, a bit more laid back,” he said of Newtown. Despite this, he still had his favorite bars in Surry Hills that he went to around once a month, and had fond memories of when he lived there are went out more regularly, around three or four nights a week. Ned stressed the difference between the nightlife scenes in Surry Hills and Newtown. Although he called both areas “pretentious,” he described Surry Hills as more “blingy”—evoking Anna’s comments on the focus on aesthetics in the suburb—and “wanky,” implying its upmarket character.

R So, when you say it’s wanky here – N Like, there’s people with money. R So, when you’re here do you feel that? N No, I feel like I can fit into that mold when I need to. Ned explained that when he’d lived in Surry Hills, he sought to fit the sub- urb’s upmarket, fashionable scene.

I was more into fashion and trying to fit that kind of image, whereas now I’m still trying to fit a different image but it’s more of an alternative kind of scene in Newtown...Surry Hills is more about where you work, how much money you’ve got...how cool are you, how good looking you are and how well dressed you are. In Newtown it’s more about how alternative you are. How many tattoos do you have? How big is your beard? How many piercings have you got?...It’s similar to that Sydney versus Melbourne thing. Sydney’s more about money. Melbourne’s more about culture. But they’re both wanky in their own way. Asked how he found Surry Hills’ nightlife in terms of cost, Ned admitted it was expensive, but not so much that would impact on his going out there:

N Ahh... expensive. R In a way that would stop you from going out? N No, it doesn’t stop me. I’m happy to pay $9 for a beer. I’m not happy to pay it but what else am I gonna do? In contrast to Ned, Anna, who had lived in the Newtown area for around ten years, found herself in Surry Hills more and more as she got older, as was

82 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS able to afford it. As we walked past Sage, a Vietnamese restaurant, she admitted she dined there a number of times.

I will come to Surry Hills for dinner. That definitely happens a lot. But that’s also because we’re older, and I can afford food now—nice food now. So that’s good. It makes things easier to come here. It is more expensive here. She also found herself increasingly comfortable in this nightscape, but attributed this to her age. “I feel comfortable anywhere I go now that I’m older but that’s a personal thing.” Although he had lived in Surry Hills for around thirty years, Stan’s feelings towards the suburb were not warm ones, and he did not consider himself a “local” in the way Jon, and others, did. When I asked him about his feelings towards Surry Hills, Stan responded that:

[It is] just where I live and probably not much more. When I got my housing allocation I...was rather curious, and as I sort of got into living here, I didn’t really have a choice...The choice initially [was because] I thought Surry Hills seemed to be the most convenient location. It’s just the place where I live. Being a pensioner, there was a significant disconnect, not wholly by choice, between Stan’s participation in the nightlife of Surry Hills and others I inter- viewed, which became evident when we discussed his dining-out habits. He gestured towards a nearby casual take-away/eatery (Figure 9).

Stan I like Mexican food so I’ve been going to the place just down here and its predecessor. Very, very fond of that. I do like Mexican food. R So, how often would you say you go there? S Oh, only very occasionally R So, maybe every couple of weeks, or...? S No, not even that. Once every couple of months. I’m on a pension! Give me a break!

CONCLUSION Rose and Degen argued that senses of place are dependent on sensory experi- ences mediated by bodily mobility and perceptual memories that impact “by multiplying, judging and dulling the sensory encounter” (2012, 1). The emplaced, mobile methods discussed in this paper have illustrated and utilized this knowledge to address a neglect of research into how individuals experience and approach encounters (Valentine and Sadgrove 2013). In doing so through this examination of the urban night, this paper contributes to research on encounter as a technique for understanding urban sociality. Through utilizing Surry Hills and its night spaces as the setting for our conversations, participants

83 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG. 9—Mexican-themed casual eatery ‘Burrito Cantina’, Surry Hills. (Source: Photograph by Peta Wolifson, August 2015) drew from memories and experiences of those places, and others, to explicate and begin to interrogate their encounters in and with Surry Hills at night. This paper asserts that emplaced, mobile methods can reveal personal preju- dices at play in the context of urban nightlife scenes. The discussion here has shown the importance of individuals’ biographical narratives to their framing of place, including those emplaced prejudices. The unique personal narratives revealed in place were seen to have a significant impact on the participants’ framing of Surry Hills at night. Prompted by the altered performance of “going out” or the heightened experience of walking around the area, participants tapped into their personal biographies. The involuntary selection of material raised in the context of the research site has valorised its significance, in con- trast to a biographical narrative produced in a more deliberate way, outside of the research site. In the field, the participant makes connections between moments in their narrative and their experience and understanding of their surroundings and encounters there. The vignettes revealed through the go-alongs and walking interviews show how dominant discourses penetrate into everyday language that may incorrectly reflect the complex individual character of experience and understanding of place. We are reminded that “the street looks and feels differently depending on the perspectives of those inhabiting urban spaces” (Law 2005, 440, in Rose and Degen 2012, 3273). Drawing on fieldwork that reasserts the value of bio- graphical narratives shows how emplacing methods can be used to explore the

84 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS complex conscious and unconscious relationships between self and landscape (Bingley 2003). The use of emplaced mobile methods provided opportunities for partici- pants both to bolster existing attitudes and to probe their own prejudices, while keeping grounded—in the present—in their experience of place. This usage suggests the further potential for emplaced, mobile methods to explore such moments of change and to generate an emplaced reflexivity. While Anna drew upon her observations of passersby and window displays to help articulate her existing views about Surry Hills, her observations outside the Clock Hotel prompted a reconsideration of these views. This reconsideration, along with Ned’s reflections on the diversity of small bars, hinted at moments of change in the participants’ narratives as they reflected on their own comments and more widespread discourses in the context of their surroundings. Participants’ emplacement allowed such discourses to be disturbed by their drawing on past or present experiences in and of place, simultaneously highlighting the dyna- mism of experiences in Surry Hills at night. The nonlinear structure of interviews within the go-alongs and walking interviews allowed questions to be readdressed as settings shifted and as partici- pants began to reflect on their surroundings in a more mindful way. The mobility and emplacement of the methods prompted participants to recall past experience that challenged their expressed discourses and revealed more about their understandings, experiences, and expectations of people and place in Surry Hills at night. Future research could seek to examine shifts in partici- pant’s attitudes and behaviors in longer-term contexts. This could have signifi- cant implications for urban sociality and encounters with difference. These findings support recent research that stresses the importance of con- scious encounters for improving urban sociality in order to not lose sight of:

the reflective judgements of ‘others’ made by individuals; of our ability to make decisions around the control of our feelings and identifications; and of the sig- nificance of personal pasts and collective histories in shaping the ways we per- ceive and react to encounters (Valentine and Sadgrove 2013, 1979). Associated with both significant biographical encounters and the role of dis- course in framing place understandings, this paper also raised the importance of expectation to encounter with place. The participant vignettes reveal that expectations of sociality in place had a strong bearing on behaviors there, despite conflicting or alternate desires and dispositions. In the nightlife of Surry Hills, these expectations related to a discourse that framed the nightscape with an image of exclusion, sustaining behaviors and feelings of marginalization. Relatedly, attitudes towards Surry Hills at night were also tied to subjects’ abil- ity to participate as consumers in the nightlife, seen to be restricted by partici- pants’ financial situations.

85 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

The growing body of work on nightlife in recent years calls for research grounded in human experience of place, with claims that nighttime economy planning models “are not firmly grounded in the ways that cities are inhabited and lived” (Roberts and Eldridge 2009, 188). Problematically, many forms of community consultation employed by policymakers reproduce popularly espoused discourses that, as shown here, may not accurately reflect experiences in place. Revealing the diversity of experiences and understandings of place begins to erode privileged images of the city shaped by cultural intermediaries and increasingly neoliberal governance. Through the go-along in particular, I was also able to share in the participant experience, observing their comfort and encounters in and with place. In catalyzing new opportunities at the intersection of human experience, perception, and place itself, emplaced, mobile methods present new possibilities for understanding everyday, and every night, life. With growing acknowledg- ment that everyday encounters are not sufficient to produce meaningful moments of interaction (Amin 2002; Valentine and Sadgrove 2013), this paper suggests that emplaced, mobile methods may be effective generators of signifi- cant encounters. An increasing understanding of these, and other, emplaced methods and the encounters they produce and examine will be of value to research attempting to improve the lived conviviality and inclusivity of urban social scenes.

NOTES 1 In NSW, small bar licenses are granted to bars selling liquor on-premises to a maximum of 60 patrons. Their restrictions differ to those placed on other licensed venues in NSW (NSW Government 2014). 2 The names of participants provided in this paper are pseudonyms. 3 At the time of writing, gay marriage remains illegal in Australia. 4 At the time of writing, Sydney is in a housing bubble with among the highest house prices globally (Han 2015). Due to its popularity and central location, Surry Hills has some of the most expensive house prices in Sydney per square metre (Chancellor 2015). This accounts for, in part, the high rental rates in the suburb. 5 This paper’s discussion recognises that the method of data collection for the ‘go-alongs’ may be viewed as problematic in light of no recording taking place and a reliance on the mem- ory of the researcher. This situation, which arose after the method was piloted with a number of recording techniques, meant that much of the analysis came out of the researcher’s immediate reflections during and soon after the fieldwork, as recorded in the field and research diary. While undoubtedly this technique meant a loss of some potential data, it also likely contributed to a more relaxed environment in which subjects were more comfortable revealing personal informa- tion and anecdotes. 6 I used an amended method for one participant, Stan, who had limited mobility. I attended a jazz jam with Stan and then conducted a sit-down interview two days later. His age, pension- status and public housing tenancy made him important to include in this paper. The amended format allowed me to share the experience of the jazz jam with Stan, and to observe both the atmosphere of the evening and Stan within it. The interview was close enough in both my own and in Stan’s memories to discuss it with a degree of familiarity. 7 Ice, or ‘crystal meth’, is a crystalline form of the drug methamphetamine. It is a highly addictive drug, the use of which more than doubled from 2010-2013. Ice can cause paranoia and

86 ENCOUNTERING THE NIGHT WITH MOBILE METHODS hallucinations and is associated with violence. ‘Ice’ use in Australia in increasingly being referred to as an ‘epidemic’ (Australian Government 2015). 8 ‘King hit’ or ‘coward’s punch’ refers to a sudden knockout blow. The deaths of two teen- agers – Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie – in Kings Cross between July 2012 and January 2014 caused by these single punches sparked a public outcry that led to a controversial suite of new laws in Sydney and New South Wales restricting venues that sell alcohol. The laws included a NSW state-wide ban on take-away alcohol sales after 10pm and 1.30am venue lockouts and 3am last drinks within a designated inner-city area of Sydney, including Kings Cross (News 2014). 9 In his analysis of the consumer society, Bauman terms those left out the ‘flawed consumers’ – “the unfulfilled consumers, those whose means do not measure up to the desires, and those refused the chance of winning while playing the game by its official rules” (Bauman 1997, 41-42).

REFERENCES ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics]. 2006. TableBuilder, Census Collection Districts 1401209; 1402014; 1401110; 1401210. 2006 Census of Population and Housing [http://www.abs.gov.au/ websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder]. ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics]. 2011. 2011 Census QuickStats: Surry Hills (State Suburb). 2011 Census of Population and Housing. [http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/ getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC12182?opendocument&navpos=220]. Allport, G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Amin, A. 2002. Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with Diversity. Environment and Planning A 34 (6): 959–980. Anderson, J. 2004. Talking Whilst Walking: A Geographical Archaeology of Knowledge. Area 36 (3): 254–261. Australian Government. 2015. The Facts about Ice. Department of Health, 10 September 2015, [http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishingcp.nsf/Content/facts-about-ice]. Bauman, Z. 1997. Postmodernity and ItsDiscontents. New York: New York University Press. Bingley, A. 2003. In Here and Out There: Sensations Between Self and Landscape. Social & Cultural Geography 4 (3): 329–345. Bowden, T. 2004. Vertical Slum Transformed. 7.30 Report, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. [http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1269339.htm]. Brands, J., T. Schwanen, and I. van Aalst. 2013. Fear of Crime and Affective Ambiguities in the Night-time Economy. Urban Studies 52 (3): 439–455. Buscher,€ M., and J. Urry. 2009. Mobile Methods and the Empirical. European Journal of Social Theory 12 (1): 99–116. Carpiano, R. 2009. Come Take a Walk With Me: The “Go-Along” Interview as a Novel Method for Studying the Implications of Place for Health and Well-Being. Health & Place 15 (1): 263–272. Chancellor, J. 2015. Skinny Surry Hills House Sells for $965,000 at Auction. Property Observer. [http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/residential-investment/sales-and- auctions/42940-narrow-surry-hills-terrace-fetches-965-000.html]. Chatterton, P., and R. Hollands. 2002. Theorising Urban Playscapes: Producing, Regulating and Consuming Youthful Nightlife City Spaces. Urban Studies 39 (1): 95–116. City of Sydney. 2008. Sustainable Sydney 2030, The Vision, [http://www.sydney2030.com.au/ vision-in-2030/resources]. City of Sydney. 2013. OPEN Future Directions for Sydney at Night, Strategy and Action Plan, [http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects.sydney-at-night/night-time- economy]. De Leon, J., and J. Cohen. 2005. Object and Walking Probes in Ethnographic Interviewing. Field Methods 17 (2): 200–204. Degen, M., and G. Rose. 2012. The Sensory Experiencing of Urban Design: The Role of Walking and Perceptual Memory. Urban Studies 49 (15): 3271–3287. Hae, L. 2012. The Gentrification of Nightlife and the Right to the City. New York: Routledge.

87 GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Han, M. 2015 Sydney Property Market in ‘Bubble Territory’ Since December, Says Professor. Financial Review. [http://www.afr.com/news/sydney-property-market-in-bubble-territory- since-december-20150907-gjgwe7]. Hill, L. 2013. Archaeologies and Geographies of the Post-Industrial Past: Landscape. Memory and the Spectral. Cultural Geographies 20 (3): 379–396. Jones, P., Bunce, G., Evans, J., Gibbs, H. and Hein, J. 2008. Exploring Space and Place with Walking Interviews. Journal of Research Practice 4 (2): Article D2. Kimble, J. 2012 The 50 Most Stylish Neighbourhoods in the World: 23. Surry Hills. Complex. [http://www.complex.com/style/2012/10/the-50-most-stylish-neighborhoods-in-the-world/ surry-hills]. Kornberger, M., and S. Clegg. 2011. Strategy as Performative Practice: The Case of Sydney 2030. Strategic Organization 9 (2): 136–162. Kusenbach, M. 2003. Street Phenomenology: The Go-Along as Ethnographic Research Tool. Ethnography 4 (3): 455–485. Law, L. 2005. Sensing the City: Urban Experiences. In Introducing Human Geographies, edited by P. Cloke, P. Crang and M. Goodwin. London: Arnold. Laurier, E., and C. Philo. 2006. Possible Geographies: a Passing Encounter in a Cafe. Area 38 (4): 353–363. Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Miller, J. 2014. Approximating New Spaces of Consumption at the Abasto Shopping Mall, Buenos Aires. Argentina. Journal of Cultural Geography 31 (2): 206–217. Moore, C. 2012. Small Bars 101 Forum. Clover Moore. [http://clovermoore.com.au/small-bars-101- forum]. News. 2014. Fears Over New Late-Night Alcohol Laws in Sydney CBD. News.com.au. [http:// www.news.com.au/national/fears-over-new-latenight-alcohol-laws-in-sydney-cbd/story- fncynjr2-1226806881876]. NSW Government. 2014 Fact Sheet: Small Bar License. Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing, Trade & Investment. [http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/L_FS_SB.pdf]. Peck, J. 2010. Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pettigrew, T. 1998. Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49 (1): 65–85. Pink, S. 2007. Walking with Video. Visual Studies 22 (3): 240–252. Relph, E. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Roberts, M., and A. Eldridge. 2009. Planning the Night-Time City. London: Routledge. Ross, N., E. Renold, S. Holland, and A. Hillman. 2009. Moving Stories: Using Mobile Methods to Explore the Everyday Lives of Young People in Public Care. Qualitative Research 9 (5): 605–623. Seamon, D. 2015. Lived Emplacement and the Locality of Being: A Return to Humanistic Geography? In Approaches to Human Geography, edited by. S. Aiken and G. Valentine. London: Sage. Shaw, R. 2010. Neoliberal Subjectivities and the Development of the Night-Time Economy in British Cities. Geography Compass 4 (7): 893–903. Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006. The New Mobilities Paradigm. Environment and Planning A 38 (2): 207–226. Smith, L. M. 1967. The Micro-Ethnography of the Classroom. Psychology in the Schools 4 (3): 216–221. The Surry Hills Creative Precinct. 2015 Home/About, [http://shcp.org.au/homeabout]. Tuan, Y. 1977. Space and Place. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Valentine, G., and J. Sadgrove. 2012. Lived difference: a Narrative Account of Spatiotemporal Processes of Social Differentiation. Environment and Planning A 44 (9): 2049–2063. -., and-. 2013. Biographical Narratives of Encounter: The Significance of Mobility and Emplacement in Shaping Attitudes towards Difference. Urban Studies 51 (9): 1979–1994. van Liempt, I. 2013. Safe Nightlife Collaborations: Multiple Actors, Conflicting Interests and Different Power Distributions. Urban Studies 52 (3): 486–500.

88 II. Co-opting the night

The entrepreneurial shift and economic imperative in ‘night-time economy’ planning

89 Urban Policy and Research, 2017 VOL. 35, NO. 4, 486–504 https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2016.1155983

Co-opting the Night: The Entrepreneurial Shift and Economic Imperative in NTE Planning

Peta Wolifson and Danielle Drozdzewski

School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The City of Sydney Council has presented their night-time economy plan Received 9 December 2014 (NTE) – Open, Future directions for Sydney at night – as a unique and substantial Accepted 10 February 2016 contribution to global city planning literature. This paper critiques the plan KEYWORDS and demonstrates how Open is strongly aligned with, and constrained Night-time economy; City of by the neoliberal-inspired cultural-economy framework of the Council’s Sydney; Surry Hills; diversity; overarching policy vision: Sustainable Sydney 2030. Such co-opting of policy consultation; cultural- evinces an entrepreneurial shift in NTE planning where economic interests economy; Sustainable Sydney procure substantial voice in the consultation, and eventual policy directions 2030; creative cities; place- of changing the nightscape. The paper explicates the economic imperative(s) making of Open within the context of one inner city Sydney suburb, Surry Hills.

悉尼市政委员会提出了一份夜间经济计划（NTE），《开放——悉尼夜 间的未来方 向》，为全球城市规划文献做出了独特而实在的贡献。本 文对这一计划进行评论， 指出《开放》与市政委员会的总体政策愿景 《2030 可持续悉尼》一脉相承，且都 受了新自由主义文化经济框架的影 响。这样的政策表现出夜间经济计划实际上向 企业倾斜，咨询中听到的 声音，以及最终改变城市夜景的政策方向，以经济利益为 主。本文以悉 尼内城郊区苏利山（Surry Hills）为例，说明《开放》的经济至上 倾向。

Introduction The deindustrialisation of global cities, alongside concomitant processes of neoliberalisation, has forced changes to city-scapes. The well-documented changes to industrial production and consump- tion processes in inner city areas led to significant modifications in cultural landscapes as well as the built form of cities (Ley, 1996; Smith, 1996). In the context of a shifting global economic landscape, urban planners were (and continue to be) compelled to “rethink” city spaces. A raft of policies aimed at maximising the capacity of the inner city, to sustain economic growth and attract certain sets of acceptable consumptive behaviours has ensued (Shaw, 2010). For example, Hae (2011a, p. 3451) out- lined that in the UK, the “government legislated a series of deregulatory measures” that were expected to increase economic capacity and bolster the vibrancy of newly gentrifying neighbourhoods. Similarly, place-making strategies in cities elsewhere have emerged with the aim of putting cities on the map, and spruiking their economic and cultural bases (Peck, 2010; Bontje & Lawton, 2013).

90 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

These place-making strategies have embodied the aspatial underbelly of mobile neoliberal policy in that global policy networks are transferred between “competing” cities (Peck, 2010). A set of seem- ingly standardised “key [neoliberal] policies and practices” are applied regardless of local specificities (Shaw, 2015, p. 457). They also seek to draw from a similar and highly desired pool of creative-class individuals (Florida, 2002), whose subjectivities are complicit with the desired economic growth and urban landscapes. In addition, the normative assumption of neoliberal policy is that it works to shape urban identities and behaviours (Springer, 2010; Shaw, 2015). Post-industrial gentrified inner-city areas have presented urban planners with aspirational consumer landscapes of the “creative-class”, whose consumptive behaviours meet a perceived acceptable standard of use and practice (Shaw, 2015). Creative cities proponent Richard Florida has asserted that the night-time economies (NTE) are vital elements in the overall appeal of cities, especially to the creative class (Hae, 2011). The creative city model and NTE planning build on changes in consumption behaviour and the demographic base – from deindustrialisation and subsequent gentrification. These alterations, to people and place, attempt to replicate and capitalise from NTE planning policies that appeal to the so-called creative class. Policy designed to develop the city after dark and improve the vitality and viability of NTE’s led British cities, for example, to liberalise licensing legislation in an attempt to increase economic activity while simultaneously promoting cultural change. These policy shifts and their outcomes sparked what is now an expanse in scholarship relating to the urban night (Chatterton & Hollands, 2002; Hobbs et al., 2005; Hubbard, 2005; Talbot, 2006, 2011; van Liempt et al., 2015; Gallan, 2015; Hadfield, 2015). Hadfield (2015) has theorised this literature into three “waves” of research on NTE. The first wave involves these processes of deregulation, directed in part by the concurrent development and prolif- eration of the creative cities movement that encouraged cities to compete with one another through their cultural offerings. The implication of such moves is that positive behavioural changes would result from such liberalisation. Resulting increases in alcohol-related violence and other unanticipated outcomes spawned the second wave of NTE research (Hobbs et al., 2003; Talbot, 2006), with admit- tances, including from Montgomery (2007) that such hopes were misguided (Roberts & Turner, 2005). The response to these outcomes included research into strategies for regulation and securitisation of night-time spaces. This paper falls within Hadfield’s third wave of literature because it emphasises the exclusionary outcomes of NTE planning and problematises the neoliberal grounding and associations with cultural-economic planning and the creative cities movement. Within the international literature, there is a disproportionate focus on the British experiences of implementing night-time economy (NTE) policies. Members of Charles Landry’s creative cities think tank Comedia, Bianchini (1990), Worpole (1992) and Montgomery (1995) championed the 24-h city concept throughout the UK (Bianchini et al., 1988) basing it, albeit erroneously, on the romantic nightlife scenes of many continental European cities (Bianchini, 1990; Montgomery, 2007). Postulated as potentially overcoming the urban decline experienced by British cities throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Bianchini, 1990), the 24-h city concept was predicted to double local economies by shifting to a consumption-base at night (Bianchini, 1995). Inspired by Jacobs’ (1961) notion of vibrant city streets, the 24-h cities concept, which developed into the broader concept of the NTE (Montgomery, 1994), also assumed that a “busy city centre would also be a safer city centre, in turn attracting a broader spectrum of people to the widened range of leisure activities” (Mackay, 2005, p. 6). Concomitant processes of gentrification occurring alongside newly instigated NTE planning featured in international literature (Talbot, 2006; Hae, 2011b). This “combination of neoliberal dereg- ulation and local ‘gentrification’” (Talbot, 2006, p. 160) gained traction in the 1990s and early 2000s as British cities competed against each other using their regeneration strategies to stymie the long lasting effects of deindustrialisation. The outcomes of the power shifts inherent in NTE strategies received significant criticism (Chatteron & Hollands, 2002). As Hadfield et al. (2001, p. 300) have argued, attempts at night-time led regeneration left the “dead in streets splattered with blood, vomit, urine, and the sodden remains of takeaways by the ‘Mass Volume Vertical Drinker’”. In the midst of increasing public discourse around crime and disorder in the urban night, the notion of the NTE gained political traction in the UK. The Licensing Act, 2003, 91 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

which came into effect in November of 2005, was the outcome of this highly sensitised political debate. It was predicated on the assumption that “when combined with carefully targeted ‘multi-agency’ crime prevention strategies, the de-regulation of licensing hours [would] assist many local governments in their mission to create harmonious and cosmopolitan urban leisure spaces” (Hobbs et al., 2003, p. 31). NTE strategies have proliferated across the UK and share the goals of creating vibrant nightlife areas, improving the local economic base, and managing alcohol-fuelled violence and other issues (Hadfield, 2011; Shaw, 2015; see for example Leeds City Council, 2010; City of London, 2012; Newcastle City Council, 2015). Despite being the most referenced pitfall of night-time led regeneration, the increas- ing problem of binge drinking has been framed as a “peculiarly British phenomenon” (Mackay, 2005, p. 10). Thinking further on problem drinking in the urban night, Chatteron (2002, p. 27) has stated that young people, in the US and Australia as well as the UK, have borne the brunt of this type of moral panic in the form of “various ‘folk devils’ for respectable society”. Outside of the UK, Copenhagen presents another example where regulatory changes have meant notable change to a city’s nightlife scene (Roberts & Eldridge, 2009). Deregulatory changes there were a response to strong “global pressure” to boost tourism and compete with neighbouring cities in Sweden and Germany (Roberts & Eldridge, 2009, p. 143). In the Copenhagen district of Nyvahn, attempts to resist gentrification from the 1970s through deregulation did not halt its impacts. Rather, it established the area as a highly concentrated nightlife zone where economic competition led to high alcohol sales and subsequent problems that were then regulated through a series of practical measures. Inspired by Richard Florida (2002), from the mid-2000s, Copenhagen then took further steps towards deregulating nightlife, in order to “promote the city at an international level, attracting investment and … the Creative Class” (Bayliss, 2007, p. 890). In the US, Hae (2011a, 2011b, 2012) has written at length about regulatory changes to nightlife and responses to such changes in the city of New York, particularly the controversial “cabaret law”, regulat- ing venues that have social dancing. She has argued that such laws have assisted the gentrification of nightlife by giving an advantage to larger businesses over smaller and alternative venues (Hae, 2011b). Hae (2011b) has also discussed pro-nightlife groups that emerged in response to the laws, arguing for the need for such groups to develop “a more robust and comprehensive political response to gen- trification, which poses a fundamental threat to a vibrant and culturally rich nightlife” (Hae, 2011b, p. 565). Further, as Ocejo (2009) has discussed, this gentrification of nightlife has had significant negative impacts of quality of life and resulted in social and cultural displacement in certain areas of New York. Numerous North American cities have promoted nightlife to attract tourists and new residents to disinvested inner-city areas since the suburbanisation of the 1950s (Ocejo, 2009; Hae, 2011b), an experience reflected throughout global cities. Local nightlife scenes across the US have boomed as a result of state government’s “permissive license-issuing practices as part of urban growth initiatives” (Ocejo, 2009; Hae, 2011b, p. 566). This “nightlife fix” however, occasioned conflict between various stakeholders when problems arose, and subsequently led to periods of re-regulation (Hae, 2011b) – a back and forth reflected in the nightlife scenes of many global cities (Roberts & Eldridge, 2009). In global cities internationally, this nightlife fix has increasingly incorporated mobile planning elements including, for example, Nuit Blanche (White Night) – now in more than 25 cities including Melbourne – and numerous light festivals from Berlin to Singapore and Vivid in Sydney. In Australia, despite a long-held discourse of the nation’s problematic drinking culture (Scott, 2015), public debate around the urban night peaked in the last decade in New South Wales (NSW). Conversations about the NTE in Sydney spawned from national, state-wide and smaller, local-based changes relating to the consumption of alcohol and associated anti-social behaviour and violence. For example, in 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd introduced several initiatives under the National Binge Drinking Strategy (Department of Health, 2013). The same year in NSW, a number of restrictions were placed on several licensed venues in Newcastle, including lockouts, restricted service of alcohol and trading hours (Roth & Angus, 2015). Late that year, then NSW Premier Nathan Rees, announced “a package of new measures to crack down on anti-social drinking and alcohol-related violence” (Roth & Angus, 2015, p. 4), including a freeze on granting 24-h liquor licenses and a raft of special licence 92 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

conditions on premises with the highest numbers of reported violent incidences. Other regulatory changes relating to nightlife in Australian cities over the past decade are too numerous to mention here (see Roberts & Eldridge, 2009; Beer, 2011; McNeill, 2011; Rowe & Bavinton, 2011). Following a series of regulatory changes promoting both the creative industries and small bars in inner-city Melbourne in the late 1990s (McNeill, 2011), 2008 also saw the implementation of The Liquor Act, 2007 in NSW, touted as having the potential to replicate the success of this “laneways” culture in Sydney’s nightlife (McNeill, 2011). This legislation included the introduction of liquor licenses for small bars – a change also implemented in Australian jurisdictions elsewhere (WACP, 2007). This change followed a highly publicised “Raise the Bar” community campaign to support a private members bill that was proposed by Clover Moore (then Member of Parliament in NSW)1 and a similarly vocal response by the Australian Hotels Association (AHA). Around this time, Parramatta City Council commissioned a NTE report (Rowe et al., 2008) to extend its “arts, culture and creativity-led strategy of reinvention” from its “day-centric” focus. In 2009, the NSW Government removed the controversial Place of Public Entertainment (“POPE”) law that restricted entertainment in venues (NSW Department of Planning, 2009). The same year, the City of Sydney Council (CoS) commissioned research into night-time activity in key night-life areas of Sydney. “Hassle free nights” was introduced by the NSW Government in 2010 with a joint focus on alcohol-related problems and urban revitalisation (Gallan, 2014). This period of change planted important seeds for CoS’ new approach to planning for the NTE. This paper discusses that new approach, as outlined in CoS’ report, Open, Future directions for Sydney at night, strategy and action plan 2013–2030, which began development in 2009, and CoS’ (2008b) broader strategic plan Sustainable Sydney 2030: Green/Global/Connected. Since this time there have been several major regulatory changes at the state level impacting upon nightlife in NSW that cannot be detailed here. What was to be a 12-month freeze, from 2009, on the issuing of new liquor licences in certain parts of Sydney (Kings Cross, Oxford St and southern Central Business District (CBD)) has since been extended a number of times and in early 2014, as part of a raft of controversial new measures, was expanded to include most of the CBD (OLGR 2014a). Around Australia, NTE strategies have continued to appear (City of Yarra, 2014; Adelaide City Council, 2015), with policy mobility facilitated through the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (Matthews, 2013 pers. comm. 15 November; CCCLM, 2015).

“Open Sydney” and “Sustainable Sydney 2030” This paper draws from the significant corpus of third-wave literature critiquing NTE planning, par- ticularly in the UK (Talbot, 2006; Roberts & Eldridge, 2009) to contextualise its analysis in Sydney, Australia. In 2009, CoS2, began developing their NTE plan: Open, Future directions for Sydney at night, strategy and action plan 2013–2030 (henceforth referred to as Open). Open was specifically drafted to respond to outcry over the potential impacts of amendments proposed by Sydney’s Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, to CoS’ Late Night Trading Premises Development Control Plan (CoS, 2007; Matthews, 2013 pers. comm. 15 November). The State Liquor Accord and AHA, among others, accused Moore of attempting to “shut the city down by midnight”, prompting over 4000 submissions to CoS (Matthews 2013 pers. comm. 15 November). In attempting to dismantle this message that “had almost saturated the public domain” (Matthews 2013 pers. comm. 15 November), the NTE plan opted for the tagline “open late for everyone” (later condensed into Open). This initial process of policy formation resonates with Hadfield’s (2015) first-wave message of deregulation. Through Open, CoS shifted their publicly-stated approach from “how do we fix alcohol related violence?” to “how can we transform our city at night?” (Matthews 2013 pers. comm. 15 November) – this is more aligned with the creative city narrative. The plan also scaffolded from recent research comparing eight international regulatory models for reducing crime in the NTE (Matthews, 2009). Preceding Open was CoS’ (2008b) strategic plan, Sustainable Sydney 2030: Green/Global/Connected. Evident in 2030 was a distinct neoliberal shift from managerial to entrepreneurial strategic planning, with a high level of private sector input (Harvey, 1989; Hall & Hubbard, 1996; Kornberger & Clegg, 93 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

2011). For example, Kornberger and Clegg (2011, p. 146) revealed how CoS firmly shaped its2030 “Vision” around neoliberal, cultural-economy thinking, with “non-economic concerns defined as a function of economic growth, assuming that a growing economy would result in a culturally diverse, socially inclusive and an environmentally friendly city”. Further, in a letter to key 2030 stakeholders, environmental sustainability, Indigenous heritage and “contemporary creative culture” were framed as components of a competitive economy: Sydney can become one of the world’s leading green cities, making this our point of competitive advantage with other global cities. We can make sure Sydney remains Australia’s global business and cultural centre of excel- lence – our international business and tourism gateway, by celebrating our indigenous heritage and supporting contemporary creative culture. (cited in Kornberger & Clegg, 2011, p. 145) Davidson (2009, p. 607) has detailed how CoS adopted the Brundtland Report’s three-pillar model of environment, economy and society – now an “urban policy normative” – into 2030 and modified into the plan’s tagline, Green/Global/Connected. In 2030 however, the social was “muted” and morphed into the “Connected” thematic, though curiously undefined. “Social sustainability” was dropped entirely. As with many of CoS’ plans3, Open draws its framework from the cultural-economy model embraced in 2030. Amid a plethora of NTE plans globally4, CoS dubbed Open “a world first”. CoS was positioned not as an end user or beneficiary of the outcomes of NTE planning, but as an active participant in formulating (more) mobile policy scripts for replication in global cities elsewhere. They saw it as providing a model for “other global cities [delivering] responses on the NTE” (CoS, 2013a, p. 6). The mobility, and indeed desired replicability, of the neoliberal policy script was a key stated aim for CoS. Peck (2010, p. 224) has criticised such neoliberal-inspired policy-making, which purports that such strategies “manifest in the form of the serial reproduction of an increasingly clichéd repertoire of favoured policy interventions, the value of which is eroded in the very act of their (over)construction”. This paper follows Peck’s position, in that it examines Open’s development through the lens of its nesting and relationship with CoS’ stated development aims, as articulated through 2030. The sub- sequent analysis of Open’s cultural-economy mandate has identified both intended and unintended contradictions of cultural-economy planning (Luckman et al., 2009; Peck, 2010) especially in relation to NTE planning (Talbot, 2006; Roberts & Eldridge, 2009; Shaw, 2010, 2015). To effectively and suc- cinctly narrate this story we focus on one suburb within the CoS – Surry Hills. Surry Hills presents as a formative case study example of the implications of the mobile policy script for one localised area due to a combination of locational and demographic variables. The paper explores NTE planning as an example of neoliberal mobile policy across global “crea- tive cities” by focusing on Open, in the context of Surry Hills. As a local example of an international trend in NTE planning, Open reflects broader attempts to enculturate the nightscapes of global cities (Hadfield, 2015) by spotlighting on culture as an agent to “civilise” the city at night and as a panacea for alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviour. We unpack CoS’ framing of nightlife as congruent with a cultural-economy imperative and focus on how the goals of the plan are often obscured by CoS’ emphasis on economic outcomes and their entrepreneurial mechanisms. The next section of the paper gives a brief overview of the case study area of Surry Hills and outlines the data sources used for this study. Following this are two discussion sections based on the data anal- ysis. The first, on the theme of “cultural-economy: problematising the economic imperative” discusses how through Open, CoS both enacts their entrepreneurial shift and defines what is acceptable con- sumption for a diverse NTE. The second discussion section, on “diversity and the misappropriation of data” interrogates diversity and numerics and public consultation as relating to Open. The concluding section summarises some key discussion points and points to possible implications of this research.

Case Study and Data Box 1 provides an overview of the case study area of Surry Hills. The suburb’s considerable gentrification has lent a particular type of clientele to the NTE (Hae, 2011; DeVerteuil, 2015) yet Surry Hills retains a significant socio-economic demographic mix that necessitates consideration in planning processes. 94 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

Figure 1. Map of the CoS local government area indicating the location of suburbs including Surry Hills. Source: www.cityofsydney. nsw.gov.au.

State liquor licensing reform in the last decade, led by Moore, continues to drive noticeable change in the suburb. Open, also developed under Moore, was informed by many of the same guiding princi- ples that have seen a rapid increase in small bar numbers in Surry Hills, built on the suburb’s dining reputation. Furthermore, the established NTE of Surry Hills has been subject to recent regulatory changes that sought to target Sydney’s CBD. The proximity of Surry Hills to Sydney’s CBD means there are flow-on effects of these regulatory changes particularly in the suburb’s north-west (see Figure 1).

95 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

Box 1.Location and characteristics of Surry Hills, Australia.

Location and size • 120 hectares, south-east of Sydney’s CBD and east of the Central Station (Figure 1). • In the CoS Local Government Area. General and retail characteristics • Key industrial area in early 20th century Sydney. • Known for its “rag trade” that peaked in the 1920s and 1930s. • Post-industrial Surry Hills now characterised by gentrified “Victoriana” terrace housing. • Former factories and warehouses have been converted into loft dwellings and offices, including a large number of “creative industry” firms (CoS, 2012a). • In 2012, 30% of the area’s business mix comprised food, drink and retailing • From 2007 to 2012, 48 new food and drink focused businesses opened (CoS, 2012a). • These usinessesb increasingly appear in areas of Surry Hills independent from the major com- mercial thoroughfares including Crown and Oxford Streets5. Residential characteristics • Population characterised by upwardly mobile residential demographic, including professional singles and double-income couples and a significant gay male population (ABS, 2011). • Nationally highest proportion of Generations X and Y (aged 28–47) at 51% (ABS, 2014). • Declining proportion of owner-occupiers in private housing (a third of national rate). • High number of private rentals; high rental costs put renter housing stress at more than double the national rate, despite higher than average incomes. • Highly transient population, 30% of residents reporting at the same residence as 5 years prior (ABS, 2011). • Significant public housing stock: ° 736 housing authority dwellings (ABS, 2011). ° 600 of these dwellings in Northcott, Australia’s largest public housing estate (Wright & Palmer, 2009) ° The public-housing blocks are outliers in social and economic measurements compared with the rest of the suburb (ABS, 2006). ° In 2009, 95% of Northcott’s residents were on aged or disability pensions (Wright & Palmer, 2009). • Median age of 33 (compared to Australia’s 37) (ABS, 2011); median age in Northcott is 58 (Wright & Palmer, 2009). • 936 out of 6955 dwellings reported no Internet connectivity (ABS, 2011); most of these are in public housing.

Integral to our analysis have been the local government documents produced by CoS that relate to Open. The final “strategy and action plan” for “2013–2030”, Open was released in February 2013, following a Discussion Paper (CoS, 2011c) and Draft plan 2012–2030 (CoS, 2012b). These papers resulted from, and prompted, periods of consultation and other research. Documents analysed in relation to Open included: submissions to and responding to the Discussion Paper and Draft plan (CoS, 2011g, 2012d, 2013b); tran- scripts and summaries of CoS speeches and meetings; and online materials from CoS’ webpages incor- porating talks, workshops and vodcasts. Reports commissioned by CoS informing Open also included: • The Night Time City Policy Consultation Report (CoS, 2011a). • Late Night Management Areas Research Project (CoS, 2011d). • Night Time Economy Management: International Research & Practice (CoS, 2011e). • Cost Benefit Analysis (CoS, 2011f). 96 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

Contextualisation of the above sources occurred through the analysis of relevant sections of 2030 (CoS, 2008b). Additionally, an interview with CoS employee, Suzie Matthews, who led Open’s devel- opment, clarified outstanding questions relating to Open and the implementation of its actions. The semi-structured interview discussed themes of: the development of Open; ties with 2030; proposed “village” plans; barriers to implementation; future research and progress; the role of CoS; drinking cultures; and the interviewee’s background. All sources, except the Matthews’ interview, were publicly available. The selection of sources was determined based on their relationship to CoS’ development of Open and the potential for uncovering relationships between consultation, research and Open itself. After developing a familiarity with these sources, the identification of key areas of concern followed, which related to Open as an example of NTE planning, within a broader policy setting of cultural-economy-based place-making. Themes included: current and future images of the city; the economic imperative of NTE planning, including tourism; consultation and public “wants” that encompassed the Council’s assertions of “doing things right”; “diversity”; business sector collaborations and; drinking cultures and age.

Cultural-economy: Problematising the Economic Imperative Open’s goals (Table 1) are shown here to have been constrained, from the outset, within 2030s cultural-­ economy framework (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011). This mobile framework focused on economic outcomes, assuming social and cultural benefits would follow (Davidson, 2009). Matthews (2013, pers. comm. 15 November) described Open as “like Sustainable Sydney 2030 but by night”. Further, she explained how all five of Open’s goals fitted into 2030’s 10 strategic directions. Discussion of these goals shows how readily cultural-economy planning strategies are shifted across different spaces and indeed temporalities, exhib- iting their intrinsic mobility (Luckman et al., 2009; Bontje & Lawton, 2013). This section problematises the resulting constraints of these mobile policies that fail to directly address important social and cultural elements. As Peck (2010, p. 244) has observed, such strategies “subtly canalise and constrain urban political agency, even as their material payoffs remain extraordinarily elusive”.

Enacting the Entrepreneurial Shift Despite the consultation and research conducted between the initial Open Discussion Paper’s release in October 2011 (CoS, 2011c) and the final plan’s in February 2013 (CoS, 2013a), the latter four of Open’s five goals closely resemble the four goals proposed in the former document, with “safe” added to the “inviting” goal (Table 1). As seen in Table 1, the only entirely new goal, “Global Sydney”, ties directly to the economic thematic of 2030’s Green/Global/Connected, as too does the “Connected Sydney” goal tie to the muted “social” thematic (Davidson, 2009).

Table 1. Directions/Vision/Goals for 2030, Open Discussion Paper and final Open plan.

Sustainable Sydney 2030: The Vision. Green/ Discussion paper: Open Sydney Open Sydney: strategy and Global/Connected action plan 10 strategic directions Possible vision for Sydney at night 5 goals 1. a globally competitive and innovative City 1. Connected 1. a global Sydney 2. a leading environmental performer 2. Diverse 2. a connected Sydney 3. integrated transport for a connected City 3. Inviting 3. a diverse Sydney 4. a lively, engaging City centre 4. Responsive 4. an inviting and safe Sydney 5. Vibrant local communities and economies 5. a responsive Sydney 6. a cultural and creative City 7. Housing for a diverse population 8. Sustainable development, renewal and design 9. Iimplementation through effective partnerships Source: CoS (2008a, 2011a, 2013a). 97 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

Despite the economic discourse framing all of Open, the addition of Goal 1 – “Global Sydney” – into the final plan, cements its cultural-economy agenda. Notions of global competitiveness are front and centre in “Global Sydney”, with the key objective for Sydney to “transform … into a world-leading night-time city” (CoS, 2013a, p. 7). Such notions of competitiveness are asserted by creative cities pro- ponents such as Florida (2002) and Landry (2000) and are similarly embedded within 2030. Indeed, both Florida and Landry have spoken in Sydney as part of their global “celebrity circuits” (Gibson & Klocker, 2004), the latter presenting one of CoS’ “City Talks” (CoS, 2011b). Within the “Global Sydney” goal, CoS has proposed a “Night Cities Global Index” to “rank cities globally on the performance of their night-time economies”; their aim is for Sydney “to be in the top three” (CoS, 2013a, p. 6). This index is an example of mobile policy-making, symptomatic of a broader trend in global city compet- itiveness that has seen a proliferation of ranking systems appear with a focus on cities’ comparative elements (Bontje & Lawton, 2013). Such ranking systems are reflective of the entrepreneurial shift enacted by neoliberal governance, which spawn further policy mobility to meet specific aspatial targets. While Open’s second goal – “Connected Sydney” – might invoke the notion of improved socia- bility and social connectedness, its focus is rather different. In 2030, the “Connected” goal sought to encourage “community life” and a “sense of belonging”, with a vision for a “City [that] will be diverse and inclusive” (CoS, 2008b, p. 7). Open’s “Connected Sydney” goal has two main points – “connected transport”, and “connected business, events and visitors”, the latter focusing on the visitor experience, to make both tourists and businesses more aware of each other: Sydney is only beginning to connect business to the numerous events … The result of connecting people to a full range of “packaging experiences” or cultural tourism creates what Myerscough (1988) calls a “multiplier effects”, where a visit to one venue (i.e. a theatre) can result in a visit to many. Done well, Sydney’s night-time offering could be a drawcard for domestic and international tourism, and will provide many opportunities for economic growth and benefit (CoS, 2013a, p. 10). A focus on commercial interests in the city is further evidenced in Open’s consultation process. CoS promoted their consultation process for Open as being commensurate with public wants (see “Public Consultation” section). However, Open’s consultation comprised significant inputs from commercial interests, including representatives of various entertainment firms and venues, and media, tourism, retail and liquor groups, all of who partook in closed consultation forums titled: “Industry Innovators”, “Sector Roundtable”, “Key Stakeholder Forum”. Justin Hemmes, CEO of hospitality group Merivale, participated in the “Key Stakeholder Forum” as well as being guest speaker at two “City Conversations” (CoS, 2012c, 2012e). Merivale has a growing portfolio of more than 50 restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels and function spaces in Sydney’ (Merivale, 2014)6. Merivale’s access to CoS’ processes at this level, stresses the entrepreneurial geist influencing their consultation processes. The incorporation of busi- ness interests into the consultation process alongside the economic imperative written into the final plan through the inclusion of goals such as “Global Sydney” is indicative of the entrepreneurial shift associated with increasingly neoliberal governance (Harvey, 1989; Hall & Hubbard, 1996).

Defining Acceptable Consumption for a Diverse NTE The fourth goal of Open, “Inviting and Safe Sydney”, (re)articulates the plan’s cultural-economy-based assumption positioning a shift in the economic landscape as potentially “improving” urban subjec- tivities in the CoS and fostering more acceptable modes of consumption. A forecast aspiration of this goal is for Sydney, in 2030, to have “40% of people using the city at night will be aged over 40” (CoS, 2013a, p. 20). This goal is contingent on the assumption that existing levels of anti-social behaviour emanate from young people 18–29 years of age. There appears to be an underlying attempt to link problematic drinking cultures in Sydney with the presence of young people – what has been called “an analytical myopia” (Chatteron, 2002; Bavinton, 2010, p. 240). Framed as problematic, drinking culture is not discussed as a public health concern, but rather a “reputational” one that poses a risk to visitor numbers as outlined in Open:

98 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

Sydney’s current drinking culture and the associated anti-social behaviour is an issue and left unchecked will continue to exclude many from the night-time economy and present a reputational risk. Sydney’s current night- time economy consumers are overwhelmingly young, with 77 per cent aged 18–29. (CoS, 2013a, p. 19) The stated figure of 77% of consumers being 18–29 years of age misrepresents the type of consumer, as well as the time and location of consumption. This figure, reported in the Late Night Management Areas Report (CoS, 2011d), includes in its sample only passers-by in key late-night areas of the CBD South, Oxford Street and Kings Cross, after 11 pm and only on Friday and Saturday nights. The time and location skew data towards younger demographics more likely in those areas and out at that late night-time period on those nights and conflates the limited sampling location with the whole CoS. The economic imperative of framing problematic drinking culture as the remit of younger patrons is identifiable in Open’s “Diverse Sydney” goal (CoS, 2013a, p. 12). Open’s objective to “improve drinking culture” is contingent on the growing NTE and takes into account that “a healthy aging population also presents opportunities for businesses to provide additional choices” (CoS, 2013a, p. 12). Further, Shaw (2014, p. 90) has noted, “even where city authorities might have desired diverse ‘night-time economies’, in practice it was the alcohol and leisure industry which was best placed to take up the … opportunities that were available’. Open’s cultural-economy framing positions the over 40s demo- graphic – commensurate with the “creative class” – as partaking in more acceptable drinking practices and as capable of facilitating a “improved” drinking culture. Select business types are also integral components of “improvements” to drinking culture. In Open, CoS specified optimal businesses types including retailing and small bars; they also stated that they would assist such businesses to morph from day-time to NTE spaces. Establishing “diverse options” in retailing was positioned as facilitating a more inclusive CoS, from which the economic gains of “diverse” night-time retailing would expedite social and cultural benefits: Increased evening options will benefit local businesses and Sydney’s economy. Importantly, more diverse options can create a more inclusive night-time city, improving safety and reducing levels of crime (CoS, 2013a, p. 13). The mobility of NTE policy in reference to diverse retailing relates explicitly to (re)construction, composition and perceived appropriateness of the retail outlets and drinking establishments in the streetscape. This echoes what Hadfield (2011, p. 111) concluded would encourage “livelier and more prosperous” spaces after dark, a planning approach that continues to draw from the NTE proponents of the early 1990s (Kreitzman 1999). The focus on changing the consumer landscape by aligning it with what CoS sees as acceptable modes of nightlife adds weight to Bavinton’s (2010, p. 247) conten- tion that “the public and ‘civic’ spaces of the city are increasingly forfeited to commercial interests”. Potential outcomes of this forfeiture, and of concomitant policies underscored by a cultural-econ- omy framework, are the encouraging of gentrification and creation of leisurescapes of “sameness” for the creative class (Hobbs et al., 2005; Young et al., 2006; Talbot, 2011; Hae, 2011b). For example, in Sydney, Justin Hemmes’ Merivale establishments have long been criticised for gentrifying Sydney and “promoting soulless yuppie culture” (Boys, 2015). More broadly, Bavinton (2010, p. 247) has argued that such landscapes “exclude many not willing or capable of engaging in modes of leisure interpreted primarily as middle-class consumption”. A prominent component of CoS’ vision for Sydney’s NTE is small bars because they fall within the ambit of acceptability, both in terms of the type of commercial premise and the presumed drinking culture therein (McNeill, 2011). CoS frames small bars as “quirky”, “boutique” (CoS, 2008a, p. 176) and as frequently associated with “opportunities for live music” and “continued conversations” (CoS, 2013c), which “add depth and sophistication to the City Centre’s hospitality scene” (Moore, 2013). This framing is in stark contrast to larger venues, or “pubs” that are frequently referred to as “beer barns” (CoS, 2012d), characterised by “blaring sports screens” (Moore, 2013) and as “unsophisticated” (CoS, 2008a, p. 176). This dualism – of small bars and pubs – poses a binary rhetoric of “civilised” and germane to the ideals of inclusion and diversity endorsed in Open and “uncivilised”, and thus undesirable components of the NTE. For example, in a survey posted on CoS’ online forum “Sydney Your Say”, this binary was articulated in the following question: “Rank the importance of ensuring

99 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski that there is a diversity of late night venues in each precinct – rather than, say 10 ‘beer barns’ side by side in Kings Cross7” (CoS, 2012d, p. 21). Open defines acceptable consumption practices for Sydney’s NTE by expressing preferences for specific demographic diversity targets and optimal business types. In the cultural-economy led framing of appropriate consumer behaviours, the term “diversity” does not adhere to a normative understand- ing of the term – that of social and cultural difference. In the next section, the theme of diversity in Open is further explored.

Diversity and the Misappropriation of Data Goal 3 of Open’s five goals is “A Diverse Sydney”. Our critique of this specific goal focuses on the use of the terms “diverse” and “diversity”, mentioned no less than 41 times throughout Open. Our concern relates to what we see as the conflation of the normative meaning of these two words “diverse” and “diversity” – that relate to social and cultural difference – towards economic-led objectives. We con- tend that on face value the promoting of the ideal of diversity through the document projects a false façade of inclusive representation of all social and culturally diverse groups who may use the NTE in Sydney. However, there is no definition of the term “diversity” in CoS’ planning documents or in Open. Thus, in this section we problematise the usage of “diversity” throughout the plan in two key ways. First, drawing on Kornberger and Clegg’s (2011, p. 153) discussion of the “aesthetics of numbers”, we argue that there are instances where figures are used either incorrectly or without substantiation in attempts to add legitimacy to Open’s economic-led “diversity” objectives. Second, we critique Open’s public consultation process as ill-reflective of CoS’ stated diversity goals.

Diversity and Numerics An “aesthetic of numbers” involves the insertion of numerics to policy documents to bolster their legitimacy (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011, p. 153). In Open, numerics have been incorrectly integrated from contributing documents to justify specifically economic aspects of the plan. The previous dis- cussion of retailing in the plan evinces this point. Clearly aligned with global competitiveness goals, and framed as “economic diversity”, more opportunities for shopping after 6 pm is a key aim in Open’s “Diverse Sydney”. Justification for this objective is provided by CoS: Opportunities for shopping [after 6 pm] are especially sparse and this is reflected in transport data, with only 9.7 per cent of all weekday trips from 6 pm to 6 am for shopping. Conversely, shopping represents 90.3 per cent of all trips in the city between 6 am and 6 pm. (CoS, 2013a, p. 12) Drawn from the Cost Benefit Analysis (CoS, 2011f), this data is used to provide “a sense of precision and accountability” (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011, p. 153) – an assertion that CoS has considered the quantities of shoppers. However, the data does not tell a complete story. It does not represent shopping as a proportion of all weekday trips in the given time frames, as it states, but rather the proportion of surveyed shopping trips conducted within the CoS during those specific time frames. This misrep- resentation of data characterises an attempt to legitimise a focus on expanding retailing at night – an economic growth objective of Open – as after 6 pm many people shopping would be those already in the area for work or other activities, while those shopping during regular working hours would be less likely to fit such a description. In a similar vein and as previously discussed, Open’s most significant consideration of demographic diversity is its goal for more participation from “over 40s” in the CoSs NTE. As we have shown this objective draws on distorted figures (see section: “Defining acceptable consumption for a diverse NTE”). Under each of the five goals in the final Open document is a short list of what the future image of Sydney would look like with the goal’s actions fulfilled. While many of these claims are tied to actions that have fairly direct and predictable consequences, others have far more tenuous links to the table of 246 actions in section five of the plan. Many of these imagined images of Sydney – in the year

100 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

Figure 2. CoS’ image of “Diverse Sydney” in 2030 with Open’s actions fulfilled. Source: CoS (2013a, p. 16).

2030 – make claims that either generalise or are based on predictions difficult to substantiate, a problem echoed in Kornberger and Clegg’s (2011) examination of the proliferation of targets listed in 2030. Figure (2), for instance, outlines the future image for “Diverse Sydney”, which includes three numeric assertions in the predominantly economic intended outcomes. By providing numerical evidence of potential NTE consumers and providing long lists of intended actions, the plan fashioned an aesthetic imagery of diversity in the City at night, that on first glance was well researched and supported by statistics. On further examination however, these numbers find no justification in either the actions table or Open’s supporting documents. As we detail in the next section, diversity – or lack thereof – was also a key focus in the public consultation for the plan.

Public Consultation In this section we focus on how “diversity” has been explicated through the public consultation pro- cess of Open. This critique involves examining the barriers to participation in the public consultation and how the diversity of public opinion that was uncovered during consultation was muted in Open. We direct our gaze towards consultation because CoS’ stated aim of consultation design was: to be “wide-ranging … to engage participants across a range of demographics right across the City and beyond” (CoS, 2011a, p. 4). Further, they strongly promoted their consultative process as compre- hensive and thorough: “we believe the scale of our evidence-based research and public consultation about NTE is a world first” (CoS,2013a , p. 6). Such thematic repetition creates a “regime of truth” (cf. Foucault, 1980) about CoS’ consultation process with Open repeatedly focusing on “what do people want” and what “people told us they wanted”. Further, in Moore’s mayoral message in Open, consul- tation is explicitly declared as an integral component of the document: “this strategy and action plan is based on a wide consultation on what people wanted for their city after dark” (CoS, 2013a, p. 1). There were four main channels through which public contributions for Open were sought: (i) traditional paper submissions; (ii) the “Sydney Your Say” online forum; (iii) five community forums held throughout the CoS; and (iv) a “street outreach” three-question interview in key nightlife areas. Of the 25 paper submissions to the Draft Open paper, 12 represented residents, with only two from residents in Surry Hills. The remaining 13 submissions were from government, industry and business representatives (and one taxi driver) – most were participants in the various forums held to inform Open, including various State government departments, Clubs NSW and the Tourism and Transport Forum (CoS, 2013b). Established by CoS, the online forum – Sydney Your Say – sought community engagement and responses to proposals in Open. This forum received the largest proportion of public input of all the consultation forums, likely due to its online platform and allowing for anonymity. Access issues however, are important to the desired broad spectrum of the “public” being able to respond via the Internet. As mentioned, Surry Hills is characterised by diversity of socio-economic statuses. One

101 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

relevant variable is access to Internet connectivity. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2006) data8 shows there was a vast difference in Broadband connectivity between Surry Hills’ public and private housing. The Census Collection District (CD) with the fewest dwellings connected had only 6.7%, while the highest had 54.3% of dwellings connected. The two CD’s with the lowest levels of connectivity were both public housing areas. The significant disparities in Broadband connectivity accompanied with the socio-economic and age characteristics of Surry Hills’ public housing tenants (ABS, 2006) are likely to be prohibitive to them accessing and responding via the online forum. Although it could reasonably be assumed that most residents would have been able to access the Internet somewhere other than their residence (the public library or workplaces, for instance), and it is not possible to pinpoint where submissions of Sydney Your Say originated, the disparities outlined above have potentially significant outcomes for consultation, and were not addressed in any targeted way by CoS. Attendance at the five community meetings was exceptionally low, with one meeting having only five attendees. Eighteen people attended the meeting in Surry Hills where, like all such meetings, reg- istration in advance was required to attend – a seemingly unnecessary barrier to participation. At this meeting, concern was voiced on the growing NTE, particularly in relation to the economic focus of CoS’ changes. These concerns included: the impacts of new small bars on resident amenity, the poten- tial for “high-end” dining to drive out “locals”; and the impact of the NTE on local daytime services. The final component of consultation, “street outreach”, sought to ask passers-by three questions: “What do you like about Sydney at night?”, “What would make you come to the city more often?” and “What should be improved?” Eight “street outreach” sessions were held in CoS’ “key nightlife areas” in the CBD, Darlinghurst, Redfern, The Rocks, Surry Hills, Newtown, Bondi and Glebe, garnering 333 responses. In Surry Hills, the “outreach” occurred on a Saturday night, most likely surveying consumers active in the suburb’s NTE. For Surry Hills at least, this would have procured a targeted (and limited) sample of consumers with a greater potential to justify the economic goals of Open. Examination of public input from Surry Hills into Open’s consultation process indicates that a broad demographic has not been consulted. This limitation brings into question Open’s numerous claims to be based on “public wants”. What, or whose, “public” is represented in Open? CoS’ repeated rhetoric that Open was reflective of the “public wants” can be problematised further. Despite the limits to the public consultation as described above, the diversity of views that were gar- nered in the process were subdued into alignment for Open. There is a clear discord between what CoS espouses are the views of those with “a range of demographics right across the City and beyond” (CoS, 2011a, p. 4), and the far more differentiated views of the, albeit limited, “public” that was consulted. For example, notwithstanding the low attendance at the Surry Hills meeting, a divergence of opinions presented there was evidenced in the meeting’s summary in CoS’ commissioned consultation report (CoS, 2011a, p. 61): Surry Hills is an area in transition, with a community that does not share a common vision of the future. While some participants were enthusiastic about the new small bars in the area, others were concerned about resident impacts. Participants were concerned that the increasing number of high-end restaurants might drive out beloved “locals”, and that the growing night time economy might adversely affect the local services that currently form part of the daytime economy. Transport, anti-social behaviour and diversity were key issues. As shown, the report identified small bars as an issue around which there was a divergence of public opinions, with some residents noting their concerns about the impacts of these changes. Nonetheless, CoS included “our growing small bar scene and dining culture” in their list of what the public said it was “getting right” during the consultation, clearly misrepresenting their own commissioned evidence. This list also included CoS’ “our use of consultation to guide [the] policy development” (CoS, 2013a, p. 3). The summary from the Surry Hills meeting above is unspecific in its meaning of “diversity” as a “key issue”. Even taking into account the limits on public consultation, Open did not respond to the diversity of concerns expressed by this one small consultation group. In contrast, the economic orientation of Open, discussed in the previous section, sees it better attempt to adhere to commercial interests. In this section, a number of instances have been highlighted to show the incorrect use of numbers in Open to add legitimacy to the, often unsubstantiated, economic targets of the plan. This section also 102 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH revealed the discords between Open’s imagined and actual public consultation through examining how consultation played out in Surry Hills. Barriers to participation and the subduing of diverse concerns into a unified voice that adhered to Open’s cultural-economy framework highly problematise Open’s repeated claims to reflect the public’s “wants”.

Conclusion This paper has used CoS’ NTE strategy and action plan, Open, as a lens to focus attention on the neoliberal co-opting of NTE policy. This paper’s engagement with the thematics of “power relations, social exclusion and social sustainability” firmly places it within Hadfield’s (2015, p. 2) third wave of literature on NTE. Situating our critique of NTE policy within the global CoS, we examine how policy development and policy outcomes draw from and are geared towards policy mobility among global cities, operating within the creative cities framework. CoS (2013a) expounded Open as a unique and substantial contribution to global policy on NTE, premised on its potential mobility to other global cities and its aspirations of implementing, and prominently featuring on, a “Night Cities Global Index”. These two neoliberal inspired objectives were pivotal features of Open’s “Global Sydney” goal and are emblematic of an entrepreneurial shift in urban governance, where economic outcomes are necessitated and local specificities are overridden by aspatial planning strategies. In our case study, policy mobility was evident within Sydney, from its overall “vision” for 2030 to the specifically night-time Open; 2030’s cultural-economy-based assumption that “a growing economy would result in a culturally diverse, socially inclusive … city” (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011, p. 146) has been relayed into Open. The entrepreneurial shift in urban policy planning manifests overtly in Open. A key indicator of this shift was the adoption of the “Global Sydney” goal into the final Open Sydney: strategy and action plan. The framing of global Sydney draws heavily from the creative city-inspired rhetoric of Landry (2000) and Florida (2002) and has policy implications both for the types of built and material landscapes envisaged in creative cities – small bars over pubs, for example – but also the ideal types of clientele for the NTE. The preference given to commercial interests and prominent players in the hospitality industry, such as Hemmes, in the consultation process evinces a prioritisation of businesses and the economic benefits of developing the NTE in Sydney. This partiality for commercial-led influence extended to the “Connected Sydney” goal. Rather than being associated with social connectivity, this goal interrogated the potential for connected transport and business options with the purpose of securing the highest possible economic dividends for the NTE. A predilection for the economic, led by business interests, was also identified in the analysis of the employment of the term “diversity” especially in public consultation. This consultation process had notable barriers to achieving diversity in participation, and drew similarities to that of 2030, undertaken predominantly to complement preordained goals and to mobilise the public into alignment with those goals (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011). The socio-economic diversity in the Surry Hills example shows that there are clearly flaws in assuming the mobile potential of a NTE script even between different areas of one city. While evident in examples of identifying an entrepreneurial shift in policy-making in Open, the economic imperatives inherent in this case of NTE policy manifest in the explicit desire to engage the creative class. Underlying the plan’s fourth goal “Inviting and Safe Sydney” was a cultural-econo- my-based discourse concerning the specification of acceptable consumption practices. The economic imperative within this part of the policy relates to how the implementation of a civilised drinking culture may be installed in Sydney’s NTE and its problematic drinking culture remedied. Instead of positioning the latter as a problem of social and public concern, attention is directed towards creating civilised establishments, such as small bars and encouraging clientele commensurate with creative class credentials to frequent these locations. Yet, some participants in the community meeting held Surry Hills raised concerns about the potential for small bars to accelerate gentrification in the suburb; these discordant views indicated a diversity of opinion not considered in the final report. To bolster their position on these “acceptable” establishments and the ill effects of problematic drinking cultures, CoS relied on numerical evidence shown here to be clearly misappropriated from its research context. 103 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

Open was drafted at a time when many of the (more deleterious) outcomes of first and second wave NTE planning and policies – and literature associated with them – were already apparent. Nonetheless, there are still significant oversights in Open clarified in literature critiquing the first two waves. We argue that these missteps pertain to a growing reliance on a neoliberal, creative city policy script across global cities with tangential concern for explications of place specificity. This fervour for the creation and adoption of hyper-mobile and economic-driven urban policy appears to override more thought- out engagements with third wave planning processes and literatures.

Notes 1. Independent (not party-aligned) Clover Moore has been Lord Mayor of Sydney since 2004. She was also State Member of Parliament representing the Sydney electorate (2007–2012 and former “Bligh” electorate from 1988 to 2007). Moore’s challenging relationship with the NSW Liberal (conservative) Government is well known (McNeill, 2011). 2. In the authors’ words, the local government is referred to as “CoS” throughout the paper while the area itself, under CoS’ jurisdiction is referred to as the CoS. Quotations of CoS’ refer to their jurisdiction’s area as “Sydney”, for example in the five goals of Open, while in the authors’ words “Sydney” will refer to the broader metropolitan area. CoS, of which Surry Hills has been a part since 2003, operates under the jurisdiction of the NSW State Government. 3. These include “Creative City, cultural policy and action plan 2014–2024” and the “Visitor Accommodation Action Plan”. Others are underway. 4. These plans include the City of Melbourne’s Policy for the 24 h City; plans in Nairobi, Seattle, Pittsburgh, London and countless others throughout the UK (see Roberts & Eldridge, 2009). 5. This data is based on CoS’ Floor Space and Employment Survey for the “Crown and Baptist Streets Village” area which includes the majority of the suburb of Surry Hills and parts of Redfern and Moore Park (CoS, 2012a, p. 1) 6. The Ivy opened in December 2007 and first appeared on the NSW Government’s most violent venue list at the end of 2009. Since mid-2012, the Ivy has remained in the Level 1 category of violent venues, being the only venue under the Level 1 restrictions since mid-2013 (OLGR, 2014b). 7. Kings Cross being a late-night area often associated with anti-social behaviours. 8. The ABS does otn provide data by Census Collection District for the latest Census in 2011. While Internet connection overall has understandably increased in the suburb between these Censuses, it is reasonable to assume that the broad trend identified here still stands.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID Peta Wolifson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9440-7877 Danielle Drozdzewski http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6802-0540

References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2006) Broadband Connection, Census Collection Districts 1401110 & 1401209, February 2008, Cat. No. 2001.1 (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics). Available at https://www.abs.gov.au (accessed 10 December 2013). ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2011) Basic Community Profile, Surry Hills (SSC12182), March 2013, Cat. No. 2001.0 (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics). Available at https://www.abs.gov.au. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2014) Media Release: Where are Australia’s Baby Boomers, Gen X & Y and the iGeneration in 2014? August 2015, Cat. No. 3235.0 (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics). Available at https:// www.abs.gov.au. Adelaide City Council (2015) Good Evening, Adelaide Resources, June 2015. Available at http://www.adelaidecitycouncil. com/your-council/strategic-corporate-planning/good-evening-adelaide-resources/ (accessed 30 December 2015). Bavinton, N. (2010) Putting leisure to work: city image and representations of nightlife, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2(3), pp. 236–250. Bayliss, D. (2007) The rise of the creative city: culture and creativity in copenhagen, European Planning Studies, 15(7), pp. 889–903.

104 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

Beer, C. (2011) Centres that never sleep? Planning for the night-time economy within the commercial centres of Australian cities, Australian Planner, 48(3), pp. 141–147. Bianchini, F. (1990) The crisis of urban public social life in Britain: origins of the problem and possible responses, Planning Practice and Research, 5, pp. 4–8. Bianchini, F. (1995) Night cultures, night economies, Planning Practice and Research, 10(2), pp. 121–126. Bianchini, F., Fisher, M., Montgomery, J. & Worpole, K. (1988) City Centres, City Cultures: The Role of the Arts in Urban Revitalisation (Manchester, NH: CLES). Bontje, M. & Lawton, P. (2013) Mobile policies and shifting contexts: city-regional competitiveness strategies in Amsterdam and Dublin, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 104(4), pp. 397–409. Boys, C. (2015) Merivale raises the bar, The Sydney Morning Herald, Good Food, pp. 10. CCCLM (Council of Capital City Lord Mayors) (2015) Council of Capital City Lord Mayors. Available at http://lordmayors. org/ (accessed 30 December 2015). Chatterton, P. (2002) Governing nightlife: profit, fun and (dis) order in the contemporary city, Entertainment Law, 1(2), pp. 23–49. Chatterton, P. & Hollands, R. (2002) Theorising urban playscapes: producing, regulating and consuming youthful nightlife city spaces, Urban Studies, 39(1), pp. 95–116. City of London (2012) Night Time Economy. Available at https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/health-and-wellbeing/ drugs-and-alcohol/london-drug-and-alcohol-policy-forum/Pages/night-time-economy.aspx (accessed 30 December 2015). City of Yarra (2014) Night Time Economy Strategy, 2014–2018. Available at http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/services/ Community-Planning/the-night-time-economy-in-yarra/ (accessed 30 December 2015). CoS (City of Sydney) (2007) Late Night Trading Premises Development Control Plan (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/119508/LateNightTradingDCP2007.pdf (accessed 20 October 2014). CoS (City of Sydney) (2008a) Sustainable Sydney 2030, Support Document, Strategic Direction 5, a Lively, Engaging City Centre (City of Sydney). Available at http://cdn.sydney2030.com.au/documents/supportdocument/Dircetion5Alivelyengagingcitycentre. pdf (accessed 8 December 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2008b) Sustainable Sydney 2030, the Vision (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.sydney2030. com.au/vision-in-2030/resources (accessed 20 October 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2011a) City of Sydney, Night Time City Policy Consultation Report, Prepared by Kathy Jones and Associates Strategic Communications and Project Management (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney. nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy (accessed 27 April 2012). CoS (City of Sydney) (2011b) City Talks 2011—The Art of City Making: How Imagination and Creativity Play their Part, Presented by Charles Landry, November 2011 (City of Sydney You Tube channel, City Talks). Available at http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9EgVli5WZ8&list=PL19DA33BD8D14D25B&index=3? (accessed 8 December 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2011c) Discussion Paper: OPEN Sydney, Future Directions for Sydney at Night (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy (accessed 27 April 2012). CoS (City of Sydney) (2011d) Late Night Management Areas Research Project, Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time- economy (accessed 27 April 2012). CoS (City of Sydney) (2011e) Night-time Economy Management: International Research and Practice, a Review for the City of Sydney, Prepared by P Hadfield (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/ city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy (accessed April 2012). CoS (City of Sydney) (2011f) Sydney Night Time Economy: Cost Benefit Analysis, a Report for the City of Sydney Council, Prepared by T Bevan, TBR & A Turnham, MAKE Associates in Partnership with M Lester, Long View Partners & Philip Hadfield Consulting (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/ sydney-at-night/night-time-economy (accessed 27 April 2012). CoS (City of Sydney) (2011g) Sydney Your Say, Archive—Community Consultation at the City of Sydney, Night Time Economy, OPEN, Open Late for Everyone, Time to have Your Say, Forum (City of Sydney). Available at http://archive. sydneyyoursay.com.au/nighteconomy?module=forum#tool (accessed 22 November 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2012a) Crown and Baptist Streets Village Summary Report, City of Sydney Floor Space and Employment Survey (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/learn/research-and-statistics/ surveying-our-community/floor-space-and-employment-survey/2012-fes-overview-and-summary-reports (accessed 17 December 2015). CoS (City of Sydney) (2012b) OPEN Future Directions for Sydney at Night, Draft Strategy and Action Plan (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time- economy (accessed 5 December 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2012c) Recipes for Change, How Food is Changing the Cultural and Community Life of Cities, Panel Discussion, 13 November 2012, City Talks, Videos and Podcasts (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney. nsw.gov.au/council/news-and-updates/videos-podcasts/city-talks/recipes-for-change (accessed 8 December 2013). 105 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

CoS (City of Sydney) (2012d) Summary of Online Submissions for OPEN Sydney Discussion Paper, Cultural and Community Services Committee Meeting, 18 June 2012, Item 8: OPEN Sydney: Draft Strategy and Action Plan—Public Exhibition, Attachment C (City of Sydney). Available at http://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/aboutcouncil/meetings/ documents/meetings/2012/Committee/Cultural/180612/120618_CCSC_ITEM08_ATTACHMENTC.PDF (accessed 8 December 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2012e) What’s On, City Conversations 2012, the Big Decision, How to Fix Sydney’s Transport, 19 November 2012 (City of Sydney). Available at http://whatson.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/events/16043-cityconversations- 2012-the-big-decision-how-to-fix-sydney-s-transport (accessed 8 December 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2013a) OPEN Future Directions for Sydney at Night, Strategy and Action Plan (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy (accessed 28 June 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2013b) Summary of Submissions to OPEN Sydney Draft Strategy and Action Plan, Cultural and Community Committee, Cultural Sub-committee Meeting, 18 February 2013, Item 2: Open Sydney Strategy and Action Plan, Attachment A (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0017/130436/130218_CCC_ITEM02_ATTACHMENTA.PDF (accessed10 December 2013). CoS (City of Sydney) (2013c) Sydney 2030/Green/Global/Connected, You Gave Us the Vision, Business in 2030, Global business, Fine Grains and Big Ideas (City of Sydney). Available at http://www.sydney2030.com.au/business-in-2030/ globalbusiness/fine-grains-and-big-ideas (accessed 8 December 2013). Davidson, M. (2009) Social sustainability: a potential for politics? Local Environment, 14(7), pp. 601–619. Department of Health (2013) National Binge Drinking Stategy, Australian Government, 22 January 2013. Available at http://www.alcohol.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/content/cli (accessed 30 December 2015). DeVerteuil, G. (2015) Resilience in the Post-welfare Inner City (Bristol: Policy Press). Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class (New York, NY: Basic Books). Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–177 (Brighton: Harvester). Gallan, B. (2014) Becoming crepuscular: rethinking the human relationship to day and night, PhD diss., University of Wollongong. Available at http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4187/ (accessed 12 April 2015). Gallan, B. (2015) Night lives: heterotopia, youth transitions and cultural infrastructure in the urban night, Urban Studies, 52(3), pp. 555–570. Gibson, C. & Klocker, N. (2004) Academic publishing as ‘creative’ industry, and recent discourses of ‘creative economies’: some critical reflections, Area, 36(4), pp. 423–434. Hadfield, P. (2011) Night-time Economy Management, International Research and Practice, a Review for the City of Sydney (Leeds: City of Sydney). Available at www.philhadfield.co.uk. Hadfield, P. (2015) The night-time city. Four modes of exclusion: reflections on the urban studies special collection, Urban Studies, 52(3), pp. 606–616. Hadfield, P., Lister, S., Hobbs, D. & Winlow, S. (2001) The ‘24-Hour City’ – condition critical?, Town and Country Planning, 70(11), pp. 300–302. Hae, L. (2011a) Dilemmas of the nightlife fix: post-industrialisation and the gentrification of nightlife in New York city, Urban Studies, 48(16), pp. 3449–3465. Hae, L. (2011b) Gentrification and politicization of nightlife in New York city.ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 11 (3), pp. 564–584. Hae, L. (2012) The Gentrification of Nightlife and the Right to the City: Regulating Spaces of Social Dancing in New York (New York, NY: Routledge). Hall, T. & Hubbard, P. (1996) The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies?, Progress in Human Geography, 20(2), pp. 153–174. Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), pp. 3–17. Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S. & Winlow, S. (2003) Bouncers, Violence and Governance in the Night-time Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hobbs, D., Winlow, S., Hadfield, P. & Lister, S. (2005) Violent hypocrisy: governance and the night-time economy, European Journal of Criminology, 2(2), pp. 161–183. Hubbard, P. (2005) The geographies of ‘going out’: emotion and embodiment in the evening economy, in: J. Davidson, L. Bondi & M. Smith (Eds) Emotional Geographies, 1st edn, pp. 117–134 (Aldershot: Ashgate). Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House). Kornberger, M. & Clegg, S. (2011) Strategy as performative practice: the case of Sydney 2030, Strategic Organization, 9(2), pp. 136–162. Kreitzman, L. (1999) The 24-Hour Society (London: Profile). Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City, a Toolkit for Urban Innovators (London: Earthscan). Leeds City Council (2010) Leeds City Centre Evening and Night Time Economy Strategy. Available at http://democracy. leeds.gov.uk/documents/s58817/City%20Centre%20rpt%20Appendix%201%2011%208%20version.pdf (accessed 30 December 2015).

106 UrbaN PoliCy aND rESEarCH

Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Luckman, S., Gibson, C. & Lea, T. (2009) Mosquitoes in the mix: how transferable is creative city thinking? Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 30(1), pp. 70–85. Mackay, L. (2005) VIVACITY 2020, the Night-time Economy in the UK, the Literature (London: Secure Urban Environments by Design). Matthews, S. (2009) To compare regulatory and planning models which reduce crime in the night time economy, report by Suzie Matthews 2009 Churchill fellow, The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia. McNeill, D. (2011) Fine grain, global city: Jan Gehl, public space and commercial culture in central Sydney, Journal of Urban Design, 16(2), pp. 161–178. Merivale (2014) Merivale, About Us (Merivale). Available at http://merivale.com.au/aboutus (accessed 20 November 2013). Montgomery, J. (1994) The evening economy of cities, Town and Country Planning, 63, pp. 302–307. Montgomery, J. (1995) The story of Temple Bar: creating Dublin’s cultural quarter, Planning Practice and Research, 10(2), pp. 135–172. Montgomery, J. (2007) The New Wealth of Cities, City Dynamics and the Fifth Wave (Aldershot: Ashgate). Moore, C. (2013) Arts & Culture, a Flourishing Cultural Life Enriches Our City and Community (Clover Moore). Available at http://www.clovermoore.com.au/workingfor-sydney/issues/arts-culture/ (accessed 8 December 2013). Myerscough, J. (1988) The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain (London: Policy Studies Institute). Newcastle City Council (2015) Launch of Newcastle Darker Nights Campaign. Available at http://www.newcastle.gov. uk/news-story/launch-newcatle-darker-nights-campaign (accessed 30 December 2015). NSW Department of Planning (2009) Bringing Back the Music, Community Brochure. Available at http://d.planning.nsw. gov.au/Portals/0/planningsystem/pdf/Community_brochure%20final.pdf (accessed 30 December 2015). Ocejo, R. (2009) City nights: the political economy of postindustrial urban nightlife, PhD diss., City University of New York, Ann Arbor, MI. OLGR (Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing) (2014a) Liquor Licence Freeze, NSW Government, 25 March. Available at http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/liquor_licence_freeze.asp (accessed 30 December 2015). OLGR (Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing) (2014b) State’s Most Violent Venues Named, NSW Government, 29 November. Available at http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/media_releases/rel_souris_131129_violent_venues_list-round-10.pdf (accessed 8 December 2013). Peck, J. (2010) Constructions of Neoliberal Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Roberts, M. & Eldridge, A. (2009) Planning the Night-time City (London: Routledge). Roberts, M. & Turner, C. (2005) Conflicts of liveability in the 24-h city: learning from 48 hours in the life of London’s Soho, Journal of Urban Design, 10(2), pp. 171–193. Roth, L. & Angus, C. (2015) Liquor licensing restrictions to address alcohol-related violence in NSW: 2008–2014, NSW Parliamentary Research Service, e-brief, April 2015. Available at https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/ publications.nsf/key/Liquorlicensingrestrictionstoaddressalcohol-relatedviolenceinNSW:2008to2014/$File/Liquor+ licensing+restrictions+to+address+alcohol-related+violence+in+NSW+2008+to+2014.pdf (accessed 30 December 2015). Rowe, D. & Bavinton, N. (2011) Tender for the night: after-dark cultural complexities in the night-time economy, Continuum, 25(6), pp. 811–825. Rowe, D., Stevenson, D., Tomsen, S., Bavinton, N. & Brass, K. (2008) The City After Dark: Cultural Planning and Governance of the Night-time Economy in Parramatta (Sydney: Centre for Cultural Research, University of Western Sydney). Scott, K. (2015) Australia’s binge drinking culture puts mental health at risk, experts warn, ABC News, 9 October. Available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-09/australias-binge-drinking-culture-puts-mental-health-at-risk/6818970 (accessed 30 December 2015). Shaw, R. (2010) Neoliberal subjectivities and the development of the night-time economy in British cities, Geography Compass, 4(7), pp. 893–903. Shaw, R. (2014) Beyond night-time economy: affective atmospheres of the urban night, Geoforum, 51, pp. 87–95. Shaw, R. (2015) ‘Alive after five’: constructing the neoliberal night in Newcastle upon Tyne, Urban Studies, 52(3), pp. 456–470. Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier (London: Routledge). Springer, S. (2010) Neoliberal discursive formations: on the contours of subjectivation, good governance, and symbolic violence in posttransitional Cambodia, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(5), pp. 931–950. Talbot, D. (2006) The Licensing Act 2003 and the problematization of the night-time economy: planning, licensing and subcultural closure in the UK, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(1), pp. 159–171. Talbot, D. (2011) The juridification of nightlife and alternative culture: two UK case studies, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(1), pp. 81–93. van Liempt, I., van Aalst, I. & Schwanen, T. (2015) Introduction: geographies of the urban night, Urban Studies, 52(3), pp. 407–421.

107 P. Wolifson and D. Drozdzewski

WACP (Western Australian Planning Commission) (2007) Planning Bulletin 85—Small Bar Licensed Premises, September, Circular. Available at http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/agenda/2007/20071120/att/Planningbulletin85.pdf (accessed 10 December 2013). Worpole, K. (1992) Towns for People: Transforming Urban Life (Buckingham: Open University Press). Wright, P. & Palmer, D. (2009) Big hART at John Northcott Estate: community, heath and the arts, UNESCO Observatory Refereed E-Journal, 1(4), pp. 1–9. Young, C., Diep, M. & Drabble, S. (2006) Living with difference? The ‘cosmopolitan city’ and urban reimaging in Manchester, UK, Urban Studies, 43(10), pp. 1687–1714.

108

III. Civilising by gentrifying

The contradictions of neoliberal planning for nightlife in Sydney

109 Chapter 2

Civilising by Gentrifying: The Contradictions of Neo-liberal Planning for Nightlife in Sydney, Australia Peta Wolifson

In 2013, the City of Sydney Council introduced itself as a key player in global nightlife planning via the release of its ‘world first’ strategy and action plan, Open, Future Directions for Sydney at Night. Despite its claim of exclusivity, the plan largely followed the global trend in ‘night-time economy’ planning and extended the Council’s established entrepreneurial strategy into the city’s nightscape (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016). Since then, Sydney’s night- life regulation has been thrust into the spotlight. Following the ‘one-punch’ killings of two young men in the Kings Cross nightlife precinct, Thomas Kelly on 7 July 2012 and Daniel Christie on New Years’ Eve 2013, pres- sure mounted on the New South Wales (NSW) State Liberal Government to act.1 Its response, in early 2014, was the introduction of a suite of regulatory changes that included the controversial ‘lockout laws’ (NSW Government 2014).2 The subsequent laws, which stipulate no admissions after 1:30 a.m. and last drinks at 3:00 a.m. within a delineated inner Sydney zone, have had a dramatic impact on the nightscape. This chapter explores the embedded contradictions within and between the two levels of government most active in regulating Sydney’s night-time economy – the City of Sydney Council and the NSW Government – which, despite contrasting ideologies and visions for Sydney, have each sought to employ nightlife for economic growth. While both levels of government have attempted to ‘improve’ nightlife, their contrasting neo-liberal strategies have bolstered class inequality in Sydney through gentrification, particularly mobilised through the surrender of civic spaces to private interests (Lees et al. 2008). Despite much public debate around the lockout laws, there have been only minor shifts in policy since their introduction, and the debate has neglected to effectively engage with the issue of state-sanctioned gentrifica- tion. In this chapter, I argue that the pervasiveness of neo-liberalism in a

110 Chapter 2 discursive sense (Foucault 1991; Springer 2016), particularly in relation to Sydney’s ‘global city’ status, has muffled and muted public critique. This chapter demonstrates how neo-liberal discourse has variously infiltrated these three key mechanisms in Sydney’s nightlife; nightlife planning by both the NSW Government and City of Sydney Council, and the surrounding public debate. Gentrification is drawn out as both an outcome of planning born out of this discourse and an intentional mechanism of it. Sydney has long struggled with issues of metropolitan governance, with a lack of coordination between and within levels of government and the private sector (McGuirk and O’Neill 2002; MacDonald 2015). Since the high of the 2000 Olympics, the city has grappled with contested aspirations for its (global) future (Rowe and Lynch 2012; MacDonald 2015). Eager to present itself as a progressive and innovative council, under Lord Mayor Clover Moore, the City of Sydney projects new urbanist, sustainable ideals with an entrepreneurial approach appealing to the growing, socially liberal middle class of its constituency. The state government, on the other hand, has long been perceived to advocate for developer interests, and its privatisa- tion agenda has only ramped up in recent years. Despite their demonstrable differences, both the council and its state counterparts are complicit in exac- erbating gentrification through neo-liberal governmentality (Foucault 1991). The council’s focus on ‘civilised’ hospitality, for instance, through its ‘night- time economy’ and ‘fine grain’ strategies, encourages upmarket small bars, cafes and restaurants, while large-scale events and high-end retailing make up elements of the tourism and business investment focus (McNeill 2011). This approach has done little to counter rampant gentrification and co-opted well-meant intentions of an inclusive and diverse nightlife (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016). Meanwhile, the NSW Government has pursued regula- tory change as a moral agenda with a core message of public safety. Com- bined with its continued appeasement of vested interests including powerful lobbyists, from gambling industry groups to property developers, this morally imbued message has, too, become co-opted. While its stated prioritisation of public safety fails to coalesce with the government’s public image of favouritism towards liquor and gaming interests, its targeting of businesses in a ‘lockout’ zone also conflicts with its deregulatory mantra of economic liberalism. Changes in the commercial landscape of this lockout zone have, intended or not, provided new development opportunities likely to equate to gentrification in an area already under pressure by Sydney’s high property values. The lockout laws appeared amid a coalescing of seemingly contradictory discourses around morality, entrepreneurialism, neo-liberalism and desires to boost the night-time economy. Public responses to the lockouts have been significant and divisive. With their implementation viewed by many as a

111 Civilising by Gentrifying proactive response to widespread calls for action, a position championed by the two major Sydney newspapers (Wadds 2015; Homan 2017), they have had significant public support. High-profile medical professionals and police leaders have backed the pro-lockout lobby for the impact it has had on hos- pital admissions and crime rates. They have been further supported by Ralph Kelly, who started the Thomas Kelly Youth Foundation to improve the safety of young people out at night.3 At the same time, activist groups, Keep Sydney Open and Reclaim the Streets, have held well-attended protests opposing the laws, citing economic and cultural losses from associated business closures and damage to the global city’s reputation. Opponents also criticise the lock- outs’ geographical specificity, pinpointing the non-inclusion of The Star and (under construction) Crown Sydney casinos and a lack of consultation prior to the laws being introduced.

NIGHTLIFE TO NIGHT-TIME ECONOMY

The trend that saw a shift from nightlife as a liminal and diverse space to an economic policy priority in many global cities is now well documented (e.g., Talbot 2007; Roberts and Eldridge 2009; Hadfield 2015). With the shift to post-industrial urban economies, maximising economic output has become a priority for global city governments. From the twenty-four-hour cities con- cept, developed by ‘creative cities’ think tank Comedia, came the emergence of the night-time economy (Montgomery 1994). This now-ubiquitous urban strategy justified an increased consumer tax base (Bianchini 1990) through the mantra of regeneration and the mal-adoption of Jacobs’s (1961) notion of vibrant streets. This notion was used to espouse the theory that a busier nightlife meant improved safety that would, in turn, attract a more diverse population and engender a more civilised nightlife (Hadfield 2015). Rather, the drawing of neo-liberal thinking into nightlife planning, via a competitive creative cities agenda (Florida 2002), spawned both undesirable criminogenic outcomes of deregulation, including increases in alcohol-related violence (Hobbs et al. 2003, 2005), and the homogenising effects that frequently accompany gentrification (Talbot 2006; Hadfield 2015). The shift from managerialism to entrepreneurialism in urban governance (Harvey 1989) has unfolded through internationally and regionally competi- tive place-making strategies. The creative city model is dependent on changes in consumer behaviour and demographics, deindustrialisation and subsequent gentrification, with night-time economies promoted as vital to the appeal of cities to the so-called creative class. This has led to deregulation to boost the economic capacity of the city at night through a more fertile local economy and efficient tax base (Talbot 2007; Hae 2011b). As these benefits arise

112 Chapter 2 largely through increases in alcohol sales, there has been substantial criticism of the ‘naivety’ with which this type of governance has consolidated the influ- ence of the alcohol industries (Hadfield 2015). Permissive licensing practices have also led to inevitable alcohol-related problems, stakeholder conflict and re-regulatory measures (Hae 2011b). Despite problematic local outcomes, these practices have continued to inform urban place-making strategies. Ill-fated ‘creative city’ strategies have persisted despite substantial empiri- cal evidence of their exclusionary outcomes. As within other creative cit- ies’ strategies, night-time economy policies have served to commodify and homogenise urban cultural resources, ‘suturing them as putative economic assets to evolving regimes of urban competition’ (Peck 2010, 218). As Blum (2010, 80) has noted, Florida’s (2002) vision serves to normalise and thereby constrain creativity within the realm of what is acceptable and mainstream, thereby eroding its inherent cultural value and essential ‘creativity’. Global shifts to a more ‘genteel’ or ‘sanitised’ night-time economy have created urban playscapes that undermine, uproot and eradicate spaces of subcultural deviation, cultural resistance and political radicalism (Chatterton and Hol- lands 2002; Talbot 2007). The increasing forfeiture of these civic spaces to commercial interests encourages gentrification and the creation of leisures- capes of sameness for the creative class (Griffiths 1998).

PROHIBITION TO ‘POKIES’ IN SYDNEY’S NIGHTLIFE: REGULATION AND RHETORIC

Sydney’s nightlife has evolved in tandem with the city’s historic geography of production and consumption or, as discussed by Rowe and Lynch (2012), the changing patterns of work and play. As such, the inner city’s recent his- tory of deindustrialisation and subsequent gentrification is not atypical when compared with other global Western cities. In particular however, the oscil- lation of sentiment (Wadds 2013) and regulation around alcohol consumption and night-time leisure has been tied to the city’s social and political contexts. ‘Moral panics’ (Cohen 1972) have long been illustrations of discrimination against the ‘folk devils’ of the day – be they poor, queer, working class, indigenous, migrant, ‘Westie’,4 women, youth, sex workers, addicts or sub- cultural – translating into prohibition (Homan 2003). Sydney’s relationship to alcohol and nightlife since colonisation in 1788 can be seen to mirror more contemporary struggles with regulating the night-time economy (such paral- lels are explored later). While alcohol taxation revenues have held significant value for NSW since the early days of colonisation, economic gains have been increasingly prioritised to the detriment of social and cultural benefits in Sydney’s nightlife. This neo-liberal underpinning of nightlife governance has

113 Civilising by Gentrifying been cemented by the city’s shift to night-time economy planning. Contradic- tions have marred this transition as images of a vibrant, culturally diverse and safe nightlife meet long-standing alcohol industry resistance to regulation. This anti-regulation sentiment has been bolstered by a socially liberal public response to the regulation of alcohol and leisure, reinforced by a colonial Australian myth linking heavy public drinking with perceptions of masculin- ity and national identity (Room 1988; Tomsen 2014). Drawing from Britain’s stratification of drinking practices, Sydney’s Tem- perance targeted ‘disrespectable working-class leisure’ (Sturma 1983; Wadds 2013; Tomsen 2014, 463), mirroring the civilising intent in contemporary night-time economy strategies (Talbot 2007; Hae 2012). The six o’clock swill resulting from trading hour restrictions5 paradoxically marked a shift to verti- cal drinking due to changes made to pubs and made Australia’s uncivilised drinking ‘the wonder of the world’ (Phillips 1980, 251; see also Wadds 2013). Public rejection of the religious and moral influence on public policy ensured a thriving sly-grog trade throughout the 1920s.6 The (now-dwindling) night- life zone and red-light district of Kings Cross in the city’s inner-east devel- oped its notorious reputation off the back of sly-grogging profits, stimulated by the nearby naval base from the Second World War which later boomed with American Vietnam War soldiers on rest and recuperation (Wadds 2013; Van den Nouwelant 2017). As opening hours were gradually extended after a 1954 referendum, a growing, socially liberal middle class supported a shift towards promoting civilised drinking, while the 1980s’ mantra of market liberalism reawakened negative public rhetoric around nightlife regulation. Alongside the deindustrialisation of the inner city, this political setting spurred the development of the nightlife industries, and gentrification became a key tourism strategy to counter the inner city’s economic decline. The development of the Darling Harbour leisure precinct in the 1980s on the edge of the Central Business District was Sydney’s clearest case of this (Bounds and Morris 2006), only perhaps matched now by the nearby Barangaroo development (ongoing as of 2017). This night-time economy expansion was bolstered by alcohol’s classification as an ordinary commodity under the National Competition Policy by then Prime Minister John Howard (Wadds 2013). Resulting stakeholder tensions that emerged, particularly around noise complaints, were exacerbated by post-industrial demographic shifts and reflected in a ‘cycle of license, repression and containment’ (Turner, in Homan 2003, ix). Moral panics over some important nightlife spaces, from the pubs of 1970s ‘Oz Rock’ to the AIDS epidemic politicising employment and recreation spaces for the gay, sex worker and drug-user communities around (Sydney’s gay capital) Taylor Square and Kings Cross (Midwinter- Pitt 2007; Race 2016), set the scene for ‘politicisation of control’ (Homan 2003, 153) around these key areas. In the 1990s, dance music’s resurgence

114 Chapter 2 saw out-of-control youth become the latest ‘uncontrollable other’ (Homan 2003, 153). Poker machines in licensed clubs, then extended into pubs from 1997, saw exponential growth in gaming profits (and associated government revenue) in NSW and perhaps the most significant (and ongoing) impact on the landscape of Sydney’s licensed venues and their cultural offerings. The normalisation of gaming in drinking venues helped develop ‘a very problematic relationship between drinking and gaming in Sydney’, one that encouraged the expansion of organised crime and political and police corruption in NSW (Wadds 2013, 58). Business adoption of lucrative pokies in place of live music was facili- tated by an increasingly complicated and expensive regulatory landscape; the state’s desire for ‘manageable’ cultural citizens (Homan 2003) meant the demise of live music in pubs and other smaller venues.

‘GLOBAL SYDNEY’: A NEW ERA IN NIGHTLIFE GOVERNANCE

Against the backdrop of inner Sydney’s revalorisation and the rise of stra- tegic planning (Kornberger and Clegg 2011), an increasingly laissez-faire attitude to Sydney’s planning (Punter 2005) saw the twenty-four-hour city concept, then emerging in Europe, promoted in the Sydney City Council’s (1994) Blueprint for Sydney, Living City. Driving this change was the strategic targeting of the 2000 Olympics as a showcase for Sydney as a dynamic global city, which meant a relaxing of licensing regulations in the lead-up to the games. Later, Sydney attempted to reinforce its cosmo- politan global city status. Championed by Clover Moore,7 the NSW Liquor Act 2007 aimed for a Melbourne-like laneways culture in the inner city with a more affordable small bar liquor licence (McNeill 2011). In 2009, restrictions on entertainment in venues were also removed (NSW Govern- ment 2009) in an attempt to address over-regulation and encourage live music. The same year, venue saturation concerns also meant a temporary freeze on new liquor licences which has remained in place since (Van den Nouwelant and Steinmetz 2013). These changes sought to civilise and diversify Sydney’s nightlife, where the deregulation-led drinking culture was increasing public debate around alcohol-related violence. Public out- cry came to a head after the killings of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie (Wadds 2015). In early 2014, amid widespread moral panic about Sydney’s nightlife, the lockouts were introduced, less than a year after the City of Sydney’s night-time economy plan, Open (City of Sydney 2013; Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016).

115 Civilising by Gentrifying

SYDNEY’S NIGHT-TIME ECONOMY: OPEN LATE FOR EVERYONE?

Open was posited as an international blueprint for night-time economy policymaking (City of Sydney 2013). The council emphasised the plan’s grounding in evidence and consultation, however, adapted it to fit into the neo-liberal framework of its strategic plan, Sustainable Sydney 2030, mea- suring non-economic concerns by economic output (City of Sydney 2008; Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016). Open’s development reflects both the ‘constructed unity’ (Peck 2010, 180) of neo-liberal urban planning and the ubiquity and depoliticisation of neo-liberalism, its normalising as a discur- sive regime (Birdsall 2013; Prince 2016), embedded in night-time economy planning (Hae 2012). The council’s plans assume that both cultural diversity and social inclusion would result from economic growth and define creative culture as a component of a competitive economy (Kornberger and Clegg 2011). Such notions of global competitiveness were central to Open, with a key objective for Sydney to become a ‘world leading night-time city’ (City of Sydney 2013, 7). In defining the acceptable spaces and demographic for a civilised night- life, Open exemplified the embeddedness of gentrification within night-time economy strategies. Open placed young people as the folk devils of Sydney’s nightlife, misusing the city’s own figures to exaggerate the numbers of people aged eighteen to twenty-nine out at night. Its goal for more civilised, over 40s served the City of Sydney’s gentrifying ambition for more upmarket small bars and night-time retailing. This strategy reflected the assumption that such an economic shift would improve urban subjectivities and foster more civilised consumption in the city at night. It was in large part a response to previous (de)regulatory failures by the NSW Government that led to perceptions of a violent drinking culture and the decline of the pub as a social and leisure space. Competition with Melbourne was also a factor, mimicking calls in early night- time economy planning for a more European nightlife scene (with Melbourne considered the cultural capital of Australia) (Tierney 2006; McNeill 2011). Open emphasised the risk of perception, framing Sydney’s drinking culture as a reputational concern risking visitor numbers, rather than public health (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016). The solutions were relatedly targeted. Despite the impact of pro-gaming and gambling regulation on the social and leisure aspects of Sydney’s pubs, the City of Sydney framed and encouraged the proliferation of small bars as an antithesis to inherently problematic pubs. Where ‘quirky’, ‘boutique’ bars (City of Sydney 2008, 176) would add ‘depth and sophistication’ (Moore 2013), ‘unsophisticated’ (City of Sydney 2008, 176) ‘beer barns’ (City of Sydney 2012) were characterised by ‘blaring sports

116 Chapter 2 screens’ (Moore 2013) and drunken revellers. The council’s assumption that small bars would provide opportunities for live music was complicated by NSW’s regulatory history. As a local Australian example of the global trend in night-time economy planning, Open reflected the mobility of this policy script, despite appear- ing at a time it had been heavily critiqued elsewhere. In particular, the City of Sydney case highlights the ubiquity of culture as an agent for civilising and gentrification as a panacea for alcohol-fuelled violence. Despite being constrained by the framework of Sustainable Sydney 2030, Open unasham- edly espoused public ‘wants’, and although boasting a ‘world first . . . public consultation about NTE’ (City of Sydney 2013, 6), it failed to address many concerns of the limited public sample (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016). Despite this limitation, Open was undoubtedly a success for Lord Mayor Clover Moore’s City of Sydney in terms of public political gain (or at least public placating), from participatory planning rhetoric, and set out actions grounded in the existing policy setting.

LOCKOUT: MORAL PANIC AND NEO-LIBERAL GOVERNANCE

Within a year of Open’s publication, NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell dra- matically shifted this policy setting and initiated widespread debate with the introduction of the lockout laws. While media concerns about alcohol-related violence had been building in Sydney for some time (Wadds 2015), editorial on this issue had escalated in the months prior. Sydney’s major newspapers championed an enough is enough rhetoric that put pressure on O’Farrell to act (Wadds 2015; Homan 2017). The subsequent 1:30 a.m. venue lockout and 3:00 a.m. last drinks were applied to licensed venues within a delin- eated zone labelled the CBD Entertainment Precinct (see figure 2.1). This large area contains more than 1,300 licensed venues and includes within it the Kings Cross Precinct that had been a designated management area since December 2012. Both The Star Casino and Crown Sydney casino (due for completion in 2020) sit outside the lockout zone. Indeed, as mentioned, the spatial targeting of the laws has been a key criticism against them. Negative impacts on businesses within the lockout zone and perceptions of flow-on business to the Star have fuelled these criticisms, particularly given that the selective regulation appears at odds with the government’s ideology of mar- ket liberalism. Within the zone, the lockout was applied regardless of venues’ regulatory compliance records, clashing with the government’s previous strategy8 and effectively priming certain areas for development as a result of business closures. The lockouts also heightened long-standing resentment of

117 118

Figure 2.1. Map locating the ‘CBD Entertainment Precinct’ (i.e., ‘lockout zone’) in inner Sydney. 1. Star casino, Pyrmont; 2. Crown Sydney development, Barangaroo (due for completion in 2020); 3. Kings Cross Precinct. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo and the GIS User Community. Chapter 2 the opacity and influence of political donations in NSW and apparent special treatment of the casinos and other gaming venues.9 Despite significant social and economic problems resulting from the unprecedented proliferation of gaming machines in NSW,10 the government has shown no desire to forgo the associated revenue in attempting to address the problem. The high violent incident rate at The Star compared with lockout venues has further driven resentment, as have the cultural and economic shifts in nearby nightlife areas since the lockouts were implemented (Donnelly et al. 2017). Despite two new Premiers since O’Farrell introduced the lockouts, they have continued to be supported by an NSW Government demonstrating a neo-liberal agenda and autocratic behaviours. They have faced significant backlash, including by the City of Sydney Council, over controversial and mismanaged developments and infrastructure projects. Controversial plans include the WestConnex Road project; public building and infrastructure sell-offs, including public housing and transport services; forced mining and fracking; and the removal of civil liberties, including anti-protest legislation and increased police powers (Blanks and Burke 2016; Farrelly 2016). Also controversial has been forced amalgamations and administrations of several local councils, highlighting the local council’s ultimate lack of autonomy from the state government.11 Taken alongside the history of corruption at the NSW Government level (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2016), the actions outlined earlier have spurred theories of the lockouts as a pro-development scheme. With Sydney’s uncontrolled property market driving stamp duty revenue, property has become far more significant to the NSW Government in recent years. Although certainly not immune to the escalation of inner Sydney’s gentri- fication over the past twenty years or so, the Darlinghurst and Kings Cross areas most dramatically affected by the lockouts have been more resistant to the blanket gentrification experienced by some neighbouring inner-city areas. There is a complex and contested history behind this unable to be explored in this chapter (see Iveson 2014), but it is important to note that a significant fac- tor here is their role as specialised community and service hubs, notably for the gay population in Darlinghurst and for homeless, sex-worker and drug- user groups in Kings Cross (DeVerteuil 2015). Valuable services include the long-fought-for (and against) Medically Supervised Injecting Centre and the Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross, which provide crisis accommodation for vulnerable people. Government attempts to socially and morally sanitise this area (Nofre 2013), whether intended to boost development or not, have undoubtedly punctuated the unremitting displacement pressures against such services and those they help. While the moral panic that ensued following the one-punch deaths in Kings Cross appeared to serve the O’Farrell government’s value-judgement-laden

119 Civilising by Gentrifying efforts to ‘clean up’ the area (Hills 2011), the controversy-ridden Crown Sydney development was approved with alarmingly little scrutiny (Wilkin- son et al. 2017). While violence in Kings Cross had been dropping prior to the introduction of the lockouts (Menéndez et al. 2015), The Star remained NSW’s most violent venue, despite not appearing on the biannual violent venue list (and so not subject to its restrictions).12 In April 2014, with debate raging about the newly introduced lockouts, O’Farrell resigned amid a cor- ruption inquiry. As Mike Baird stepped in to replace him as Premier, ques- tions were raised about the influence of his religious beliefs on his politics (Nicholls 2014). As the lockout debate raged, and apparent special treatment of the casinos was highlighted, the nickname ‘Casino Mike’ took hold. In late 2016, following the release of the Callinan review into the laws, although prior to the government’s response, it was revealed that the Star had been significantly underreporting violent incidents (Branley 2016), renew- ing pressure on the government to correct its special treatment of the casino. Separately, but relatedly, a growing mountain of evidence that highlighted the detrimental impacts of gambling and especially poker machines was emerg- ing, with clear links shown between machine numbers and domestic violence (Markham et al. 2016). Less than six weeks later, however, the government adopted the minor alterations suggested by the review, with no changes to the casino. While Baird (2016) appeared to take pride in accusations of moralis- ing by what he too touted as an attempt to clean up Sydney’s nightlife, the government’s reliance on alcohol and gambling revenues not only problema- tised its stated intention to reduce alcohol-related violence but contradicted its moralising rhetoric. Undoubtedly, the lockouts have had a drastic impact on the commercial landscape, especially within the lockout zone. While directly resulting clo- sures are difficult to state with certainty, more than forty nightlife businesses have reportedly closed from their impacts (Barrie 2016), from restaurants and small bars to pubs and nightclubs, with associated job cuts. Flow-on closures and impacts on the daytime economy (Darlinghurst Business Part- nership 2015) counter suggestions of an antithetical relationship between the commercial day and nightscapes that were used to support the case for the lockouts. Somewhat ironically, given O’Farrell and Baird’s pledges to ‘clean up’ the area, one who appears to have adapted well is so-called King of the Cross, John Ibrahim; the long-time alleged organised crime figure has taken advantage of development opportunities left in the wake of the lockouts to transition from nightclub boss to property tycoon (Harris 2016). A shift in nightlife activity to Newtown, an inner-west area outside the lockout zone, prompted several local businesses to take self-regulatory steps, including a 3:00 a.m. lockout (with pass outs) (Koziol 2015). Known for its acceptance of diversity, Newtown had a rise in reports of harassment

120 Chapter 2 and anti-queer abuse (James 2015). In response to the bashings of Isaac Keatinge and Stephanie McCarthy in particular, Reclaim the Streets held a protest, calling to Keep Newtown Weird and Safe to ‘reassert . . . New- town’s identity as a beautiful community of queers, weirdoes, freaks, hip- pies, goths, punks, ferals, migrants and everyone else who doesn’t fit in elsewhere’ (Reclaim the Streets 2016a). In Double Bay, a predominantly quiet and upmarket area not far from the lockout zone, a lockout-driven spike in nightlife activity prompted the local council to reshape the nightlife economy into a more genteel one (Moran 2014; Keulemans, in Bastians 2016) through new upmarket development (with unprecedented height approval). The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research confirmed the long-observed displacement of recorded incidents (Donnelly et al. 2017). While an agglomeration of Newtown, Double Bay and the beachside suburbs of Coogee and Bondi Beach were collectively labelled the distal displacement area, the Newtown Liquor Accord labelled the suburb’s inclu- sion misleading, citing that its local management strategy coincided with a drop in incidences in Newtown when viewed separate from the other distal displacement suburbs (McNab 2017). In centring on the intention to reduce alcohol-related violence within the lockout zone, the Callinan review was largely able to avoid giving due con- sideration to the effects of the lockouts on nightlife as an important space of social and cultural development, expression and belonging (Quilter 2016; Race 2016). ‘Views of the opponents’ (to the lockout) are outlined in Cal- linan’s (2016) report in seven sections, none of which overview these effects in a detailed way. Rather, ‘opponents’ views are framed in economic terms, with sections: the night-time economy, ‘Sydney as a vibrant international city’ and ‘adverse effects upon business’. The ‘live entertainment’ section also lacks a more nuanced discussion; in Callinan’s (2016, 116) (limited) observation, ‘Entertainers are unfortunate casualties of the amendments’. As Tyson Koh (2016) of Keep Sydney Open reflected, ‘[Others’] spurious claims were treated as fact, while facts such as the impact on live music and business were either overlooked or treated with suspicion’. Even despite significant evidence of impacts on the night-time economy, the review’s tunnel vision on violence rates within the lockout zone meant it failed to adequately con- sider costs, economic and otherwise, of the lockouts. As Quilter (2016) has noted, the review’s recommendation to relax the statewide take-away alcohol restriction from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. came with the acknowledgement that it would likely increase domestic violence rates. The review’s persistent justification for the lockouts on violence grounds effectively preferences targeting (mostly male victim) nightlife violence over (mostly female victim) domestic violence.

121 Civilising by Gentrifying

THE ACTIVIST RESPONSE

Scholarship examining pro-nightlife activists has asserted that they have largely failed to challenge drivers and proponents of gentrification (Hae 2011b). The relative traction of activist responses to the ‘lockouts’ by Keep Sydney Open and Reclaim the Streets broadly reaffirms this observation and points to the difficulty of this challenge. Notable differences between the rhetoric and methods of these two groups provide a telling elucidation of the impact of neo-liberalism on urban activism and on the public receptivity to activist messages. Depoliticisation of night-time economy rhetoric is a key mechanism shaping ineffective responses to problematic nightlife regula- tion. This normalised neo-liberal discourse presents a crucial, yet largely unknown, barrier to attempts to gain political traction and affect change. His- toric parallels of the promotion of a civilised nightlife highlight that rhetoric palatable to the middle class may serve rather than resist gentrification. Such rhetoric supports regulation beneficial to upmarket spaces that appeal to the so-called creative class, while stifling alternative venues. The rhetoric of Keep Sydney Open (2016a) embodied in its tagline ‘We support safe nights in a global city. We support Live Music. Our mission is to Keep Sydney Open!’ reflects the pervasiveness of the global city mantra. In defence of Sydney’s nightlife, the group has often stressed its (potential) eco- nomic outputs, mimicking the City of Sydney’s (2013) night-time economy plan, Open (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016):

As a growing, diverse and vibrant city, Sydney nightlife has much to offer its residents and visitors. The city’s night-time offerings have made it a leading tourist destination in the Asia-Pacific, contributing to its international reputation as a Global City and bringing considerable economic opportunities to the state. (Keep Sydney Open 2016b, 4)

The group’s focus on business impacts of the lockouts, particularly in King Cross, is evidenced in its submission to the Callinan review:

The economic impact of the lockout laws includes venue closures, decreased tourism and increased unemployment which conflict with the overall objectives of the Act ‘to contribute to the responsible development of related industries such as the live music, entertainment, tourism and hospitality industries’. The lockout laws are not contributing to the development of these industries because they have made them financially unviable. (Keep Sydney Open 2016b, 10)

In responding to the government’s economic focus, Keep Sydney Open has forced itself to frame its criticism of the lockout laws based on economic

122 Chapter 2 and reputational concerns. While the broad appeal of Keep Sydney Open’s rhetoric has helped maintain public debate, its focus on Sydney’s damaged reputation has arguably meant further reputational damage. Indeed, as the fight against the laws stretches on, a key question for the group is whether its persistence is doing more harm than good to Sydney night-time vibrancy. This outcome speaks, in part, to the stifling of creativity within the night-time economy model, extended it seems, into activist approaches. In contrast, Reclaim the Streets has focused on issues of power and access to space. Its concerns with the lockouts align with its goals of ‘com- munity ownership of public spaces and [opposition] to the dominance of corporate forces in globalisation’ (Reclaim the Streets 2016b). As stated in its submission to the Callinan review, ‘The great public outcry against this suite of laws stems not only from the absurd injustice of a curfew affecting responsible adults, but also from a fear of loss of critical public space and community. This fear became justified with the closure of many significant venues’ (Reclaim the Streets 2016c). There are key contrasts in Reclaim the Streets’ and Keep Sydney Open’s rhetoric around business closures. The former group’s submission emphasises the significance of many of these spaces, particularly for certain vulnerable, marginalised groups, for whom it provides connection and counters discrimination (Tomsen 2014; Race 2016). On economic impact, its main concern is for musicians, who, it stresses, need to be paid for their work. While both groups have addressed the exclusion of the casinos from the lockout zone, Reclaim the Streets has focused more keenly on the context of this special treatment. Its first anti-lockouts protest, in September 2015, stressed: ‘The decay of [Sydney’s] nightlife is a visible symptom of a much bigger problem: the influence of money upon policy’. In March 2016, protesters left the memorable image of giant faeces on the sign for The Star, pointing to the ‘stink’ of corruption in the casino’s special treatment. Protesters were called on to ‘demand a better nightlife. Demand an end to political donations. Blow up the pokies13 and Reclaim the Streets’ (Reclaim the Streets 2016d). Notwithstanding considerable opposition to the anti-lockouts movement, Keep Sydney Open’s popular impact has been much greater than Reclaim the Streets’. Koh has been a frequent guest speaker and spokesperson for the anti-lockouts movement, as well as taking part in government roundtables on the issue. The slogan ‘Keep Sydney Open’ has been widely adopted, including by several high-profile performers. While the message of Reclaim the Streets appeals particularly to queer-identifying people and those con- cerned with the right to the city, many who simply want to ‘fight for their right to party’ have been attracted to the depoliticised message of a vibrant night-time economy, one long sold to the growing, socially liberal, middle class. Indeed, the group’s appeal is a hardly surprising follow-up to the City

123 Civilising by Gentrifying of Sydney’s promoting of the night-time economy over several years. The enormous popularity of Matt Barrie’s (2016) article ‘Would the Last Person in Sydney Please Turn the Lights Out?’ points to this trend. Barrie reignited an anti-regulation, nanny state rhetoric, promoting the free-market perspec- tive of nightlife regulation, arguing that the failure of the lockouts lay in the government going against its own liberal mantra. In addition to the lockouts, frustrations with the ban on take-away alcohol after 10:00 p.m. (now 11:00 p.m.), and limits on straight spirits and cocktail alcohol content, highlighted the difficulty the government faced in attempting to regulate a city intent on both a civilised and liberalised nightlife, simultaneously promised and feel- ing denied of both. The nanny state rhetoric was only inflamed by comments made by the new (and current as at January 2018 NSW Premier, Gladys Bere- jiklian, who, in supporting the continuance of the lockouts, stated that ‘mums and dads in the suburbs are worried about what their young kids are doing when they’re having a good time. . . . You want [a government] that’s really thinking about what we can do to keep kids as safe as possible’ (Mackinnon 2017). These reignited perceptions of the much-hated moralising paternalism are seen in Baird’s rhetoric around nightlife, harking back to prohibition.

NEO-LIBERALISM CO-OPTING NIGHTLIFE: A CITY GENTRIFIED

Neo-liberalism is rife with contradiction, both within and between its ideol- ogy and its many practical manifestations (Peck 2010; Springer et al. 2016). The pervasiveness of neo-liberal governmentality (Foucault 1991) has been reinforced by the City of Sydney Council’s approach to the night-time economy. Despite the council’s progressive image, this framework, with its focus on economic growth and global city competitiveness, has undermined creativity and diverse cultural expression in the inner city’s nightlife. In doing so, it has embraced gentrification as a strategy for a more civilised night- life, appeasing a long-held desire of the city’s growing middle class. While attempting to correct past NSW Government regulatory failures that have bolstered a night-time culture of drinking and gambling, the council has per- petuated stigmas that emerged from such failures, only further fuelling driv- ers of gentrification. The NSW Liberal’s efforts at nightlife governance have highlighted the shape-shifting character of neo-liberalism. In succumbing to ever more powerful private interests, the (ideologically) deregulatory Liber- als have instituted targeted regulations that manifestly benefit those interests. The increased government revenue that has come from Sydney’s unrelent- ing property market in recent years has come at a disastrous cost to the city, with housing affordability at an all-time low. The government’s ostensible

124 Chapter 2 inability or unwillingness to act against influential industries points to an urgent need for structural political reform to re-democratise the city, protect- ing governance for the best interests of the state and limiting governance led by populism and sensationalism. While the incoherence of nightlife policies between the council and state government reflects a structural failure of com- munication and collaboration between (and within) them (and is likely exac- erbated by the latter’s long-running feud with Clover Moore), it also reflects the failure of their neo-liberal approaches. The council’s image for a thriving live music scene, for instance, will, for the foreseeable future, be limited by state gaming regulation, while its insistence on economic outcomes for the city’s cultural scene only reinforces this barrier. Amid moral panic about ‘antisocial behaviour’ at night, the stigmatisation of Kings Cross has served the state government well, with support for the laws arising from concern about violent incidents there (Wadds 2015; Rob- ertson 2016). These concerns have received legitimacy based on declines in hospital emergency admissions and recorded crime rates that are, of course, positive. Whether an accelerated decline in violence in the lockout zone justifies the myriad of other outcomes both there and elsewhere, however, remains a pertinent question for the government. Sydney’s problematic drinking and gambling practices have emerged in the context of rhetoric that pits civilised middle-class leisure practices against uncivilised working-class leisure, a dualism that continues today. Through the socio-spatial divisions resulting from Sydney’s (poorly managed) global city planning, this dualism is now, more than ever, reflected spatially. The state-sanctioned gentrification of the inner city, enflamed by substantial recent public housing sell-offs and underlined by the city’s exorbitant property prices, has seen to this division. The City of Sydney’s (2011) hopeful image of Sydney in 2030 as ‘open late for everyone’ seems far less likely in 2017 than when first suggested. The lockouts have primed significant areas of Kings Cross and (already upmarket) Double Bay for more gentrification via residential development, while New- town has needed to adjust to changes imposed on its subculturally significant nightlife by lockout flow-on effects. Through the case of Keep Sydney Open, the depoliticisation of night-time economy rhetoric has been shown to have infiltrated activism not best served by the underlying capitalist goals of this message. Whether the group, there- fore, truly represents the broad group it has attracted, from various business situations, political persuasions and lived experiences of Sydney’s nightlife, is questionable. Nonetheless, the popularity of its rhetoric is hardly surpris- ing; alongside historically sentient nanny state arguments is the middle-class appeal of the cultural-economy growth mantra, encapsulated by Florida’s creative class theory (Krätke 2012). Of course, the inherently flawed devel- opment and implementation of the lockouts has also played a role in its popularity. The popularity of Keep Sydney Open compared to Reclaim the

125 Civilising by Gentrifying

Streets, however, indicates how neo-liberalism has created an environment more hostile to, and challenging for, more progressive movements (Mayer 2012). The redundancy of existing modes of participatory planning is one such example of this environment (Schatz and Rogers 2016; Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016). Through the ever-changing case study of Sydney’s nightlife governance, and the surrounding debate, this chapter has exposed Sydney’s night-time economy planning as a contemporary process of gentrification by misdirected efforts towards a more genteel and civilised nightlife (Hae 2012). While the difficulty in balancing regulation of nightlife activity in Sydney goes back to colonisation, the many, often-contradictory efforts to shape Sydney’s night- time economy glaringly avoid acknowledgement and meaningful defence of the city’s nightlife spaces as both remarkable and mundane political spaces of resistance and subcultural belonging, of creative communication and evo- lution. The effects of neo-liberalism on Sydney’s nightlife have been shown here as a series of (poor) governance choices rather than as an inevitabil- ity within a particular, increasingly global, ‘ideological atmosphere’ (Peck 2010, xi). In ostensibly attempting to alleviate alcohol-related violence, the NSW Government has capitulated to political donors whose interests lie elsewhere, namely with their own profits. The drastic economic impact of the lockouts is, at least in part, indicative of the significance of alcohol to Sydney’s night-time economy, emphasising the need for a more dynamic and diversified nightlife, one in which the desired cultural citizen is not sitting at a poker machine or placing a bet. The willingness of the NSW Govern- ment to so drastically impact Sydney’s night-time economy (and the liquor industry it has long supported) shows the fickle character of its embraced neo-liberalism. In many ways, Sydney has adapted and will continue to adapt to the regulations reshaping its nightlife. What remains to be seen, though, is whether it will be a city whose spaces incubate creativity, diversity and joy. While changes announced following the Callinan review meant a loosening of some of the 2014 regulations, Sydney’s property prices are unlikely to allow for a reclaiming of creative civic space where such nightlife businesses have already shut. To ‘bring neoliberalism to earth’ (Peck 2010), the public must be cognisant to regulatory shifts that broaden the discretionary powers of government and restrict civil liberties. There is a clear need for governments to strengthen transparent policymaking structures that reveal the utility of technocratic knowledge and necessarily avoid undemocratic influence. Outcomes of better collaboration between the City of Sydney Council and its state counterparts via the Night Time Economy Taskforce remain to be seen. If public consul- tation is to continue as an element of planning, it must include legitimate and consequential pathways for consideration in policymaking that enhance, rather than undermine, technocratic expertise. Evidently too, efforts should

126 Chapter 2 focus on a shift away from the conceptualisation of ‘the night-time economy’ and neo-liberal creative city planning more broadly. This structural change is a tremendous challenge. It requires reimagining and reframing the narra- tive of what we value as urban dwellers and reflection on the genuine, messy value of urban nightlife, for everyone.

NOTES

1. The Liberal Party is Australia’s major conservative party, named for its plat- form of individual freedom and free enterprise. 2. The lockouts were introduced on 24 February 2014 as part of the Liquor Amendment Act 2014, while the majority of other measures were introduced on 18 July 2014. 3. The foundation’s Take Kare Safe Space programme has been running since December 2014 with the support of the NSW Government and City of Sydney, among others. 4. Politically charged term denoting persons from western Sydney. ‘Westie’ ‘became shorthand for a population considered lowbrow, coarse and lacking educa- tion and cultural refinement’ (Gwyther 2008, 1). 5. The result of the NSW government’s Early Closing Act 1916. 6. Prostitution, cocaine and sly-grog thrived in the time of the ‘razor gangs’ of Sydney’s underworld (Upton 2016). 7. Moore was then also the State Member of Parliament representing the elector- ate of Sydney. 8. The three strikes rule punished non-compliant venues, while the violent ven- ues list imposes conditions on venues based on incident numbers. Level 1 restrictions (nineteen or more incidents) include a 1:30 a.m. lockout. 9. Majority of venues exempted from the lockouts have poker machines. From 2017, some venues have been granted half-hour extensions to the lockout and last drinks when providing live entertainment after midnight. 10. NSW’s gaming machine numbers are second only to Nevada (Safi 2015) and vastly exceed the other Australian states and territories. 11. The City of Sydney Council survived the recent round of amalgamations, but there is well-known, long-term hostility between Independent Lord Mayor Clover Moore and the state government, with several attempts to remove her from office over many years, including most recently allowing businesses two votes in the council election. In 2012, her right to be both Lord Mayor and State Member of Parliament was removed, forcing her to step down from the latter role. 12. This was related to its regulation by the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (ILGA) separate from the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR, now Liquor and Gaming NSW, incorporating ILGA). 13. ‘Blow Up the Pokies’ is a song by Sydney band The Whitlams. Lead singer Tim Freedman wrote the song to comment on the destructive influence of pokies on the band’s original bassist, Andy Lewis. Lewis took his own life in 2000.

127 REFERENCES

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2016a. “ICAC: NSW Liberal Figures and Businessmen Tried to Evade Political Funding Laws, Report Finds.” ABC News, August 31. Accessed 21 December, 2016. www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/independent-commission-against-corruption-icac- spicer-report/7796928.

Baird, Mike. 2016. Facebook post. February 9. Accessed February 9, 2016. www.facebook.com/mikebairdMP.

Barrie, Matt. 2016. “Would the Last Person in Sydney Please Turn the Lights Out?” LinkedIn, February 3. Accessed February 3, 2016. www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-last-person-sydney-please-turn- lights-out-matt-barrie.

Bastians, Kate. 2016. “Controversial Six-Storey Development in Heart of Double Bay Gets Green Light.” July 29. Accessed December 22, 2016. Wentworth Courier. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/wentworth-courier/controversial-sixstorey-development- in-heart-of-double-bay-gets-green-light/news-story/497dc46af26de127a6078ad7af681fcf

Bianchini, Franco. 1990. “The Crisis of Urban Public Social Life in Britain: Origins of the Problem and Possible Responses.” Planning Practice and Research 5 (3): 4–8.

Birdsall, Carolyn. 2013. “(In)audible Frequencies: Sounding out the Contemporary Branded City.” In Paris-Amsterdam Underground: Essays on Cultural Resistance, Subversion, and Diversion, edited by Christoph Lindner and Andrew Hussey, 115–132. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Blanks, Stephen, and Jaimee Burke. 2016. “Removal of Rights in New South Wales.” YouTube video, 34:03, posted by “BenchTV,” August 30, 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmpjV0lgQtw&t=23s.

Blum, Alan. 2010. “The Imagination of Self-Satisfaction: Reflections on the Platitude of the ‘Creative City’.” Circulation and the City: Essay on Urban Culture, edited by Alexandra Boutros and Will Straw, 64–95. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Bounds, Michael, and Alan Morris. 2006. “Second Wave Gentrification in Inner-City Sydney.” Cities 23 (2): 99-108.

Branley, Alison. 2016. “Leaked Documents Show Star Casino Under-Reporting Violence.” PM with Mark Colvin, ABC Radio, October 31. Accessed October 31, 2016. www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4566342.htm.

Callinan, Ian. 2016. Review of Amendments to the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). Sydney: Independent Liquor Law Review. September 16. Accessed September 16, 2016. www.liquorlawreview.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/report/LiquorLawReviewReport.pdf.

128 Chatterton, Paul, and Robert Hollands. 2002. “Theorising Urban Playscapes: Producing, Regulating and Consuming Youthful Nightlife City Spaces.” Urban Studies 39 (1): 95–116.

City of Sydney. 1994. Living City: Sydney City Council's Blueprint for Sydney. Sydney: City of Sydney.

———. 2008. Sustainable Sydney 2030, the Vision. Sydney: City of Sydney.

———. 2011. “Open Late For Everyone. Time To Have Your Say: Night Time Economy Phase Two.” October 11. Accessed December 9, 2013. sydneyyoursay.com.au/nighteconomyphase2

———. 2012. “Summary of Online Submissions for OPEN Sydney Discussion Paper”. June 18. Accessed December 8, 2013. meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/aboutcouncil/meetings/documents/meetings/2012/Co mmittee/Cultural/180612/120618_CCSC_ITEM08_ATTACHMENTC.PDF.

———. 2013. OPEN Sydney, Future Directions for Sydney at Night: Strategy and Action Plan 2013- 2030. Sydney: City of Sydney.

Cohen, Stanley. 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Darlinghurst Business Partnership. 2015. “Economic Effects of Sydney’s ‘Lockout’ Laws.” May 14. Accessed December 19, 2016. www.dbp.org.au/lockout-survey-results.

DeVerteuil, Geoffrey. 2015. Resilience in the Post-welfare Inner City: Voluntary Sector Geographies in London, Los Angeles and Sydney. Bristol: Policy Press.

Donnelly, Neil, Suzanne Poynton, and Don Weatherburn. 2017. “The Effect of Lockout and Last Drinks Laws on Non-Domestic Assaults in Sydney: An Update to September 2016.” Crime and Justice Bulletin 201.

Farrelly, Elizabeth. 2016. “There’s Never Been a Better Time to Protest in the Streets.” The Sydney Morning Herald, October 30. Accessed October 30, 2016. www.smh.com.au/comment/theres- never-been-a-better-time-to-protest-in-the-streets-20161027-gsbxwx.html.

Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: and How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.

Foucault, Michel. 1991. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Griffiths, Ron. 1998. “Making Sameness: Place Marketing and the New Urban Entrepreneurialism.” In Cities, Economic Competition, and Urban Policy, edited by Nick Oatley, 41–57. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Gwyther, Gabrielle. 2008. “Once were westies.” Griffith Review, 20: 81.

Hadfield, Philip. 2015. “The Night-Time City. Four Modes of Exclusion: Reflections on the Urban Studies Special Collection.” Urban Studies 52 (3): 606–16.

129 Hae, Laam. 2011a. “Gentrification and Politicization of Nightlife in New York City.” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 10 (3): 564–584.

———. 2011b. “Dilemmas of the Nightlife Fix Post-Industrialisation and the Gentrification of Nightlife in New York City.” Urban Studies 48 (16): 3449–65.

———. 2012. The Gentrification of Nightlife and the Right to the City: Regulating Spaces of Social Dancing in New York. New York: Routledge.

Harris, Amy. 2016. “Kings Cross Faces Permanent Transformation in Face of Massive Tower Property Deal.” The Daily Telegraph, October 23, 2016. Accessed May 26, 2017. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/kings-cross-faces-permanent-transformation-in-face-of- massive-tower-property-deal/news-story/414fb365677b7a20ce34e170a2c7e954.

Harvey, David. 1989. “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography 71 (1): 3– 17.

Hills, Brendon. 2011. “Kings Cross Crackdown.” The Sunday Telegraph. May 29, 2011. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/kings-cross-crackdown/news- story/d37f9fd9eed1a1b9cc7d535ed22caa8c.

Hobbs, Dick, Simon Winlow, Philip Hadfield, and Stuart Lister. 2005. “Violent Hypocrisy Governance and the Night-Time Economy.” European Journal of Criminology 2 (2): 161–183.

Hobbs, Dick, Philip Hadfield, Stuart Lister, and Simon Winlow. 2003. Bouncers: Violence and Governance in the Night-Time Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Homan, Shane. 2003. The Mayor’s a Square : Live Music and Law and Order in Sydney. Newtown: Local Consumption Publications.

———. 2017. “Lockout Laws or ‘Rock Out’ Laws? Governing Sydney’s Night-Time Economy and Implications for the ‘Music City.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 1-15. Accessed May 20, 2017. doi: 10.1080/10286632.2017.1317760.

Iveson, Kurt. 2014. “Building a City For ‘The People’: The Politics of Alliance-Building in the Sydney Green Ban Movement.” Antipode 46 (4): 992–1013.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

James. 2015. “Since Lockout Laws, Newtown Has Been A Hideous Place To Be At Night.” June 10, 2016. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.sneakymag.com/life/since-the-lockouts-laws- newtown-has-been-a-hideous-place-to-be-at-night.

Keep Sydney Open. 2016a. “About.” Keep Sydney Open. www.keepsydneyopen.com/#about.

Keep Sydney Open. 2016b. “Submission by Keep Sydney Open (KSO) Review of the Liquor Amendment Act 2014 by the Hon. IDF Callinan AC QC.” April 4. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.keepsydneyopen.com/assets/160404-Keep_Sydney_Open_Submission.pdf

130 Koh, Tyson. 2016. “Callinan’s Report Has Locked Us out of the Debate.” The Daily Telegraph, September 19. Accessed September 19, 2016. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/justic- callinans-report-has-locked-us-out-of-the-debate/news- story/d9c588141c290af68b6adde1a25690aa.

Kornberger, Martin, and Stewart Clegg. 2011. “Strategy as Performative Practice: the Case of Sydney 2030.” Strategic Organization 9 (2): 136–162.

Koziol, Michael. 2015. “Newtown Bars to Trial 3am Lockout and Shots Ban.” The Sydney Morning Herald, July 31, 2015. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.smh.com.au/nsw/newtown-bars-to- trial-3am-lockout-and-shots-ban-20150731-giomj5.html.

Krätke, Stefan. 2012. “The New Urban Growth Ideology of ‘Creative Cities’.” In Cities for People, Not for Profit, edited by Neil Brenner, Peter Marcuse, and Margit Mayer, 138–49. New York: Routledge.

Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. 2008. Gentrification. London: Routledge.

MacDonald, Heather. 2015. “‘Green, Global, and Connected’: Can Sydney Solve its Metropolitan Governance Problems?” In Transforming Distressed Global Communities: Making Inclusive, Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable Cities, edited by Fritz Wagner, Riad Mahayni, and Andreas Piller, 211–229. Burlington: Ashgate.

McGuirk, Pauline, and Phillip O’Neill. “Planning a Prosperous Sydney: The Challenges of Planning Urban Development in the New Urban Context.” Australian Geographer 33 (3): 301–316.

McNeill, Donald. 2011. “Fine Grain, Global City: Jan Gehl, Public Space and Commercial Culture in Central Sydney.” Journal of Urban Design 16 (2): 161–78.

McNab, Heather. 2017. “Newtown Liquor Accord Disputes BOCSAR Assault Statistics.” Central Sydney, March 8. Accessed May 20, 2017. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/central- sydney/newtown-liquor-accord-disputes-bocsar-assault-statistics/news- story/5a06d726adbd42ca9eb97bd50dd021f1.

Mackinnon, Olivia. 2017. “NSW Premier Reveals What She’s Doing About the Lockout Laws.” Kiis 1065, January 24. Accessed May 20, 2017. www.kiis1065.com.au/shows/kyle-jackie-o/new- nsw-premier-reveals-what-she-s-doing-about-the-lockout-laws.

Markham, Francis, Bruce Doran, and Martin Young. 2016. “The Relationship between Electronic Gaming Machine Accessibility and Police-Recorded Domestic Violence: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of 654 Postcodes in Victoria, Australia, 2005–2014.” Social Science & Medicine 162: 106–14.

Mayer, Margit. 2012. “The ‘Right to the City’ in Urban Social Movements” In Cities for People, Not for Profit, edited by Neil Brenner, Peter Marcuse, and Margit Mayer, 63-86. New York: Routledge.

131 Menéndez, Patricia, Don Weatherburn, Kypros Kypri, and Jacqueline Fitzgerald. 2015. “Lockouts and last drinks: The impact of the January 2014 liquor licence reforms on assaults in NSW, Australia.” Crime and Justice Bulletin 183.

Midwinter-Pitt, Victoria. 2007. Rampant: How a City Stopped a Plague, produced by Penny Chapman. Ultimo: ABC Commercial (film), 57 min.

Montgomery, John. 1994. “The Evening Economy of Cities.” Town and Country Planning 63: 302–302.

Moore, Clover. 2013. “Arts & Culture: A Flourishing Cultural Life Enriches Our City and Community”. Accessed December 8, 2013. www.clovermoore.com.au/workingfor-sydney/issues/arts-culture.

Moran, Jonathon. 2014. “Kings Cross Club Owners Look Outside CBD to Avoid Lockout Laws.” The Daily Telegraph, March 14. Accessed May 24, 2016. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/kings-cross- club-owners-look-outside-cbd-to-avoid-lockout-laws/news- story/843c590f48e68e5473b81ab92b57921c.

NSW Government. 2009. “Planning Circular: Planning for Entertainment.” October 26, 2009. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and- Legislation/~/media/C1F528B3BC0043C9B6691CC012795240.ashx.

———. 2014. “Plan of Management for the Sydney CBD Entertainment Precinct.” June 3, 2014. Accessed June 1, 2017. www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/Documents/liquor/law-and- policy/sydney-CBD-plan-of-management.pdf

———. 2016. “Sydney Lockout and Last Drink Laws to Remain.” December 8, 2016. Accessed December 8, 2016. www.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/news/sydney-lockout-and-last-drink- laws-to-remain.

Nicholls, Sean. 2014. “Onward Christian Soldier: A Premier’s Faith.” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 26. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.smh.com.au/nsw/onward-christian-soldier-a-premiers- faith-20140425-379pp.html.

Nofre, Jordi. 2013. “‘Vintage Nightlife’: Gentrifying Lisbon Downtown.” Fennia 191 (2): 106–121.

Peck, Jamie. 2010. Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. trove.nla.gov.au/version/50991146.

Phillips, Walter. 1980. “‘Six O’Clock Swill’: The Introduction of Early Closing of Hotel Bars in Australia.” Historical Studies 19 (75): 250–66.

Prince, Russell. 2016. “Neoliberalism Everywhere: Mobile Neoliberal Policy.” In The Handbook of Neoliberalism, edited by Simon Springer, Kean Birch, and Julie MacLeavy, 397–406. New York: Routledge.

Punter, John. 2005. “Urban Design in Central Sydney 1945–2002: Laissez-Faire and Discretionary Traditions in the Accidental City”. Progress in Planning 63 (1): 11–160.

132 Quilter, Julia. 2016. “Callinan review largely backs Sydney lockout laws, but alcohol's role in family violence is a blind spot.” The Conversation, September 16, 2016. Accessed September 16, 2016. theconversation.com/callinan-review-largely-backs-sydney-lockout-laws-but-alcohols-role-in- family-violence-is-a-blind-spot-65404.

Race, Kane. 2016. “The Sexuality of the Night: Violence and Transformation”. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 28 (1): 105–110.

Reclaim the Streets. 2016a. “Keep Newtown Weird and Safe”. Facebook event. April 23, 2016. Accessed December 22, 2016.

———. 2016b. “About: Story”. Facebook page. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.facebook.com/pg/RTSsydney/about.

———. 2016c. Facebook post. April 4. Accessed December 22, 2016. www.facebook.com/RTSsydney.

———. 2016d. “Reclaim The Streets”. Facebook event. March 19, 2016. Accessed December 22.

Roberts, Marion, and Adam Eldridge. 2009. Planning the Night-Time City. London: Routledge.

Robertson, James. 2016. “Poll Shows Voters Favour Extending Lockout Laws.” The Sydney Morning Herald, August 29. Accessed December 19, 2016. www.smh.com.au/nsw/majority-back- broader-lockout-laws-across-the-state-20160828-gr31t9.html.

Room, Robin. 1988. “The Dialectic of Drinking in Australian Life: From the Rum Corps to the Wine Column.” Australian Drug and Alcohol Review 7 (4): 413–37.

Rowe, David, and Rob Lynch. 2012. “Work and Play in the City: Some Reflections on the Night-Time Leisure Economy of Sydney.” Annals of Leisure Research 15 (2): 132–47.

Safi, Michael. 2015. “Stop the Bets! Morrison’s Focus on Offshore Betting Won’t Help Problem Gamblers.” The Guardian, September 7. Accessed December 19, 2016. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/07/stop-the-bets-morrisons-focus-on-offshore- betting-wont-help-problem-gamblers.

Schatz, Laura, and Dallas Rogers. 2016. “Participatory, Technocratic and Neoliberal Planning: An Untenable Planning Governance Ménage À Trois.” Australian Planner 53 (1): 37–45.

Springer, Simon. 2016. The Discourse of Neoliberalism: An Anatomy of a Powerful Idea. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.

Springer, Simon, Kean Birch, and Julie MacLeavy. 2016. The handbook of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.

Sturma, Michael. 1983. Vice in a vicious society: Crime and convicts in mid-nineteenth-century New South Wales. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Talbot, Deborah. 2006. “The Licensing Act 2003 and the Problematization of the Night-Time Economy: Planning, Licensing and Subcultural Closure in the UK.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (1): 159–71.

133 Talbot, Deborah. 2007. Regulating the Night: Race, Culture and Exclusion in the Making of the Night- Time Economy. Burlington: Ashgate.

Tierney, John. 2006. “‘We Want to Be More European’: The 2003 Licensing Act and Britain’s Night- Time Economy’.” Social Policy and Society 5 (4): 453–60.

Tomsen, Stephen. 2014. “Identity wars. Crime, safety and conflict in Sydney’s night-time economy.” Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa 3: 463 – 80.

Upton, Suzanne. 2016. “Tilly Devine & the Razor Gang Wars, 1927-31.” Accessed December 19, 2016. gallery.records.nsw.gov.au/index.php/galleries/people-of-interest/tilly-devine-the-razor-gang- wars-1927-31.

Van den Nouwelant, Ryan. 2017. “Place, Identity and Community Conflict in Mixed-Use Neighbourhoods: The Case of Kings Cross, Sydney.” PhD diss., University of New South Wales.

Van den Nouwelant, Ryan, and Christine Steinmetz. 2013. “Concentration vs. Dispersal of a Late-Night Economy.” Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of Urban and ExtraUrban Studies 3:

Wadds, Phillip. 2013. “Policing Nightlife : The Representation and Transformation of Security in Sydney’s Night-Time Economy.” PhD diss., University of Western Sydney.

———. 2015. “Crime, Policing and (In)Security: Press Depictions of Sydney’s Night-Time Economy.” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 27 (1): 95–112.

Wilkinson, Marian, Peter Cronau, and Anne Davies. 2017. “Crown Confidential – Packer’s Losing Hand”. Four Corners, ABC TV, March 6.

Wolifson, Peta, and Danielle Drozdzewski. 2016. “Co-Opting the Night: The Entrepreneurial Shift and Economic Imperative in NTE Planning.” Urban Policy and Research. Accessed December 19, 2016. doi: 10.1080/08111146.2016.1155983.

134 IV. Performing neoliberalism

The co-opting of pro-nightlife activist discourses

135 Performing neoliberalism The co-opting of pro-nightlife activist discourses

Abstract

This paper presents research on two pro-nightlife social movements in ‘global city’ Sydney: Keep Sydney Open (KSO) and Reclaim the Streets (RTS), who occupy contrasting positions in strategy, popular appeal and lobbying status. Analysis of these groups’ performative discourses – based on in-depth interviews, policy submissions and additional media – reveals the co-opting of activism by a neoliberal ‘global city’ discourse. The groups’ key strategies are discussed, before closer look at their approaches to institutional government processes, along with a look at how those have been met from within. While KSO employed much of the government’s own competitive ‘global city’ discourse, and attempted to work cooperatively with policymakers, they have been forced to mute their policy critique due to perceived ‘reputational impacts’. The counter-performances of RTS, on the other hand, sought to challenge the neoliberal status-quo; the widespread appeal of KSO, however, has overshadowed RTS’ alterative vision. Examination of Sydney’s history of nightlife industry regulation, and responses to it, helps to ground an understanding of the public and (apparent) institutional receptivity of the activist (and government) narratives discussed. In revealing mechanisms of the co-opting of activism by a neoliberal ‘global city’ discourse, this paper demonstrates that the characterisation of pro-nightlife activist discourses by these neoliberal ideas increasingly determines the appearance of their success.

Advocating free markets and individual choice, neoliberalism, as the hegemonic political-economic governmentality of our times, has had deep, wide-ranging impacts around the world from health, welfare and housing, to the diminution of workers’ rights and environmental destruction (Gramsci 1971; Peet 2002; Peck 2010). Acknowledging that conceptualizations of neoliberalism vary and continue to be contentious (Springer, Birch, MacLeavy 2016), a discursive understanding provides a useful entry point to scrutinize the concept (Springer 2016; Foucault 1991). Conceptualizing neoliberalism as discourse helps to examine the “material and non- material actions that are repeated over time and across space” (Glass 2016, 352),

136 serving to empower and reinforce its ideas and actors. In the neoliberal ‘global city’, where ‘creativity’ is a key element of the discursive zeitgeist (Larner 2012; Florida 2005), production, promotion and consumption are “inextricably bound up in each other” (Molloy and Larner 2010, 362).

In this paper, I theorize how neoliberal ‘global city’ actors co-opt activist discourses, and the way that such co-opted activism has come to be understood as successful resistance. To illustrate, I present new research on activism in the context of Sydney's controversial and ongoing debate over the city’s nightlife, especially related to the so- called 'lockout laws' in the inner city since early 2014 – a 1.30am venue lockout within a delineated zone (since changed to 2am for some venues). The paper presents research on two 'pro-nightlife' social movements in this ‘global city’: Keep Sydney Open (KSO) and Reclaim the Streets (RTS). To analyze these group’s discursive actions, this paper adopts a framework of performativity (Butler 1997), understood as “the citational practices that reproduce and/or subvert discourse and which enable and discipline subjects and their performances” (Gregson and Rose 2000, 434). KSO and RTS occupy contrasting positions in strategy, popular appeal and lobbying status. Analysis of their performative discourses reveals the co-opting of activism by a neoliberal ‘global city’ discourse and contends that the characterization of pro-nightlife activist discourses by neoliberal ideas increasingly determines the appearance of their success.

The analysis is based on in-depth interviews conducted with leading members of each campaign: from KSO, campaign manager Tyson Koh and from RTS, collective coordinator for the lockout campaign, Jason Marshall. Additional resources included the groups’ submissions to the 2016 Review of the Liquor Amendment Act 2014, conducted by former High Court Justice Ian Callinan (hereafter referred to as the Callinan review), as well as the report delivered from the review itself. Publicly- available media also discussed here includes that taken from the social media and web pages of the groups and other media on the lockouts issue. The analysis also includes data from in-depth interviews conducted with a former NSW State government official and a City of Sydney government official.

In the following section, contextual background reveals the significance of the history of nightlife industry regulation, and responses to it, in order to ground an understanding of the efficacy of the activist (and government) narratives discussed. A case study overview establishes the key strategies of the two social movements discussed, before an examination of their particular responses to the lockouts. Lastly, there is a closer look at the group’s approaches to institutional government processes, along with a look at how those have been met from within.

137 Contextual background

The widespread commercialization of the 'global city' lexicon, through the likes of Richard Florida's “creative class” theory, has created a sense of political unity around “what are essentially... wealth location strategies” (Leon, 2017 10; Peck 2010); the “dreaded realities of global city making” for the purposes of competitive economic growth have been well documented (Leon 2017, 7). To a diverse and creative nightlife, the applications of neoliberal global city agendas have been distinctively deleterious. While the night brings a unique contribution to the cultural and social value of urban life, the economic imperative of ‘night-time economy’ planning sees these values usurped by the goals of attracting those with the most money to spend (Clark 2004; Chatterton and Hollands 2003). Further, the exchange value of inner city nightlife venues under the status quo creates a sense of inevitability of the destruction of their use value, predominantly through residential redevelopment (Harvey 1973). Even where nightlife venues may be allowed to remain (for the time being), they are likely to reflect the spatial exclusion typical of the contemporary ‘global city’ (Marcuse 2016; Talbot 2006).

As with many so-called ‘global cities’, and those cities desiring of such a label, Sydney’s governance has fully embraced a competitive, neoliberal framework (McGuirk and O’Neill 2002; Kornberger and Clegg 2011). The change in the city as a strategic site of global competition has seen a shift in the spatial patterns of economic relations (McGuirk 2004; O’Neill and McGuirk 2002). In ‘selling’ Sydney to the wealthy ‘creative class’, international business investors and tourists, state-sanctioned gentrification of the city has served to disadvantage huge numbers of people (MacDonald 2015). In the shift from ‘managerialism to entrepreneurialism’ (Harvey 1989) the contradiction of ‘global city’ governance is laid bare, with public financing spent to attract private capital over the public good (Leon 2017). “As new developments have destroyed existing use value and publicness of a variety of spaces,” Mayer (2013, 10) explains, “they also sought to rid this space of whoever might threaten to devalorize its exchange value or disrupt the exclusive business and consumption meant to take place there.” Amid these processes other options are ignored entirely, with the consequence of reproducing the neoliberal framework as the normative, consensus-driven model (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2017; Kornberger and Clegg 2011; Peck 2010). As discussed below, the neoliberal global city model has also infiltrated narrative and governance of Sydney’s nightlife through its resonance with existing discourses, imaginaries, cultures and institutions in the city.

138 In Sydney, the history of nightlife industry regulation and responses to it tells a story of drinking and gambling as central to the burgeoning city’s identity (Tomsen 2014; Wadds 2013). Since the early days of colonization, economic gains have been increasingly prioritized to the detriment of social and cultural benefits in Sydney’s nightlife. Strong industry resistance to regulation has long been bolstered by a socially liberal public response to the regulation of alcohol and leisure. Until the 2014 lockouts, the most notable exception to industry liberalization – the 6pm closing endorsed by the Temperance movement – was met with the binge of the ‘six o’clock swill’ and a thriving illegal trade in Sydney throughout the 1920s. This period embedded in Sydneysiders values and desires about nightlife that have carried through to more contemporary neoliberal policies that declare freedoms (assured through the market) as indicative of ‘civilized’ society (Wolifson 2018; Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2017; Harvey 2005). As Sydney fostered its ‘global city’ status in the wake of the 2000 Olympics, the advent of neoliberal ‘night-time economy’ planning in Australia served as an opportunity to promote the revenue-raising nightlife industries further. Evident were the problems associated with prior deregulation of alcohol, along with the dramatic cultural (and economic) shift in nightlife brought on by the proliferation of gaming machines. This ‘troublesome’ nightscape, alongside a longstanding anti-regulation sentiment, ensured that promises of a vibrant, diverse and ‘civilized’ nightlife were an easy political sell, and one that sat well with the ‘global city’ image (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2017).

As public sentiment and policymaking have been increasingly susceptible, and increasingly shaped by, the gradual entrenchment of neoliberal discourse, neither is activism immune to its effects. As Mayer (2013, 10) outlines, neoliberal governments have posed a conflict for contemporary urban activism, affecting their “possibilities of resistance”; while the effects of neoliberalism, from limits on access to public space and social polarization have remained a focus for some, many groups have been co-opted to do the discursive work of city-making strategies through being “allowed concessions and offerings” (Mayer 2013, 11). As will be discussed in the case presented here, being open to involvement in governmental processes of policymaking makes groups more vulnerable to such co-opting. At the same time, those who choose not to make such institutional involvement a part of their strategy are unlikely to be offered anything, and may be viewed as lacking clear goals and having little effect. In Hae’s (2012) research on pro-nightlife groups in New York City, she observed that those able to gain the most political traction were in fact disinvested in the fundamental challenge of gentrification, a strategic move that had meant they “could not develop a more comprehensive challenge to the city’s loss of a noisy boisterous and ‘carnivalesque’ nightlife that [was] invaluable to cultural creativity” (Hae 2012, 146). Synchronicities

139 between Hae’s case study and that presented here make this an opportune moment to re-examine nightlife activism and to question what is understood as successful resistance in the contemporary neoliberal city; the next section overviews the case study.

Case study overview

As part of a series of measures introduced by the NSW State Government in early 2014, the 1.30am (now 2am for some venues) inner-city lockout, emerged following an intensive media campaign (supported by strong public health advocates) spurred by the deaths of two young men in the Kings Cross nightlife precinct. The 'moral panic' championed by both of Sydney's major newspapers placed significant pressure on the Premier to act to combat what was widely perceived as a crisis of alcohol-fuelled violence in Sydney's nightlife (Wolifson 2018). The resulting lockouts however, have been highly controversial. A significant number of venues in the lockout area have closed and some areas – particularly Kings Cross – have been primed for redevelopment as a result. Numerous gaming-machine-focused venues within the affected zone were exempted from the lockout and the casino – which statistics suggest is a hotspot for alcohol-related violence – was not included in the new zone. KSO emerged directly in response to the issue of the lockouts. As a single-issue group they garnered widespread public support across the political divide, and their logo and name became synonymous with the anti-lockouts campaign. As of November 2017, they had over 61,000 Facebook followers. RTS, an iteration of the internationally replicated DIY activist collective, are a multi-issue group that took on the lockouts as a key issue. They have just over 8000 Facebook followers. Both groups emerged in 2014, however they have considerable differences in their strategy in opposition to the lockouts.

Reclaim the Streets originally emerged in the UK in 1991 as an anti-roads movement, and held their first ‘street party’ in London in 1995. Quickly realizing that “the car culture [they] opposed was emblematic of how capitalism colonized public space by corralling its use and curtailing its function” (Curran, 2006, 180), the group’s name and key political strategy – the ‘street party’ – has since been used around the world by groups opposing the scourges of capitalism. In Sydney, the first RTS ‘street party’ was held in 1997, however the 2014 collective involved only “a couple of people who had been in the original Sydney collective back in the ‘90s [as the] main connection to the movement” (Marshall 207 pers. comm. 11 April). I spoke with collective member Jason, who took over coordinating RTS during their anti-lockout

140 campaign. Although there are some differences between the Sydney collective’s current procedures and those of the original movement, there are also key similarities. The group’s rhetoric provides a sense of continuity with both the previous Sydney collective and the global movement, focusing on roads as symbolic of the broader effects of capitalism on urban space. As stated on their Facebook page (RTS 2017):

Politics is about control of space We're taking it From cars From corporations From governments Blocking the road for a party makes a statement about the dominance of cars in public space and for a moment illuminates alternative possibilities.

This festive occupation of space for a street party or protest festival (‘protestival’) is the key element of RTS’ DIY strategy. This has typically involved the creation of a ‘temporary autonomous zone’ (TAZ) and “a politics of ‘pleasure’ that celebrates identity, creativity and autonomy” (Curran 2006, 180). Within this temporary production of an alternative use of space, there is “no division between performer and audience [but rather] it is created by and for everyone” (Jordan 2002). This aims to inspire an alternative vision of the use of urban space, and society more broadly, “subvert[ing] hierarchical power by temporarily dissolving it” (Curran 2006, 181). As Jason explained it:

We work to create a bunch of moments of joy in the streets where we can reconfigure space and reconfigure the way we all think of space, just for a short period, and hope that leads to a more long-term way they see the world (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April).

This use of space “is also at odds with the way our culture tends to imagine freedom”, by emplacing it into the urban “here and now” (Klein 2000, 317), countering notions of freedom as something to be provided by the market. Creativity is a central component of the strategy of the ‘street party’, which are known for their music, color and sculptures. Jason described their “decentralized” format:

We don’t book the bands or DJs or anything like that. We call it, we put out media releases, we create the Facebook page and then everybody that wants to be involved opts in, brings their own stuff and organizes all that themselves… That enables all the local DJs and everybody that isn’t super popular and has a thousand people listening to them on Spotify…an opportunity to have their music heard (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April).

141 After an initial street party as “a celebration of community ownership of public spaces” (RTS 2014a), the collective held another festival, motivated the (ongoing) highly controversial roads project, ‘Westconnex’, in late 2014 (RTS 2014b). Since then, the group has held twelve events (as at 15 November 2017). Some of these have focused on Westconnex, or, more recently (due to the 2017 national postal survey) marriage equality, while others, including those where the lockouts have been a key issue, have targeted multiple issues, something typical of RTS parties.

As Naomi Klein put it back in 2000, the difficulty in categorizing the RTS street party, in form, focal point and leader, is “not only…deliberate, but it is precisely this absence of rigidity that has helped RTS to capture the imagination of thousands of young people around the world.” Much has changed since then, and although still true for many, heavy criticism espoused against the Occupy movement for their (similar, though less celebratory) model has evidently led to some rethinking of strategy:

…we make sure we have a spokesperson available to the media. One of the things we’ve learned from Occupy is that if you don’t have a strong voice immediately the media will speak for you or they will call you a disorganized rebel (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April).

While this strategic shift indicates a desire for a more ‘legitimate’ appearance than that afforded previous iterations of DIY urbanism, labeled as “pointless, juvenile acting out” (Douglass 2014, 6 quoted in Van Hoose and Savini 2017, 3), it also suggests a desire to protect the group’s discursive strategy. As Van Hoose and Savini (2017, 17) recently put it, “The right to an identity…which is self-defined and maintained by the activists themselves, is perhaps the most important character to preserve”.

In contrast to RTS, KSO’s campaign has been primarily focused on the lockouts. The group’s name has become synonymous with the anti-lockout campaign in Sydney, with a wide array of support from a diverse political spectrum of followers, including several high-profile performers. The logo is widely recognized and has become a popular t-shirt graphic that is highly visible at the group’s rallies, also serving as a campaign fundraiser. The group’s campaign manager, Tyson Koh is perhaps the next most recognizable image of the anti-lockout movement. He has appeared at countless forums and other events to talk about the issue and taken part in government roundtables and other meetings. As Tyson himself described it, “Keep Sydney Open was very much just me for a very long time” (Koh 2017 pers comm. 22 March). He used his skills “organizing parties, raves and events” and his connections to maximize the popular impact of the group:

142 …my day job is I produce ‘rage’14 so through that I’m constantly working with record labels, artists, band managers and people in the industry and also in my social life I’m friends with a lot of people who are journalists and who are also involved in politics so I thought that I would be quite well placed to leverage some of my existing contacts.

In order to bolster their lobbying position, Tyson purposely sought out successful acts to advocate for KSO:

…my goal was to try and get as much value from people for as little time as possible… Rather than chasing down twenty bands who had 5000 Facebook followers each I would try and find one or two bands that had, you know, fifty or a hundred thousand Facebook followers (Koh 2017 pers. comm. 22 March).

Until recently, as will be discussed further, KSO’s protests took a more traditional form than RTS, with invited speakers addressing the crowd. Many high-profile musicians, actors and others involved in Sydney’s nightlife artists have been key to KSO’s strategy, with expressions of support at awards nights and concerts, and speeches and performance at the group’s rallies. Both ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ politicians have also appeared as speakers at the group’s rallies, reflecting their appeal across the political divide.

Undoubtedly, KSO have acquired their considerable popularity through their broad appeal, attracting people who oppose the controversial lockouts for a variety of reasons. The group’s contemporary logo has been a noteworthy factor in their marketability (see Figure 1). As Tyson explained:

The Keep Sydney Open branding is something that comes up quite a bit…[W]e didn’t realize just how important that would be until down the track when we heard a lot of feedback from people who support us and people who aren’t necessarily political or even progressive or left wing support us because they felt like our group wasn’t just a bunch of career protestors or unionist who just turn up to every protest. We managed to build a campaign on people from all walks of life who just support this particular issue. I think the branding has been very important in that it’s quite clean and direct (Koh 2017 pers. comm. 22 March).

KSO’s broad appeal is also reflected in their seemingly innocuous tagline: “We support safe nights in a global city. We support live music. Our mission is to Keep Sydney Open!” (KSO 2017a). As will be discussed, this global city rhetoric central to

14 rage is a long-running all night music video television programme on Australia’s public broadcaster, the ABC.

143

shirts (right). (right). shirts -

logo (left) and protesters wearing the group’s t the group’s wearing protesters and (left) logo

Source: Facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen. Source:

Keep Sydney Open Sydney Keep

1. Figure

144 KSO’s discourse has thus far meant their inability to propose any fundamental challenge to the image of the neoliberal city.

Lockout responses

The State government’s moral hypocrisy around nightlife governance has provided easy fodder for both KSO and RTS in their opposition of the lockout laws (Wolifson 2018). Both groups have adopted different discourses however, to depict and criticize the regulations. Despite alcohol-fuelled violence being espoused as the justification for the laws, Sydney’s casino continues operations unimpeded by the laws, while much of the Kings Cross precinct has been primed for redevelopment due to venue closures. RTS have focused on the apparent lack of regulation around the casino and the redevelopment of Kings Cross as pointing to the power of gambling and developer interests over the public good, and as indicative of the loss of civic space in the inner city. For RTS, the closure of LGBTQIA+-friendly spaces and other diverse venues is a particular concern, while KSO, in responding to the government’s own goals, have adopted a ‘global city’-oriented discursive strategy. In advocating for the remaining nightlife venues, KSO have embraced a neoliberal discourse of a free and ‘open’ night- time economy, one being unfairly interrupted by the state through the spatial selectivity of the lockouts.

‘Communities’, ‘Music’, ‘Planning’, ‘Culture’: RTS’ response to the lockouts

As a multi-issue collective, RTS’ members felt strongly about taking up the issue of the lockouts: “The lockouts really struck a chord with us”, Jason explained. “A lot of us are queer. Many of our venues are, basically where our community has built up is within the lockout area” (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April). Although there was this feeling of impacts close to home, the group also took issue with the broader impact of the lockouts on access to space and effects on conviviality and sociability in the city:

We could see the lockouts having a real effect on, not just bar closures but the way people actually use bars… Even though they’re owned [privately], we saw them as a public space where people meet. We saw the control of those by government [with the] lockouts as a way of basically taking that space away from us (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April).

145 This acknowledgement of nightlife spaces both as important components through which LGBTQIA+ communities are able to develop, and as civic spaces that bridged a private/public divide carries through in the group’s public rhetoric. In their submission to the Callinan review of the lockouts, they state:

The great public outcry against this suite of laws stems not only from the absurd injustice of a curfew affecting responsible adults, but also from a fear of loss of critical public space and community. This fear became justified with the closure of many significant venues (RTS 2016a).

Here, while referencing widespread discourse against a paternalistic ‘nanny-state’, concerns over venue closures are framed particularly with reference to loss of public space and minority community concerns; ‘significant venues’ emphasizes the importance of many of these spaces particularly for certain vulnerable, marginalized groups, for whom they provide connection and counter discrimination (Race 2016; Tomsen 2014), diversity emblematic of that typically destroyed by the gentrifying strategies of neoliberal night-time economy planning:

The lockout laws hit queers disproportionately because they cover the inner city areas where that critical community was built… Th[e] 1.30am deadline occasionally also leads to people being cut off from their friends outside a venue. This leaves them vulnerable to attack (RTS 2016a).

This narrative counters that which was then pervading, about venues as a key contributor to alcohol-related violence, by presenting nightlife venues as places of safety through community and as places through which vital support networks are built:

It’s necessary for everyone to have a common space where inhibitions can be broken down and new connections made. This process takes time so it is equally necessary that this common space stays open all night. Though this practice is universal, vulnerable groups have much greater need… The connections formed in public spaces like bars and nightclubs are needed to counter the effects of systemic discrimination (RTS 2016a).

RTS also note the community ramifications beyond the lockout zone, referring to the significant anecdotal evidence of a cultural change in Newtown, a hub of Sydney’s LGBTQIA+ community, and an area already under pressure from gentrification prior to the lockouts. “Enough punters relocated their weekend festivities from the City to Newtown to cause conflict with the area’s large Queer community” (RTS 2016a).

146 Official transport and violence data supports RTS’ claims that there was a significant growth in nightlife crowds in the area. In response to particular incidences of violence against LGBQTI people, attributed to this cultural shift, RTS held a ‘Keep Newtown Weird and Safe’ ‘mobile protest festival’ in April 2016 (and again almost a year later), citing:

Newtown isn’t what it used to be. An influx of violent dickheads on weekends has made our streets unsafe to walk down. This is about reasserting Newtown’s identity as a beautiful community of queers, weirdoes, freaks, hippies, goths, punks, ferals, migrants and everyone else who doesn’t fit in elsewhere (RTS 2016b).

Despite neither being mentioned in the group’s submission, the casino and developers have been key targets at RTS’ street parties. As Jason noted:

The casino made itself a very convenient target… You don't really get many enemies as obvious as the casino…[it’s] a temple of problems [and] it just became very easy to use that as a tool to hammer the government with (Marshall 2017 pers comm. April 11).

While both KSO and RTS have addressed the exclusion of the casinos from the lockout zone, the latter have focused more keenly on the systemic context of this special treatment. Their first anti-lockouts protest, in September 2015, stressed:

The decay of our nightlife is a visible symptom of a much bigger problem: the influence of money upon policy… As property developers, casino owners, miners, and bankers fight over their own agendas, the interests of the average person take a backseat (RTS 2015a).

Three months later, the next RTS protest festival also took aim at the lockouts, framed within a broad range of concerns: “It’s not fair to be locked out of your city by excessive rents and curfews. The city is not just an investment portfolio for the super rich, it’s our home too…”(RTS 2015b). A third anti-lockouts protest festival was held by RTS in March 2016. This time, the casino, and (then) Premier ‘Casino Mike’ Baird (as he was newly nicknamed) were the targets. A sculpture of a giant faeces was placed on top of the ‘STAR’ sign outside Sydney’s Star Casino (formerly known as Star City’), alongside a placard that read ‘STAR SHITTY’. The ‘The Mike Baird Memorial Turd’, as it was named, pointed to the ‘stink’ of corruption in the casino’s exemption from the lockout. (Figure 2). The Facebook event (RTS 2016c) read:

147

Photo by Josh Groom. Josh by Photo Figure 2. ‘The Mike Baird Memorial Turd’. Turd’. Memorial Baird Mike ‘The 2. Figure

148 Over $5 million was donated by the gambling industry to the major parties since records began in 1998. Over $66 million was donated by property developers in that same time. It’s obvious to everyone the casinos have bought themselves an exemption to the lockouts. It’s obvious to everyone that property developers are making a fortune building apartments where our dance floors once stood… Demand a better nightlife. Demand an end to political donations. Blow up the pokies and RTS!

Issues of power and access to space are clearly articulated key concerns by RTS. Their issues with the lockouts align with their goals of “community ownership of public spaces and [opposition] to the dominance of corporate forces in globalization” (RTS 2016c). They target the undemocratic lobbying position of wealthy gambling and developer interests, and the impact of this not only on nightlife venues but also on residential affordability in the city. Aside from their (compared to KSO) brief submission to the Callinan Review however, RTS’ events have been their key strategy in the lockout debate; as Jason pointed out, RTS’ social media strategy was to gain as many followers as possible in order to get more attendees at the street events. While KSO enjoy a significantly greater public following, the mainstream view of the anti- lockouts movement – by those who both support and oppose it – is likely to be shaped by KSO’s louder rhetoric.

Keep Sydney Open – Safe nights in a global city

In aiming to maximize their policy impact, KSO’s strategy has been to use rhetoric that targets the government’s own. This has meant both the critiquing of the lockouts on the basis of the government’s stated goals for it – primarily as a safety measure – and proposing policy shifts that relate to the governments own economic imperatives. This “safe nights in a global city” (KSO 2017a) discourse is limited in its ability to serve as a fundamental challenge to the image of the neoliberal global city. This is evidenced through their rallies and their submission to the Callinan review, where they advocate on the basis that:

As a growing, diverse and vibrant city, Sydney nightlife has much to offer its residents and visitors. The city’s night-time offerings have made it a leading tourist destination in the Asia-Pacific, contributing to its international

149 reputation as a Global City and bringing considerable economic opportunities to the state (KSO 2016a, 4).

This defense of Sydney’s nightlife emphasizes its (potential) economic outputs, reflecting the discourse of the City of Sydney’s (2013) night-time economy plan, Open (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2016), which reads that: “Sydney has an opportunity to deliver a world-class, sustainable night-time economy, with some of the Asia-Pacific’s best dining, shopping, cultural and public space experiences” (City of Sydney 2013, 1), and “Good governance is essential to a well-managed global city at night [and] can transform us into a world-leading night-time city” (City of Sydney 2013, 7).

KSO’s three rallies pointed to the destruction of the Sydney’s night-time economy as a result of the lockout laws. The first, in February 2016 aimed to be “a tribute to all the closed venues, small businesses and jobs lost since the lockouts” (KSO 2016b). At the next, their call to arms read: “Together we will march in the streets to call on the state government to let Sydney have the same, world class late-night culture we all know this city is capable of having” (KSO 2016c), and their third (and thus far, final) protest event read: “Our campaign will continue to be the thorn in the side of any government who continues to devastate the communities of our city with draconian, anti-business, anti- culture lockout laws” (KSO 2017b).

The 19-page submission by KSO to the Callinan review detailed three key impacts of the lockout laws and seven key actions to replace the laws. The submission reads as clearly targeted towards the policy as it was framed and sold. For instance, the first of the impacts of the lockout laws discussed is ‘questionable positive impact on public safety’, a clear rebuttal of the government’s selling of the lockouts to combat alcohol- fuelled violence. This (relatively lengthy) section of the submission uses BOCSAR data to question the safety impacts. They also address the casino’s lockout zone exclusion here, stating: “If the lockout laws are maintained in their existing form, the rationale for their introduction ought to be the rationale for their application to the Star and Barangaroo” (KSO 2016a, 9).

The second of the three impacts discussed by KSO (2016a, 10) is ‘economic impacts’, clearly framed within the government’s own goals:

The economic impact of the lockout laws include venue closures, decreased tourism and increased unemployment which conflict with the overall objectives of the Act “to contribute to the responsible development of related industries such as the live music, entertainment, tourism and hospitality

150 industries”. The lockout laws are not contributing to the development of these industries because they have made them financially unviable.

This section of the submission includes a discussion of venue closures, highlighting the potential impact on tourism, as well as unemployment “and the general decline in night-time business viability [including] bar staff, security staff, musicians, artists, and taxi staff” (KSO 2016a, 11). They continue, “The lockout laws also reduce the ability of Sydney businesses to attract talent” (KSO 2016a, 11–12).

‘Cultural and social impacts’ appear next in KSO’s submission. While the section acknowledges upfront that nightlife has value, it is not particularly clear that it is cultural and social value being discussed (but for the section heading):

The NTE is a hallmark of global cities such as New York, London and Paris and something previous NSW Governments sought to foster. There is immeasurable value in live music, night-time culture (e.g. eating and drinking past 1.30am) and creativity. In fact, the architect of the Newcastle lock-out laws has said “If patron wish to eat, listen to music, or watch a striptease, it should not be for government to decide whether premises are allowed to provide these services” (KSO 2016a, 12).

Constraining the discussion of impacts within the bounds of the ‘night-time economy’ appears to co-opt this section of KSO’s submission away from any substantial commentary on cultural and social impacts. ‘[E].g. eating and drinking past 1.30am’, in the above quotation for instance, is a narrow articulation of ‘night time culture’, and notably one with significant economic outputs as reflected in government documents. The quotation included in reference to the Newcastle lockouts does not speak to the cultural and social values of nightlife. Rather, it critiques government interference in the night-time economy and advocates for a brand of nightlife governance where venues – whatever type they may be – are uninterrupted by the state.

Furthering this discursive trend, a view of personal responsibility is advocated in the first line of KSO’s submission, with a quotation reading: “The voluntary act of drinking until intoxicated should be regarded as a deliberate act taken by a person exercising autonomy for which that person should carry personal responsibility in law” (Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club & Anor [2004] HCA 29 at 121 quoted in KSO 2016a, 4). They also cite the popularity (over a million views at the time of KSO’s submission) of an article entitled ‘Would the last person in Sydney please turn the lights out?’ by Matt Barrie, an article that undoubtedly played a significant role in

151 the momentum of the anti-lockouts campaign, reproducing a public discourse of an overbearing, paternalistic ‘nanny state’. In particular, the article was highly critical of the state Liberal (conservative) government for contradicting their founding ideology of economic liberalism:

The NSW Liberals espouse lower taxes, greater freedom and smaller government. All we have seen is increased fines and taxes, less freedom and larger government as more and more it intrudes into what we do in our everyday lives. The NSW Liberal Government should step back and leave these issues to the individual, which was the basis of liberalism and the ethos of their party in the first place (Barrie 2016).

While the discussion of social and cultural impacts in KSO’s submission understandably links to that of business closures, there is little on the wider social and cultural impacts of the resulting land use changes, including the effects of the rapid redevelopment underway in the lockout zone. This section of the submission serves to reiterate economic concerns while social and cultural impacts are discussed in a minimal way. For instance, venues that have shut are discussed as simply having “offered patrons the chance to listen to live music or party on the dance floor”, while a failure of the Act in reference to the development of live music and entertainment (as mentioned earlier) is again reiterated in this section. As will be discussed in the next section, there was a clear avoidance by KSO of the use of social and cultural data that was unquantified. This was exemplified in the use of selections from a report prepared by Deloitte Access Economics, used to briefly note that live music “helps develop music careers and incubate talent [and t]here are significant benefits from attendance including social wellbeing and connectedness and 92% of patrons found live-music improved their quality of life”.

Policy involvement

KSO have made efforts to actively involve themselves in official policy discussions, a role RTS have been content for them to assume despite fundamental differences between their political views. With their more radical stance, RTS is viewed as having confused messaging and lacking ‘specific goals’ around nightlife regulation. Along with KSO’s significant supporter base, the cohesiveness of their rhetoric with the government’s own neoliberal messaging appears to have a strong bearing on the group’s lobbying status. Despite KSO’s following and lobbying position, they have not

152 yet been successful in removing the lockouts, although a half hour lockout deferment was granted for some music venues following the last review. The group recently signed up members to develop into a political party, with a view to run for the NSW State Legislative Council (Upper House) at the next election in 2019, a move that has already raised questions for the group going forward.

Aside from a submission to the Callinan review, RTS have not actively sought involvement in government discussions on the issue of the lockouts. Rather, says Jason, “we’re more about mobilizing people and encouraging them” (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April), a model they used for both the anti-Westconnex and anti- lockouts campaigns, where more politically active groups emerged for the same causes:

We don’t really represent anybody. All we can really do is bring people out into the streets in order to visually show that they care, and meet each other, and form those connections that go on to actually run the harder, long-term campaign… A bunch of people [from] Keep Sydney Open, at least their wider network, met each other through our initial rallies. I think the September rally in 2015, it was — a bunch of them met there and got energized there (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April).

For Tyson from KSO, RTS’ lack of direct political involvement placed a question mark over their impact, and opened them up to critique for not compromising with government on solutions:

Because they’re kind of like a multi-issue protest group it’s hard to know to what extent they’re having a real impact… Maybe where they fall down is they don’t have specific policy asks. To just say get rid of the lockouts, like even we realized that it’s not always feasible to do that, that you need to provide alternative and maybe even have some compromise there (Koh 2017 pers comm. 22 March).

As a result of RTS’ limited institutional involvement, neither of the government officials I spoke to – from State and City levels – had much to say about the group. The former State government official, although aware of the group and cognizant of their role in the public debate against the lockouts, official seemed to know little about the history of Reclaim the Streets, and was suspicious of the collective’s agenda:

It plays on that Reclaim the Night thing which is actually about anti-violence, so by naming themselves Reclaim the Streets I don’t think they’ve been particularly forthright about their agenda. Keep Sydney Open is very open about what they’re there to do. Reclaim the Streets implies that governments

153 take an ownership of the streets and put people off the streets and you can’t be there [but] one could argue that there’s more license to be on the street now than there was 5 years ago because you can’t enter a pub. So I think their agenda and positioning aren’t quite as forthright and that bugs me (Former NSW Government official 2017 pers comm. 3 May).

This confused understanding of RTS’ intent signals a division between policymaking and ‘right to the city’ ideas and, indeed, ideas alternative to the neoliberal consensus model. While many of the differences between KSO and RTS’ strategies can be put down to having a “different value system” (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April), RTS note the hard work of KSO, work they were not willing to take on: “They're the ones doing all the hard work, so you can't really complain too much. I'm not sure I'd want to spend my time chatting with government officials… we just don't want that to take up our lives.” (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April). As Tyson described, in contrast: “It’s become my life’s work” (Koh 2017 pers. comm. 22 March). This work has enabled KSO to have a notable role in lobbying government as the key outside voice of the anti-lockouts movement:

Our group, in addition to having a large social media following, in addition to have a demonstrable capability to put people on the streets in protest, we’ve also been very willing to engage with those very dry bureaucratic processes like making submissions to reviews and turning up to meetings, private and community and so I think making that submission to that review was really great for us because we were able to show that level of maturity from what is essentially a protest group (Koh 2017 pers. comm. 22 March).

While, as discussed earlier, RTS did make a submission to the Callinan review, it was simply one amid a large volume of such submissions; KSO’s, as will be shown, was treated differently. The combined greater public support and greater lobbying role of KSO has meant that both the public debate around the lockouts and associated policy responses have been heavily influenced by KSO’s discourse. The group’s particular institutional involvements as elements of strategy have, both directly and indirectly, been guided by government officials, explicating KSO’s ‘global city’ framing. As Van Hoose and Savini (2017, 15) recently reminded us, “[t]he building of ties with public authorities is problematic due to the inherent tension between resistance and the risk of being co-opted”. A former NSW government official described the situation early on:

I remember a very early discussion with Tyson Koh that, he’s sort of, "We’re not getting any traction. Why doesn’t government listen to the sector?...". My response to that was, "Because you’re not organized and at the moment the

154 community voice and the loud voice is, you need to stop our kids getting smacked around when they go into Cross and into the city and until you give an equally loud voice, politicians are never going to pay attention". (Former NSW government official 2016 pers. comm. 3 May)

In their ability to speak to government, it was clear that KSO hoped to achieve a more ‘legitimate’ voice by articulating their concerns in reference to the government’s own, as already discussed. As a City of Sydney official put it, to make an effective lobbyer social movements should:

…identify exactly what they want, what positive difference the change will make, and how it will contribute to achieving the objectives of the government. For instance, the NSW Premier has key priorities such as increasing jobs. So thinking about the changes that they [the lobbyers] want to achieve, linking them to government objectives and presenting it in a concise way so it’s very clear that yes: ‘This is going to deliver tangible outcomes that contribute to achieving government objectives’ (City of Sydney government official 2017 pers comm. 16 November).

At the time of the Callinan review in the latter half of 2016, KSO had established a lobbying position with both the City and State governments, one that at State level saw Tyson invited to participate in a series of government roundtables relating to nightlife governance. Tyson also met with Justice Callinan during his review period, and Callinan’s report directly addressed KSO’s submission. As Tyson’s explained in his response to Callinan’s review in The Daily Telegraph: “I submitted a report that assessed the impacts of the lockout through a dry, statistical lens avoiding the obfuscation seen in this debate, anti-lockout arguments included” (Koh 2016). Here, Tyson spells out the co-opting of KSO’s own agenda; as is typical of the competitive quantifying of 'global city' measures (Leon 2017), a lack of statistics on the social and cultural impacts of the lockouts on nightlife has seen them, for the most part, voluntarily removed them KSO’s discussion in order to gain legitimacy. Where safety and the economy are the government’s stated key concerns around nightlife, a reading of KSO’s submission points to them having also become theirs.

Despite this ‘dry, statistical’ submission however, Callinan’s response was not positive. Ultimately, KSO’s views, and others of the opponents were, for the most part, systematically refuted in the Callinan review. His discussion of ‘Views of the Opponents’ includes seven sections, Part Five of which – Adverse Effects Upon Business – includes a subsection directly addressing “Mr Koh’s submissions”,

155 highlighting how Callinan interpreted the focus of KSO’s submission. There is little attempt throughout Callinan’s report to understand the social and cultural nuances of nightlife affected by the lockout. In Callinan’s (2016, 116) (limited) observation, although “Musicians and other entertainers have been adversely economically affected by the laws… The extent to which such entertainers’ livelihoods have been adversely affected cannot, however, be calculated”. As well, in the table listing common objections, under “Impact on ‘creative’ people especially”, Callinan writes “The legislation does not in terms discriminate against any group of people. As with much regulation, responsible non-offending people will be restricted in some respects” (Callinan 2016, 5). In effectively dismissing concerns where there is no direct measurement of impact available, Callinan gives little chance to social and cultural issues. While the final admission of a half hour adjustment for live music venues did acknowledge an affect, the amendment can be of little comfort.

With regards to the casino, Callinan was dismissive of criticisms, stating that “It is not for me to make any judgment whether gambling generally or gambling in a casino is morally inferior to selling or consuming alcohol” (Callinan 2016, 119). Arguably, such moral judgments were not withheld from the review in reference to other nightlife activities, however. In reference to property development as a result of the lockouts, Callinan gave it little regard. He referenced one opponent’s concerns (the Manager of Kings Cross’ World Bar, Greg Turton), stating:

Mr Turton says that [other] businesses have closed, and that property developers have started snapping up property and building residential towers. I accept that there have been such closures, but I think that the numbers of these may have been exaggerated. Characters of areas can change with and without legislative or government intervention. There are obviously features of Kings Cross which might attract developers and residents of apartment buildings (Callinan 2016, 103; brackets original).

This claim of exaggeration is frequently used throughout the report, particularly in regards to negative impacts from the lockouts. The only other mentions of redevelopment I was able to find within the 151 page report are in Callinan’s summary of contentions of the supporters of the regulations. In response to the assertion that the lockouts had not caused large scale closures of licensed premises, Callinan did concede that “[s]ome licenced premises have closed as a result wholly or in part of the Amendments”, (although he claims that some vacancies “may be as a result of natural attrition”). He observed that “[s]ome former licensed premises have been demolished and replaced or are being replaced by large residential buildings” and made the obvious

156 observation that “[p]roximity to the city and other amenities have made Kings Cross an attractive and convenient place in which to live”. Such statements add nothing about negative social and cultural impacts of such residential change and, rather than implicating the government’s regulation, instead insinuate a ‘natural’ inevitability of the observable gentrification. Ultimately, Tyson admitted that the impact of his and KSO’s involvement in the review process was distinctly limited by the government’s (and, by extension Callinan’s) lack of willingness to change the lockouts. Soon after the report’s release, a clearly frustrated Koh (2016) labeled the report as “lopsided and [with] contradictions peppered throughout”. He told me, “Anyone who went through [Callinan’s] review and noted his colorful language and treatment of both myself and KSO would see that he entered into that whole process with his mind made up” (Koh 2017 pers. comm. 22 March).

This ongoing frustration with the lack of change has led KSO to its most recent shift in direction. In October of 2017, KSO announced that it was considering running for an Upper House (Legislative Council) seat at the NSW State election in March 2019. While a great deal of support was displayed for this move on social media, there were those who questioned the group’s broader politics. For instance, in response to a Facebook post asking “Should we run for the upper house in NSW?” (KSO 2017c), one commenter posted: “Depends. I’ll support your party if you’re actually going to have a libertarian approach to everything. If you’re only going to have a libertarian approach to nightlife, then you’ve lost me…” A different commenter then responded to that comment with, “This but I’m probably not going to vote for you if you have a libertarian approach to everything.” This exchange highlights that there is a range of political views held by KSO supporters, something Tyson was aware of when we discussed the future possibility of a political party: “I think it’s important to remember why people are supporting us. I think there is an appetite there for the group to expand but I think we have to be really careful about it” (Koh 2017 pers comm. 22 March). One (now) former member of the group’s organizing committee, Jacqui Munro, penned an article on alternative media site, Junkee, criticizing the group’s potential move into politics. Notably, Munro was also former Vice-President of the Young Liberals (the youth arm of Australia’s major conservative party). In the article, she noted that the “movement [had] gained traction across the political divide… making strange bedfellows of supporters” (Munro 2017). Indeed, Munro’s criticism was mirrored in Tyson’s comments when we spoke:

We haven’t aligned ourselves closely with any particular campaign because a lot of people that we’ve found who’ve activated around this particular issue (of

157 the lockouts) are only interested in this issue so we don’t want to split our audience by getting involved in other hot potato topics (Koh 2017 pers. comm. 22 March).

While the broad appeal of KSO’s rhetoric has helped maintain public debate, the impact of KSO on Sydney’s reputation and, consequently, on economic growth, was an issue that both State and City policymakers had expressed concern about:

The more we talk about everything being closed, the more the perception is of everything being closed and the more people actually go, "Well, I won't go into to town because there's nothing happening"… The more we talk about it overseas as Sydney being locked, and Sydney not allowing people, then tourists and everything else don’t understand that "I can still go to Newtown… I can still go anywhere else. I just can’t go in this bounded area of 1,500 venues" (Former NSW government official 2017 pers comm. 3 May).

Tyson agreed that KSO’s focus on Sydney’s damaged reputation has become:

…a self-fulfilling prophecy and we’re kind of caught between a rock and a hard place between supporting the businesses, events and promoters that are still working very hard in the current climate in Sydney but also calling attention to the issues. We do try and support [the venues that are around] and we’ve actually put on events and fundraisers at a few venues around Sydney to highlight that and I think that in this next phase of the campaign we’re going to concentrate more on that… We’ve already been on the front page of the newspaper, we’ve already shown we can get 15000 people on the streets, we don’t need to do that anymore, but what we’d like to do is to better support the surviving businesses and get people excited about going out in Sydney again but never forgetting the challenges that nightlife faces and to be ready to act when there’s certain government action that requires a response from us.

Since then, Keep Sydney Open have held two multi-venue precinct parties in July and October of 2017 – ‘Meet Me in the Cross’ and ‘Meet me in Darlo’, as well as a Halloween event at the Kings Cross Hotel, ‘The Cross is [Un]Dead’. For the City of Sydney official I spoke with, this has been a welcome change:

To influence government policy and politicians you want to work with them and not against them… They’ve since turned it around to start promoting Sydney and actually actively working with venues to program music and then market that which is really positive. (City of Sydney government official 2017 pers comm. 16 November).

158 Conclusion

The governance of Sydney’s nightlife has had profound impacts on the city. The nightscape itself has notably gentrified, with an eclectic range of venues closing down in favor of more upmarket night-time businesses, effectively diminishing inclusiveness and sociality. Shifts in the governance of nightlife industries have also served to replace the civic spaces of nightlife altogether, through gentrification via the increasing residentialization of the inner city. Despite two changes in State government leadership since the introduction of the lockouts in early 2014, Sydney’s anti-lockout movements have struggled against a largely impenetrable policy position on the issue. For KSO, this struggle has been reflected in many of the group’s changes in its few years of existence. Their great success in appealing to the neoliberal citizen consumer (Miles 2012) has not translated into the desired government action – with drastic consequences for the city’s nightlife. While KSO employed much of the government’s own competitive ‘global city’ discourse, and attempted to work with government policymakers, they found themselves forced to mute their policy critique due to the perceived ‘reputational’ impacts. So too, while KSO strategically sought to limit their critique primarily to the concern of the lockouts – again a popular success – they now face the impending challenge of broadening their political concerns, having started a political party as a result of frustration with government inaction. RTS, on the other hand, have not held back in their critique of the government and corporate forces working against Sydney’s nightlife. The group’s performativities have provided several affective moments countering the discourses of the government and the neoliberal status quo. The appeal of KSO’s discourse along with their significant efforts, however, have meant that KSO’s neoliberal ‘global city’ vision for Sydney has overshadowed that of RTS in the anti- lockout debate.

Co-productive public and (apparent) institutional receptivity to KSO’s ‘global city’ discursive strategy have been key markers of the group’s success. Sydney’s history of nightlife industry regulation and responses to it helps in part to explain this receptivity. The intertwining of Sydney’s (post)colonial identity with drinking and gambling, along with the regulatory restraint of those industries at various times, served to encourage neoliberal ideas of freedom through relaxed regulation of those leisure industries. Along with the powerful lobby groups representing the alcohol and gambling industries, neoliberal governance has facilitated the expansion of those industries as a service to the ‘night-time economy’. The global city ‘creative class’ messaging of such governance has widespread appeal, claiming to address alcohol-related violence

159 seemingly without restricting nightlife freedoms. With the introduction of the lockouts likely signaling a shift in favor of developers over what has been a long-term facilitation of the alcohol industry, the (neo)liberal freedoms of Sydney’s nightlife were disrupted.

In critiquing this shift – inevitable under the status quo model of neoliberal governance – KSO adopted the government’s own discourse, centered on the reputation of the city’s nightlife. Within this depoliticized consensus model of the ‘night-time economy’, KSO found themselves trapped into muting their critical rhetoric so as to limit their own impact on the city’s reputation. Best serving the ‘night-time economy’, under the discursive model they were set up under, has meant promoting existing nightlife venues – not unlike other event promoters – rather than holding public protests as they previously had. That the ability of the group to pressure for policy change is greatest when public momentum is behind it – as has been seen – is an added irony of where KSO have found themselves, particularly given the limited shift in policy up to now. The inception of the KSO political party is indicative of the frustration borne out of this situation. While this step has in part signaled the evolution of the group’s ideas from the single issue of the lockouts to broader concerns about the city’s governance, it also threatens to dismantle their support, given the divergence of political views among their followers.

In contrast to the problems KSO has faced in their campaign, the creative performativity of RTS’ ‘street party’ model stands out as simultaneously critical of key targets and as celebratory of the existing artistic and cultural life of the city. In reimagining freedom as something to be taken in the ‘here and now’ (Klein 2000, 317), rather than somehow assimilated via the market, the RTS street party has the potential to rethink freedom as something to be gained by the protection of land uses through collective action. Further, in (re)presenting a vision of alternative possibilities for the use of city space, RTS reject the neoliberal consensus model of the ‘night-time economy’, one that effectively advocates for gentrification as a solution to alcohol- related violence in the city’s nightlife. This discourse ultimately, (if often subconsciously), perceives nightlife diversity as a problem in need of fixing, as has been discussed by Talbot (2004, 898) with regards to racial diversity in nightlife settings:

…the regulation of night culture can be understood in the context of debates around ‘institutional racism’ in that such practices were either productive of racism (Lea 1986) or simply neglectful of the impact of such strategies on racial equality (Smith, 1989).

Rather than responding to the government with such problematic discourse, the RTS

160 collective have used their own (centrally queer) experiential knowledge to argue that “a vibrant nightlife is not the cause of social decay, it is the cure” (RTS 2016a), by citing the community and safety benefits of diverse nightlife spaces. While this experiential knowledge was the apparent impetus for RTS’ involvement in the anti-lockout movement, they have successfully focused their public rhetoric on the unjust influence of the casinos and property developers on the government; indeed, the name ‘Casino Mike’ has been one of the more enduring elements of the campaign, and fixes squarely into a long-term discourse of public indignation over government corruption in NSW.

Notable differences between the rhetoric and methods of KSO and RTS provide a telling elucidation of the impact of neoliberalism on urban activism, in particular, on the public and institutional receptivity to activist messages. Depoliticisation of “night- time economy” rhetoric is a key mechanism shaping ineffective responses to problematic nightlife regulation. This normalized neoliberal discourse presents a crucial barrier to attempts to gain political traction and affect change. Such rhetoric supports regulation beneficial to upmarket spaces that appeal to the so-called ‘creative class’, while stifling alternative venues. KSO have evolved in their views in their few years of existence, acknowledging that their key issue of concern has roots beyond the initial moral panic that sparked the decision to introduce the lockout in early 2014. The group’s discourse however, continues to synchronize considerably with that of the City of Sydney who have embraced, and for many years sold, a neoliberal strategy for the night-time economy, one that prioritizes consumption and economic growth (Wolifson and Drozdzewski 2017). Such rhetoric has been increasingly palatable to the neoliberal citizen-consumer, particularly when counterposed with the blatantly problematic and increasingly autocratic neoliberal governance of the NSW State government, with their support of casinos and gaming machines, and the aggressive impacts of their lockout policy. Much like the City of Sydney, KSO's socially liberal image is in tune with the “inherent internationalization of the global city ideal”, one that gives its economic rationale “a progressive edge, furthering mythological associations between capitalism, democracy and togetherness” (Leon 2017, 19).

This case study demonstrates that what is widely considered successful in urban activism is increasingly a judgment of its neoliberal appeal, effectively co-opting activist approaches into performing the discursive work of neoliberal governments. There have been some small wins for KSO since their foundation – a half hour lockout exemption for certain music venues, a one hour extension of bottle shop sales NSW-wide, and “for small bars, you don’t have to put a Coke or a soda water into your fine malt whiskeys either” (KSO 2016d). The group’s ‘global city’ focus however, targets their efforts at

161 supporting the saleable elements of nightlife – the ‘night-time economy’. The inherent assumption – built into this framework they espouse – that a (neo)liberalization of nighttime leisure would facilitate a diverse and inclusive nightlife fails to adequately consider (and indeed conflicts with) the values of nightlife for sociality, inclusion and artistic, cultural and political expression, and the central need for urban spaces for such uses. Moreover, while policymakers and government have been compelled to include and respond to KSO in their official processes – unlike with RTS – their policy stance (and its dramatic impacts) has persisted largely undeterred.

KSO perform their particular strategy and identity in an effort to thrive and succeed under the governing regime. While KSO’s successful branding and large following convey an image of success, this ‘success’ has thus far failed to translate into policy that impacts the significant land-use issues of concern to Sydney’s nightlife. While the performative discourses of RTS suggests their closer attunement to the neoliberal policies backgrounding the lockout, their message has been clouded by the voice of KSO who have overwhelmingly been framed as the mouthpiece of Sydney’s pro-nightlife movement. Mayer (2013) has discussed those activist groups in the neoliberal city whose messaging corresponds with the creative city brand, noting their strategic positioning and their susceptibility to use ”for pacification purposes, as media and politicians pit them against more politicized or radical movements”. Here, we see that the discursive dominance of KSO by way of their employment of neoliberal discourses has seen alternative discourses – those of RTS and at times their own – silenced with little need for intervention.

The outcomes of KSO’s entry into NSW politics remain to be seen. Despite the group’s public and institutional receptivity, it has been unable to curb the dramatic impacts of the lockouts both on Sydney’s nightlife venues and on the remaking of the inner city. Neither – as they, themselves, would have anticipated – has RTS had a policy impact over the last few years. While this key period of the anti-lockout movements will no doubt be looked upon as a decisive moment of change in the landscape of inner Sydney, it also sits as a pivotal marker of the undue influence of capitalist forces in the governance of the city – an enduring narrative in Sydney that is perhaps the best hope will one day incite structural change. The success of activist groups is, therefore, a far more complex question than that of public popularity and institutional receptivity; it should not be assessed on the basis of branding appeal and amenability to institutional processes. As can be seen in the case of Sydney’s historical nightlife governance, long-term public discourse has a key role to play in the battle for the city:

162 Look, there’s two ways of campaigning, right? You can campaign for long- term change or you can try and appeal to the interests of people in power at that time… I prefer campaigning in broader terms over the long term because even if I don’t win now, all of my efforts have gone towards changing people’s mind and arguing in the broader terms of change and the rights of people to do things. Those things are universal and they’ll last a lot longer. It’s also easier to do because I believe in it (Marshall 2017 pers. comm. 11 April).

References

Amin, A., Thrift, N., and Massey, D. 2000. Cities for the few and not for the many. Bristol: Policy Press.

Barrie, M. 2016. ‘Would the last person in Sydney please turn the lights out?’ LinkedIn, 3 February, www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-last-person-sydney-please-turn-lights-out- matt-barrie.

Butler, J. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.

Butler, T. and Robson. G. 2001. ‘Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: a comparison of three South London neighbourhoods’. Urban Studies, 38(12), pp.2145-2162.

Callinan, I. 2016. ‘Review of Amendments to the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW).’ Sydney: Independent Liquor Law Review. 16 September, www.liquorlawreview.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/report/LiquorLawReviewReport .pdf.

Chatterton, P. and Hollands, R. 2003. Urban nightscapes: Youth cultures, pleasure spaces and corporate power. London: Routledge.

Clark, T. 2004. The city as an entertainment machine. Boston: Elsevier.

Curran G. 2006. 21st Century Dissent. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. 1991. Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Glass, M. R. 2016. ‘Performing neoliberalism: practices, power and subject formation’. The Handbook of Neoliberalism. S. Springer, K. Birch, and J. MacLeavy (eds.). London: Routledge, pp.351-360.

Gramsci, A. 1971 [1929–35]. Selections from the prison notebooks. Q. Hoare and G. Smith (eds.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.

163 Gregson, N. and Rose, G. 2000. ‘Taking Butler elsewhere: performativities, spatialities and subjectivities’. Environment and Planning D: Society and space, 18(4), pp.433–452.

Hae, L. 2012. The gentrification of nightlife and the right to the city. New York: Routledge.

Harvey, D. 1973. Social justice and the city. London: Edward Arnold.

Harvey, D., 1978. The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1‐4), pp.101-131.

Harvey, D. 1989. ‘From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism’. Geografiska Annaler, 71B, pp.3–17.

Jordan, J. 2002. ‘The art of necessity: the subversive imagination of anti-road protest and Reclaim the Streets’. Cultural Resistance Reader. S. Duncombe (ed.). London: Verso Books, pp.347—357.

Keep Sydney Open. 2016a. ‘Submission by Keep Sydney Open (KSO) Review of the Liquor Amendment Act 2014 by the Hon. IDF Callinan AC QC’. 4 April, www.keepsydneyopen.com/assets/160404-Keep_Sydney_Open_Submission.pdf.

______. 2016b. ‘Keep Sydney Open rally’. Facebook Event, 21 February, www.facebook.com/events/434172900111114.

______. 2016c. ‘Keep Sydney Open Rally #2’. Facebook Event, 9 October, www.facebook.com/events/1159692567402833.

______. 2017a. ‘About’. Keep Sydney Open. keepsydneyopen.com/#about.

______. 2017b. ‘Keep Sydney Open Rally #3’. Facebook Event, 18 February, www.facebook.com/events/370987713260989.

______. 2017c. ‘Should we run for the upper house in NSW?’ Facebook Post, 20 October, www.facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen.

______. 2017d. ‘Should Keep Sydney Open run for NSW Parliament?’ Facebook Video Post, 18 October, www.facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen/videos/1743402189025986.

Klein, N. 2000. No Logo. London: Flamingo.

Koh, T. 2016. ‘Justice Callinan’s report has locked us out of the debate’. The Daily Telegraph, 20 September. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/justic- callinans-report-has-locked-us-out-of-the-debate/news- story/d9c588141c290af68b6adde1a25690aa

Kornberger, M., and Clegg, S. 2011. ‘Strategy as performative practice: the case of Sydney 2030’. Strategic Organization, 9(2), pp.136–162.

Larner, W. 2012. ‘New subjects’. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to economic geography. T. Barnes, J. Peck, and E. Sheppard (eds.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp.358–371.

164 Lea, J. 1986. ‘Police racism: some theories and their policy implications’. Confronting Crime. R. Matthews and J. Young (eds.). London: Sage, pp.145–165.

Leon, J.K. 2017. ‘Global cities at any cost: Resisting municipal mercantilism’. City, 21(1), pp.1–19.

MacDonald, J. 2015. ‘“Green, Global, and Connected”: Can Sydney solve its metropolitan governance problems?’ Transforming distressed global communities: making inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities. F. Wagner, R. Mahayni, and A.G. Piller (eds.). Burlington: Ashgate, pp.211–229.

McGuirk, P. 2004. ‘State, strategy, and scale in the competitive city: a neo-Gramscian analysis of the governance of “Global Sydney”’. Environment and Planning A, 36(6), pp.1019–1043.

McGuirk, P. and O'Neill, P., 2002. ‘Planning a prosperous Sydney: the challenges of planning urban development in the new urban context’. Australian Geographer, 33(3), pp.301- 316.

Mackinnon, Olivia. 2017. ‘NSW Premier Reveals What She’s Doing About the Lockout Laws’. Kiis 1065, January 24, www.kiis1065.com.au/shows/kyle-jackie-o/new-nsw-premier- reveals-what-she-s-doing-about-the-lockout-laws.

Marcuse, P. 2016. ‘For the repoliticization of global city research’. City & Community, 15(2), pp.113–117.

Mayer, M. 2013. 'First world urban activism'. City, 17(1), pp.5–19.

Molloy, M. and Larner, W. 2010. ‘Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries Indeed?’ Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(3), pp.361-377.

Moulier-Boutang, Y. 2011. Cognitive capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.

Munro, J. 2017. ‘Why Keep Sydney Open Should Stay Away From Parliament.’ Junkee, 24 October, junkee.com/keep-sydney-open-parliament/132059

Peck, J. 2010. Constructions of neoliberal reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peet R, 2002, ‘Ideology, discourse and the geography of hegemony: from socialist to neoliberal development in post-apartheid South Africa’. Antipode, 34, pp.54–84.

Race, K. 2016. ‘The sexuality of the night: violence and transformation.’ Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(1), pp.105–110.

Reclaim the Streets. 2014a. ‘Reclaim The Streets.’ Facebook Event, 6 September, www.facebook.com/events/666498926779734.

______. 2014b. ‘Reclaim The Streets: Stop Westconnex.’ Facebook Event, 13 December. www.facebook.com/events/768488139878740.

165 Reclaim the Streets. 2015a. ‘Reclaim The Streets.’ Facebook Event, 13 September, www.facebook.com/events/881584515256628.

______. 2015b. ‘RECLAIM THE STREETS.’ Facebook Event. 12 December, www.facebook.com/events/1274606679232253.

______. 2016a. ‘Reclaim the Streets Submission to Liquor Law Review.’ 3 April, www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Submissions/Reclaim%20the%20Streets .pdf.

______. 2016b. ‘Keep Newtown Weird and Safe.’ Facebook Event, 23 April, www.facebook.com/events/228027434229609.

______. 2016c. ‘Reclaim The Streets.’ Facebook Event, 19 March., www.facebook.com/events/237327156602371.

______. 2017. 'About'. Facebook, www.facebook.com/pg/RTSsydney/about.

Smith, S. 1989. The politics of ‘race’ and residence: citizenship, segregation and white supremacy in Britain. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Springer, S. 2016. The discourse of neoliberalism: an anatomy of a powerful idea. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.

Springer, S., Birch, K., and MacLeavy, J. 2016. The handbook of neoliberalism. London: Routledge.

Talbot, D. 2004. ‘Regulation and Racial Differentiation in the Construction of Night-time Economies: A London Case Study.’ Urban Studies, 41(4), pp.887–901.

______. 2006. ‘The Licensing Act 2003 and the problematization of the night-time economy: planning, licensing and subcultural closure in the UK’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(1), pp.150–71.

Tomsen, S. 2014. ‘Identity wars. Crime, safety and conflict in Sydney’s night-time economy.’ Etnografia e ricerca qualitative, 3, pp.463–80.

VanHoose, K., and Savini, F. 2017. 'The social capital of urban activism: Practices in London and Amsterdam'. City, 21(3-4), pp.293-311.

Wadds, P. 2013. ‘Policing nightlife : the representation and transformation of security in Sydney’s night-time economy.’ PhD diss., University of Western Sydney.

Wolifson, P. 2018. ‘Civilising by gentrifying: The contradictions of neoliberal planning for nightlife in Sydney, Australia’. Exploring Nightlife: Space, Society and Governance. A. Eldridge and J. Nofre (eds.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield International.

Wolifson. P., and Drozdzewski, D. 2017. ‘Cooping the night: the entrepreneurial shift and economic imperative in NTE Planning’. Urban Policy and Research, 35(4), pp.486–504.

166 V. Beyond lockouts

Sydney needs to become a more inclusive city

167 Academic rigour, journalistic flair Beyond lockouts: Sydney needs to become a more inclusive city March 17, 2016 2.21pm AEDT

The critical issues underlying the debate about Sydney’s nightlife include worsening inequality and who is getting left behind. AAP/Richard Ashen

In recent weeks debate on the regulation of Sydney’s nightlife has escalated. Thus far it has largely been pitched as a battle between night-time businesses struggling with lockout and last- drinks laws, and a “nanny state” government.

But there is much more at stake. Our newly published research focused on Surry Hills – one of Sydney’s cultural and night-time hubs – found that underlying the nightlife debate are the critical Authors issues of Sydney’s worsening inequality, aspirations to govern Sydney as an enterprising “global” city, and who gets left behind.

At stake is “the right to the city”. Currently, it seems many are being denied this right. Peta Wolifson PhD Candidate in Human Geography, UNSW Is a global city a divided city?

Much of the recent debate between the anti- and pro-lockouts camps has focused on Sydney’s status as a global city. The former group claims this is being eroded as Sydney’s cultural life Chris Gibson wanes. Director, UOW Global Challenges Program & Professor of Human Geography, University of Wollongong For years, governments have strived for global city status through economic targets that view culture as a saleable commodity. But this underplays its intrinsic values. It ignores grassroots culture and the spaces in which developing artists network and evolve.

Sydney’s global city status has also deepened its socioeconomic divide. The city faces a raft of inequality issues – from manic property market activity excluding lower-income residents to the obfuscation of political donations and the impacts of poker machines in poor suburbs.

168 An underlying geographical divide lurks in the debate over Sydney’s nightlife. This is manifest in the anti-lockout protestors’ claim that it is not them who should be punished for the actions of a few troublemakers. Nightlife users in Sydney view particular groups of people as problematic. Consequently, the cultural changes needed to make Sydney’s nightlife safer are seen as separate from those protesting the laws.

This “othering” has long been presented geographically. Troublemakers are seen to be from areas of Sydney away from its inner suburbs. Underlying this discrimination are historical legacies that have seen Sydney expand exponentially while becoming more sociospatially divided.

Faux consultation

Critics of the lockout laws are rightfully angry at the lack of prior community consultation by the NSW government. But their frustrating experience is part of a wider trend.

As documented in recent research, consultation is used as a tool to mobilise the public into line with governmental goals, and to give the impression that it occurred. There is a discord between lofty rhetoric about communities being part of a conversation and the preordained ideologies and mobile policymaking structures that make changes to planning unlikely.

Time and again the Baird government has pursued this strategy. Two prominent examples are the WestConnex road project and council amalgamations.

‘Place-making’, soul-destroying

Sydney, along with the rest of the world, is obsessed with “place-making”. The City of Sydney Council may not approve of the lockout laws, but it too is guided by an agenda that values select cultural elements drawn from a highly desired pool of “creative class” individuals.

This group’s proclivities are complicit with the desired economic growth and gentrification of urban landscapes. But this has far more to do with class than “creativity”. Pro-creativity planning ideology is invariably neither inclusive nor diverse, despite these words being scattered throughout the planning reports that espouse them.

The economic imperative of policymaking in Sydney’s nightlife seeks to remedy a problematic drinking culture by installing a more “civilised” one, ignoring the structural reasons for Sydney’s problems. It erroneously assumes that gentrification will work to improve urban identities and behaviours. Rather, this shift has exacerbated the very problems it has pretended to address.

169 Anti-lockout rhetoric railing against “nanny state” governance struck a chord with Sydneysiders and captured international attention. But it is inequalities unleashed by capitalist dynamics, the source of most of the city’s problems, that Sydney needs safeguarding from. In Belmore Park, where “Keep Sydney Open” began its protest in February, a homeless tent community had only weeks before been pushed out.

This move is part of a long series of attempts to deflect Sydney’s problems away from the city centre, lest discomforting encounters with the homeless upset the global city image.

Beyond the lockouts

Urban geographers have long been outraged by the increasing privatisation of public space in our cities.

Now, driven by an overtly moral government, it seems that even private space is up for grabs. While that same government continues to look after its vested interests, Sydney will become even more exclusive and inaccessible.

As part of a broader movement to create democratic and egalitarian urban space, pro- nightlife groups should reflect on the wider issues – and communities – at stake beyond the immediate problem of lockout laws. Without the public mobilising over inequalities that are so ingrained in Sydney’s psyche, the city is unlikely to see its nightlife reflect true social inclusion and diversity.

Cities Alcohol Sydney NSW politics Mike Baird Nightlife Cities & Policy Lock-out laws

170 In-article links / references

ABC News. 2016. ‘#KeepSydneyOpen: Thousands of protesters call for Sydney's lockout laws to be revoked’. ABC News, 21 February, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02- 21/about-8000-protest-against-sydney-lockout-laws/7187372.

Baboulias, Y. 2014. ‘A world built for the rich’. Al Jazeera, 24 October, www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/world-built-rich- 201489141437354777.html.

Barnes, K., Waitt, G., Gill, N. and Gibson, C., 2006. ‘Community and nostalgia in urban revitalisation: A critique of urban village and creative class strategies as remedies for social “problems”’. Australian Geographer, 37(3), pp.335–354.

Barrie, Matt. 2016. ‘Would the Last Person in Sydney Please Turn the Lights Out?’ LinkedIn, 3 February, www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-last-person-sydney-please- turn-lights-out-matt-barrie.

BBC News. 2016. ‘Sydney's lockout “laughing stock”’. BBC News, 10 February, www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35499522.

Chettle, N. 2016. ‘Sydney charity fears homeless are being driven out of CBD’. ABC News, 14 February, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-14/fears-sydneys-homeless- being-driven-out-of-town/7163292.

City of Sydney. 2016. SydneyYourSay, www.sydneyyoursay.com.au.

Dumas, D. 2016. ‘Sydney's lockout laws: Bar Century set to close as lockout laws blamed in part for downturn in trade’. SMH, 12 Feburary, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydneys-lockout-laws-bar-century-set-to-close-as- lockout-laws-blamed-in-part-for-downturn-in-trade-20160212-gmsias.html.

Evershed, N. 2016. ‘Sydney's lockout laws: five key facts about the city's alcohol debate’. The Guardian, 11 February, www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/feb/11/sydneys-lockout-laws-five-key- facts-about-the-citys-alcohol-debate.

Farrelly, E. 2014. ‘Lock out laws shut down Sydney's Oxford Street’. SMH, 27 August, www.smh.com.au/opinion/lock-out-laws-shut-down-sydneys-oxford-street- 20140827-108xej.html.

Garrett, B. 2015. ‘The privatisation of cities' public spaces is escalating. It is time to take a stand’. The Guardian, 4 August, www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops- privately-owned-public-space-cities-direct-action.

171 Gleeson, B. 2006. ‘Desocializing space: the decline of the public realm in Western Sydney1’. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(1), pp.19–34.

Hae, L. 2011. ‘Gentrification and politicization of nightlife in New York City’. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 10(3), pp.564–584.

Harvey, D. 2003. ‘The right to the city’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), pp.939–941.

Irvine, J. 2016. ‘Lockout laws a winner for Potts Point and Kings Cross apartments’. SMH, 19 February, www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/lockout-laws-a- winner-for-potts-point-and-kings-cross-apartments-20160229-gn5ys8.html.

Keep Sydney Open. 2016. ‘About’. Keep Sydney Open, keepsydneyopen.com/#about.

Kembrey, M. 2015. ‘Council mergers: expert adviser Graham Sansom slams merger proposals’. SMH, 20 December, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/council- mergers-expert-adviser-graham-sansom-slams-merger-proposals-20151219- glrg0o.html.

Leslie, T. 2016. ‘Political donations: Here’s what the latest data doesn’t tell us’. ABC News, 1 February, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/heres-what-the-latest- political-donations-data-doesnt-tell-us/7130126.

Mee, K. 2002. ‘Prosperity and the Suburban Dream: Quality of life and affordability in western Sydney’. Australian Geographer, 33(3), pp.337–351.

Moore, C. 2016. ‘Work on WestConnex should be suspended until a better business case is proved’. SMH, 28 February, www.smh.com.au/opinion/work-on- westconnex-should-be-suspended-until-a-better-business-case-is-proved- 20160228-gn5jlp.html.

Nicholls, S. 2014. ‘Onward Christian soldier: a premier's faith’. SMH, 26 April, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/onward-christian-soldier-a-premiers-faith- 20140425-379pp.html.

NSW Government. 2016. ‘Have Your Say’. NSW Government, www.nsw.gov.au/improving-nsw/have-your-say.

Peck, J. 2005. ‘Struggling with the creative class’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), pp.740–770.

172 Reclaim the Streets. 2016. ‘Reclaim the Streets’. Facebook Event. 19 March, www.facebook.com/events/237327156602371.

Robertson, J. and Saulwick, J. 2015. ‘Poker machine profits come from Sydney's poorest suburbs’. SMH, 26 October, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/poker-machine- profits-come-from-sydneys-poorest-suburbs-20151023-gkh7j4.html.

Sassen, S. 2000. ‘The global city: strategic site/new frontier’. American Studies, 41(2/3), pp.79-95.

Shaw, R., 2015. ‘“Alive After Five”: constructing the neoliberal night in Newcastle upon Tyne’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.456–470.

Tovey, J. 2010. ‘Surry Hills is city's hot spot of creativity, GPS study reveals’. SMH, 7 June, www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/surry-hills-is-citys-hot-spot- of-creativity-gps-study-reveals-20100606-xn83.html.

Wade, M. 2016. ‘Will changes to negative gearing make houses more affordable?’ SMH, 19 February, www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/will-changes-to-negative- gearing-make-houses-more-affordable-20160219-gmy9wp.html.

Wolifson, P. 2016. ‘Encountering the night with mobile methods.’ Geographical Review, 106(2), pp.174–200.

Wolifson. P. and Drozdzewski, D. 2017. ‘Co-oping the night: the entrepreneurial shift and economic imperative in NTE Planning’. Urban Policy and Research, 35(4), pp.486–504.

173 174 Reframing nightlife

…when you least expect it, you see a crack open and a different city appear. Then, an instant later, it has already vanished. Perhaps everything lies in knowing what words to speak, what actions to perform, and in what order and rhythm…

– Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities, 1974.

In this section, rather than restate the various conclusions and contentions of each article, I weave together the correlative threads of the thesis – people, place, and policy – to propose a multifarious reframing of nightlife discourses. The emergence of Sydney’s nightlife as a topic of considerable policy intervention and public debate has been far from a linear storyline. In the thesis articles I have charted its progression, replete with deviations from my original objectives and serendipitous encounters with new research opportunities. While my attention to this story formally ends as this thesis concludes, the governmental and public debates regarding Sydney’s nightlife continue unabated. Their persistence belies the possibility of a wholly binding conclusion. Instead, I interlace correlative threads of each article, inspired by Calvino to expose cracks in and through which spaces open to demand a better (night-time) city. Hence, and following from article V, I situate these threads in terms of the ‘right to the city’. In the thesis, I have pointed to the far-reaching consequences of nightlife for the city socially, culturally and economically. If, however, as Davidson and Iveson (2015, 546) have argued,

…we want our scholarship to contribute to the democratization of cities, we must do more than identify and catalogue post-political tendencies in urban governance. We must also identify and help to foster the possibilities and practice of democratic urban politics.

With the benefit of the retrospective reflexivity one is afforded at the end of a research journey, considering each article and its context of Sydney at night, I contend that discourses of nightlife should be reframed. Reframing is necessary to dissent against the neoliberal colonisation of nightlife and to peer through the cracks to expand our perceptions of the possibilities for nightlife and, I argue, urban (spatial) justice. To reveal and nurture these possibilities we must acknowledge that, like the cities we inhabit and the people we are, what constitutes the ‘good’ of nightlife is not always easily discernible and, as has been shown, is easily co-opted. Reading across the articles herein, the contradictions exposed in the neoliberal setting of Sydney at night may appear to threaten to unsettle the thesis’ own framework. As I suggested in outlining this framework however, its ‘methodological inconvenience’ (Peck 2010) is a stark reflection of the

175 contradictions and failures of neoliberalism itself. The articles herein expose the relationality of the discourses of neoliberalism discussed, be they tied to ‘in here’ or ‘out there’ processes, to use Peck and Tickell’s (2002) terms. As they more recently reflected:

Neoliberalism has (since) exhibited a crisis-riven but nonetheless ‘forward’ momentum, describing a nonlinear pattern of evolution that has remained contextually specific yet at the same time deeply constituted with extra-local logics, networks, incentives and constraints (Peck and Tickell 2012, 246).

In weaving the threads together here, I highlight the multiscalar and multivocal character of neoliberalism as performative discourse. In doing so, it becomes clear that rupture is required at all settings and scales to counter the continuing neoliberal co-opting of people, places, and policies.

The conceptualisation of neoliberalism as performative has revealed ways in which this discourse – in both its ‘roll-back’ and ‘roll-out’ manifestations – has grafted onto and co-opted other discourses. In articles III and V, for instance, I pointed to the moralising rhetoric of the NSW State Government in their implementation of the (regulatory) lockout – rhetoric that was fraught with contradiction in the context of the Government’s permissive attitudes towards the casinos in particular. In article III, I drew links between historical discourses relating to the regulation of drinking and night-time leisure, and the contemporary ‘moral panic’. I also pointed to those in the current setting whose moral motivations for improving public safety via regulatory change are likely without a hidden agenda – medical professionals and Ralph Kelly in particular. In outlining the broader context of the Government’s policies however, it becomes clear that their own alignment with these historical and more purely-motivated discourses is part of a neoliberal agenda, albeit one made messy through its own failings. As Peck and Tickell (2012, 247) have observed, historical geographies of neoliberalisation are “about more than filling in the details… they are constitutive of the process itself”.

The social and moral sanitation of the inner city in service to neoliberalism is at the core of this government agenda (Nofre 2011); the spatial specificity of the lockout is, in its inconsistency, starkly consistent with their approach. The lockouts, and the subsequent development and gentrification, simultaneously represented the roll-back neoliberalism of a place-specific attack on welfare and the urban poor and the roll-out crisis-management of a deregulated (alcohol) sector (Tickell and Peck 2003). A further key example pointed to in article III is the Government’s ongoing attack on inner city public housing, intertwined with the growing unconscious narrative of the ‘virtuous economic citizen’ (Crabtree 2016) of private housing owner occupation; this narrative asserts a link between socio-economic status and the un/acceptability of people and their behaviours. This argument links closely with that made in article II (and extended upon in articles

176 III and V), around the ‘civilising’ rhetoric of the City of Sydney Council in their approach to nightlife, a rhetoric that draws heavily from the fast policy-making of the ‘creative city’ approach. The re-mobilisation of a discourse that pits ‘civilised’ middle class leisure up against ‘uncivilised’ working class leisure is part and parcel of neoliberalism’s relentless attack on the poor via their spaces and institutions (Wacquant 2009; Peck and Tickell 2002).

Although limited, the experiential narratives of nightlife described in article I are telling accounts of the geographical divisiveness in Sydney – a divisiveness that has been drawn upon and exacerbated by government discourse at both local and state government levels. Embedded in this discourse, the recurring narrative of young people, and particularly young men from Sydney’s western suburbs, as the source of ‘incivility’ in the inner city’s nightlife is demonstrative of the discriminatory potential of the neoliberal co-opting of ‘moral’ frames around safety. So-called ‘anti-social behaviour’ is approached punitively, both in terms of its governance/policing and the media and public response; in this debate there is little attention to, nor acknowledgement of, the highly spatialised need for responses that target such issues through resources and care (article V). The thread of the civilised/uncivilised binary, discussed in the thesis at length, is one that is emblematic of ways in which apparently contradictory positions in Sydney’s nightlife debate – those of the City of Sydney, the NSW Government, as well as activists and nightlife users – share premises about the city at night grounded in neoliberal discourse and the socio-spatial divisions brought on by Sydney’s emergence as a ‘global city’.

Drawing from Butler, Glass (2018, 237) has recently noted the increasing difficulty with which governments are able to make uncontested claims, “as audiences are now more diverse, apt to mobilise and willing to criticise state rhetoric”. The ‘faux consultation’ (article V) discussed in article II is a key government response to this pluralism, highlighting the importance of the perceptions of fairness in relation to decision-making processes (Low and Iveson 2016) and demonstrating neoliberalism’s ability to effectively void resistance gains. Indeed, ‘faux consultation’ appears to represent a key element of the ‘erosion of democracy’ that Hickel (2016, 190) argues “has been a necessary political precondition for the implementation of neoliberal economic policy”. For the City of Sydney, the multi-faceted performance of consultation had the effect of capturing the public’s attention in order to align their views with the government’s neoliberal strategy; those views that did not match up were largely ignored. The City’s work was capped off with their ‘strategy and action plan’ discussed at length in article II (and subsequently followed by more such policy documents); such strategic plans have become a key performative element of neoliberal government strategies (Kornberger and Clegg 2011).

The discussion of the institutional receptivity to Reclaim the Streets in article IV is a further example of the exclusion of views incompatible with the neoliberal norm. While the demands of perception compelled the input of an anti-lockout voice in policy discussions, the inclusion of

177 Keep Sydney Open satisfied this perception – at least for the government. The issues around recognition and interactional justice – particularly for queer groups – that were central to Reclaim the Streets rhetoric were almost inaudible in the wider public debate. Keep Sydney Open’s deployment of ‘global city’ discourse on the other hand, reflected a mixture of both (coerced) tactic and neoliberal subjectivity; for both the City of Sydney and NSW Government policy must work to consolidate Sydney’s ‘global city’ status. Keep Sydney Open’s involvement in policy discussions and shaping of rhetoric around the NSW Government’s own demonstrates the state’s ability to thwart resistance to neoliberal policymaking. That the anti-“nanny state” rhetoric has been so dominant in the pro-nightlife movement exposes the seeming impenetrability of neoliberalism; even amid its stark contradictions and failures neoliberalism is revealed as its own alternative. It is this ‘slipperyness’ of neoliberalism that allows the gentrification of the inner city, and its associated exclusions, to win out whether de/regulation of the ‘night-time economy’ be ostensibly in service of ‘safety’, ‘creativity’ or capitalist boosterism.

This thesis has conceptualised experience, governance and activism relating to Sydney’s nightlife in the context of key discourses operationalised in the neoliberal city – the ‘global city’, ‘creative city’ and ‘night-time economy’. The deployment of these discourses has been shown to obscure urban injustices at work in Sydney. Identifying the power effects of these discourses, as exposed throughout this thesis, is acknowledgement that their resistance requires dissenting discourses. I came to study activism relatively late in this project, however arriving at an endpoint of ‘resistance’ seems fitting for a project that has scaffolded from Foucauldian understandings of discourse. Through the 'right to the city' (Lefebvre 1996 [1968]) as the performative demand of dissenting discourse, these discourses need to be unravelled and laid bare at every opportunity, revealing and reframing the injustices that lie beneath:

For the demand for the right to the city is a demand for a broad and sweeping right, a right not only in the legal sense of a right to specific benefits, but a right in a political sense, a claim not only to a right or a set of rights to justice within the existing legal system, but a right on a higher moral plane that demands a better system in which the potential benefits of an urban life can be fully and entirely realized (Marcuse 2014b, 34).

To demand this ‘right to the city’ there must be attuning to the harms of neoliberalism and action to resist it – in Marcuse’s (2014b, 24) terms, an “exposing, proposing and politicizing”. Attuning, throughout this project, required responsiveness to adapt the conceptual and methodological parameters of the thesis, both in reaction to developments in Sydney’s nightlife and my capacities for field research. In addition to the fieldwork and fine-grain policy analysis undertaken, public comment – through article V and participation in numerous talks and events – demonstrated

178 action in order to counter the harmful discourses exposed. The reframings proposed in this section reflect a non-linear research journey culminating in an assemblage of critical interventions on Sydney’s nightlife during an important period of policy intervention, public concern and material change to the city’s multifarious landscapes. They also represent opportunities for further action towards urban justice, drawing on the intersecting notions of redistribution; care, diversity and recognition; and procedural justice (Low and Iveson 2016; Fincher and Iveson 2008; Fainstein 2010). With an attentiveness to people, place, and policy, I reveal openings in the overlapping layers of this story, into which the discursive “seeds for alternative visions and practices” (Masuda and Bookman 2016, 12) may be planted. My attuning to both embodied and lived experiences, and discursive and structural implications of nightlife policy and planning, has demonstrated that concerns for urban justice demand consideration of nightlife and its governance.

179 People

To allow the “internal contradictions, tensions and countervailing tendencies” (Enright and Rossi 2018, 8) of neoliberal governance to be put to work to undermine it, they must be called out by people – activists, researchers, journalists, planners, policymakers and politicians – at every opportunity. ‘Right to the city’ debates pertaining to “whose right, what right and to what city?” (Marcuse 2014b, 30), are helpful grounding points. Reframing nightlife discourses through the ‘right to the city’ demands orientation around the injustices that lie beyond rights to dance, drink, and be out late – rights that can be easily co-opted by neoliberal arguments. In article V, I sought to reorient the public debate around the lockout laws away from the focus on a ‘nanny state’ government and struggling nightlife businesses; in arguing against the ‘global city’ vision, ‘place- making’, ‘faux’ consultation and a moralising government, this reframing drew attention to inequalities that lay beyond these (neoliberal) concerns, particularly around distribution, recognition and procedural justice. Relatedly, I also pointed to historical legacies tied to what I saw as divisive public framings of alcohol-related violence and the need for regulation to protect Sydney’s residents against the harms of capitalism.

The dramatic impact of the lockouts presented an opportunity for public mobilisation around these broader injustices. Yet, as I contend, Keep Sydney Open, with their single-issue focus on the lockout laws, missed an opportunity to inform a more nuanced, critical public debate beyond the lockouts. It is these opportunities of intensification (in this case a drastic policy intervention) that must be seized on in reframing efforts. As Swyngedouw (2014, 132) notes, the resulting “intense state of collective creation can only be short lived”, and so efforts should work to nurture and “universalise” the dissenting performative discourse so that it “will last long after the return to the ‘normality’ of everyday life”. My critique of Keep Sydney Open is not an effort to undermine the group, (indeed many of my concerns have been discussed in-person with Campaign Manager, Tyson Koh), but rather reflective of an opportunity to probe the relationships between performative discourse (through their tactics and strategies), the means of co-opting and depoliticisation of this discourse, and the outcomes for urban (in)justice (Cook and Swyngedouw 2012).

As I alluded to in article V, a key issue in need of reframing is that of alcohol-related violence. Jayne and Valentine’s (2016, 67) observation of

an impasse where alcohol consumption is conceived as a medical issue, pathologised as a health, social, legislative, crime or policy problem or [is] embedded in social and cultural relations – with limited dialogue between these approaches is a pointed critique of the debate surrounding Sydney’s lockouts. Although there have been some

180 isolated nods to the links between masculinity and crime in Sydney’s public debate around nightlife and violence, as Messerschmidt and Tomsen (2018) have recently argued, these discussions risk targeting men and boys from disadvantaged social settings; they also have implications for distributive justice since this disadvantage (and the rhetoric around it) is highly spatialised. They point to a need to rethink the ‘civilising’ mantra of ‘night-time economy’ policies. Recognition and care are essential to begin to counter “the systematic devaluing and stigmatisation” (Low and Iveson 2016, 18) of such groups. There is a complex array of academic knowledge that should be deployed (across discursive lines) into the public ‘commons’ to illuminate and reframe this debate away from the simplistic, ineffective and problematic arguments of the ‘night-time economy’ framework (Gibson-Graham 2008).

In the era of ‘faux’ consultation (articles II and V), there is also a need for modes of ‘consultation’ to be created by citizens in efforts towards procedural justice and recognition. Such reframings of consultation, in multiple, persistent and innovative ways, are required to circumvent government stifling and co-opting and the “vanishing of spaces for collectivisation” (Mayer 2014; 78) under neoliberalism. Public efforts should (as argued in article III) also take seriously attempts to create and bolster legitimate and consequential pathways for consultation; the right to the city demands that injustice be able to be attended to by political processes. Citizenry collectives should work to maintain and improve transparency in policymaking and governance by utilising legal experts to attune to and challenge the (often stealthy) reduction of (and existing fractures in) formal rights of (particularly marginalised) citizens, and their scope to exercise those rights. This work should include exposing and challenging normalised modes of ‘consultation’ with problematic actors (and without crucial ‘others’) under the entrepreneurial arrangements of contemporary neoliberal governance (article II) – what Swyngedouw (2005; 2014) calls “governance-beyond-the-state”.

The lively public debate around nightlife requires that we – activists, academics, reporters, citizenry – seize the opportunity to develop productive dialogue not trapped by the reproduction of long-standing arguments benefiting the privileged. For example, there has been an overwhelming focus on nightlife businesses over the rights of their employees and the livelihoods of artists who perform in such spaces, and a focus on creating ‘civilised’ nightlife over protecting spaces of social and cultural value. Our scrutiny should be directed towards, for example, the role of urban planning at all levels of government; a concomitant vigilance is required to remain mindful of “the possibilities that marginal inner city populations will be rendered as ‘collateral damage’” (Quastel 2009, 679) in state-sanctioned ‘revitalisation’ strategies.

181 Place

Considerations of place are at the core of the geography of this thesis; place frames my critiques of ‘global city’, ‘creative city’ and ‘night-time economy’ discourses (articles III and IV) and their contemporary resonance with historical discourses in place. The macro cultural, political, and economic processes that effect global cities drive dramatic social and cultural divisions across multiple scales. The metastasising of mobile “fast policies” (Peck and Theodore 2015) in place requires that academic work pay close attention to localised effects, including complex place- based impacts of public discourse and its role in everyday contact with difference. This attentiveness requires rethinking how research is done in place, and to what end. As alluded to in article IV, and following from Jayne and Valentine (2016, 78), I contend that future research should take seriously “the potential of urban histories and everyday life to be imagined and put to work differently”. To understand such potential, emplaced, temporal research in the nightscape, for instance, may be utilised to explore the “uncertain traces” (Lefebvre 1991, 110) of performative discourses. While my research detoured from the initial emplaced methods, article I demonstrated their potential for exposing, as well as reframing, perceptions and understandings of nightlife. The use of emplaced fieldwork in this thesis markedly expanded my understanding of such research practices as multi-sensorial and corporeal practices of co-creation (see, for example, Pink and Leder Mackley 2006; Pink 2013; 2015; Ingold and Vergunst 2008).

With the caveat that the methodological explorations discussed in article I do not represent ‘cut-and-paste’ tools but rather probes for further ‘improvisation’ (Pink and Mackley 2016), I hope that their efficacy in this thesis provides an occasion to move ethnographic work beyond “accumulative research practice to establish understandings, answer questions, and deliver solutions to existing problems” (Pink and Fors 2017, 172; O’Dell 2017). As Merrifield (2014, 390) has also argued, it is “high time” for imaginative approaches that “reinvent new use-values… reclaim the public domain and redevelop the city as an innovative form of collective cooperation and collective corporation”. Yet, the planning of places often falls short of these ideals for two reasons. First, I am in agreement with Brenner (2017) in his criticism of urban planners for being complicit in maintaining a neoliberal status quo, where he points, as Hae (2012) has, to problematic ‘quality of life’ planning focusing on consumer amenity over working toward genuinely more egalitarian cities. If they do, indeed, believe that planning is capable of producing profound socio-behavioural effects in urban spaces, as they so often assert (Richards 2012), then urban planners must proactively work to apply their skills and influence for more just cities (Talen and Lee 2018; Fainstein 2010). This is, of course, not solely a job for planners, although given their role, it is one they should heed.

Second, there is also a crucial need for planners and policymakers to attune to, and help

182 nurture, existing use values in place, through the adoption of methods that foreground experience, encounter and attachment. Night-time ‘go-alongs’ and walks undertaken with urban planners and policymakers, and conducted as part of their own research, should be adopted to cleave open new pathways to understand experience, attachment and encounter, revealing the “privilege embedded in the uneven expectation of who has to adapt to fit in” (M. Butcher 2017, 15). Such methods provide openings to incorporate the richness of qualitative data into discussions and discourses of policymaking (which, as shown in article IV, there is embedded resistance to). Moreover, the results may inspire more innovative pathways of further inquiry. The “appreciation of uncertainty” (Pink and Fors 2017, 171) required for conducting these methods, and the unknowable enduring impacts beyond participation present opportunities to expose cracks in the frameworks that constrain planners and policymakers. These techniques may also serve to erode territorial stigma (Wacquant 2008), a reframing that could work to counter its activation through policy developments that attempt to transform the city for “bourgeois consumption” (Wacquant 2008, 199).

Cultural mapping projects also have the potential to foreground place identities, highlight existing use values, and provide city governments with a database of their cultural assets by mapping the cultural infrastructure of the city. In late 2017, Lutz Leichsenring, founder of cultural mapping project the Creative Footprint14, presented this methodology at part of the Global Cities After Dark forum in Sydney15. As Leichsenring discussed the Creative Footprint, an observer at the event commented that the project was a “developers dream”. Leichsenring has long been intently focused on countering gentrification in his advocacy of nightlife in Berlin, however this offhand comment highlighted an important potential pitfall of cultural mapping. While the concept may be admirable – identify where creativity is in the city in order to support and protect it – the reality of how cultural mapping data is utilized by various governments, developers and others is potentially a very different matter, with significant implications for distributive justice. The current public battle over proposed development of the Carrington Road precinct in Marrickville is evidence of that, and the outcome will be a telling test for the government’s cultural policy (Gibson, Grodach, Lyons, Crosby and Brennan-Horley 2017; Gibson, Crosby, Grodach, Lynons, O’Connor and Gu 2017).

Policy

14 Leichsenring designed the Creative Footprint with researchers from Harvard University, Charles Landry, and Shain Shapiro (founder of ‘night-time economy’ consultancy firm Sound Diplomacy). Since its pilot in Berlin in 2017, São Paolo, Mumbai and New York have adopted the methodology. 15 Along with Mirik Milan, the Creative Director of the not-for-profit (and Night Mayor of Amsterdam), Leichsenring also met with Lord Mayor, Clover Moore.

183 This thesis’ discursive critique has primarily focused on how they manifest in policy terms; procedural justice must therefore also be central to the reframing posed here. The many challenges faced in attempts to govern nightlife, however, are not likely to be resolved in a singular effort – certainly not in a ‘strategic plan’, where efforts to deal with the complex and multiple policy concerns around nightlife are invariably placed under the umbrella of economic development. As Low and Iveson (2016, 21) discuss, procedural justice must focus on “the ways in which decisions about public spaces are made [and] captured by powerful interests or constrained by existing societal structures”. Propositions for a Night Mayor, Night Czar or similar have recurred throughout the last few years in Sydney, including most recently by the think tank ‘Committee for Sydney’ in their (largely passé) Sydney as a 24-hour city report, released in March 2018. The soon-to-step-down Amsterdam Night Mayor – or Nachtburgemeester – Mirik Milan, has become something of a international celebrity figure for cities engaged in discussion around nightlife governance and management. Along with over 25 international talks to city governments and planners in 2017 (Creative Footprint 2018), Milan hosted the Night Mayor Summit in Amstersam in 2016 to share knowledge about how to set up and operate a night mayoralty. The Committee for Sydney’s report, as with many previous suggestions of a Sydney Night Mayor – including from Keep Sydney Open – have hesitated to make any specifications about this role. The trajectory of Keep Sydney Open, and government responses to the city’s nightlife concerns, suggests the position would most likely take an industry representative focus that lacks appeal from an urban justice perspective.

Whether through the use of a Night Mayor, a centralised nightlife government body, or an array of government departments, issues of urban justice should be central to how nightlife policy is (re)framed in Sydney, where gentrification will remain a key issue for nightlife, as it has in other global cities. London’s Night Czar Amy Lamé, for example, has initiated responses to the negative impacts of gentrification on the city’s gay bars and the facilitation of racism in regulatory procedures (Wilding 2017; R. Butcher 2017). These efforts seek to address the devaluing of certain groups as a result of the economic rationalities of the ‘night-time economy’, and point to the need to further inscribe recognition into regulatory practice. In Berlin, the famous Berghain nightclub won a landmark case in 2016 allowing its weekly events to be considered ‘cultural’, rather than ‘entertainment’ events for tax purposes – an important reminder of the government’s role as cultural intermediaries. The regulatory function of government means that they must attune to this cultural intermediary role and determinedly nurture diversity through it. As Young (1990, 47) argued, social justice “requires not the melting away of differences, but institutions that promote reproduction of and respect for group differences without oppression”. The methodological interventions proposed in article I, whether deployed by researchers in academia or policymaking, can work to expose and prioritise the lived (and lived in) values of nightlife. For

184 others, by performing (or continuing to perform) the multiple use values of nightlife in place, there remains the potential (or rather, hope) for forms and spaces of nightlife that do not conform to the neoliberal ‘night-time economy’ to be recognised as important in policymaking. As the case of Reclaim the Streets in article IV indicates, such forms of nightlife and their spaces – such as Newtown and Oxford Street - can be crucial to the ‘existential security’ of certain subcultural groups (Fainstein 2014, 9).

185 186 Epilogue

Sydney’s nightlife is, without doubt, in a more troubled state than when I first began this thesis. The City of Sydney is aware of this, and has focused efforts to remedy the ‘laughing stock’ (BBC 2016; Figure 2) reputation of the city at night – particularly with recent reports that Melbourne is the “live music capital of the world” (Donoughue 2018). The City is set to conduct a review of planning controls for nightlife venues and has recently begun a grants program for venues wanting to ‘diversify’ their offerings. The latter, although no doubt appreciated by the grant recipients, reflects a band-aid approach to diversity rather than a sustainable long-term solution. The City is also building a night-time economy Advisory Panel of residents, business owners, researchers and others to inform the city on nightlife policy. At the State level, artists, venue owners and producers working in Sydney’s live music scene have recently voiced their concern at the NSW Parliamentary Committee inquiry into the music and arts economy. Beyond government approaches, new groups have also begun to take up the fight, including 24 City following the release of the After the Lockouts film earlier this year, and the right to dance movement, which is also in its early stages. As the writing of this thesis comes to an end, iconic Sydney music venue The Basement is closing, leaving its current inner-city location after 45 years, saying the location “no longer works” for them (The Basement 2018); the long-gentrified Four In Hand hotel in the inner Sydney suburb of Paddington is to be sold as a house, rezoned as residential, with its six poker machine licenses to be transferred elsewhere (Macken 2018b).

While the thesis’ conclusion yearns for ways forward, in truth, I have exposed few cracks that give me hope (and many that give me hopelessness) for Sydney’s future. A city with seemingly every (stolen) advantage has squandered so much of it, and the divisiveness embedded in public discourse permits a highly troublesome government agenda. When I started this work, the lockouts were almost two years away. Although the future night-time city that has been realised since is less thriving, diverse, interesting, and inclusive than I imagined it would be then, the trajectory is much the same. I have argued for an accumulation of dissenting discourses to mobilise change, however, I am starkly aware that Sydney does not have time for this solution, nor, as neoliberal policies diminish the opportunities of democratic participation, is it likely. There is, for instance, no undoing the development currently underway in Kings Cross (the list here goes on), and the radical changes needed to bring the city’s housing and infrastructure to its required levels is difficult to imagine happening after so many years of negligence. In what can be

187

Figure 2. Satirical poster found on Oxford Street, Sydney. Source: Facebook.com/RTSsydney.

188 a fairly apathetic city, Keep Sydney Open were only able to mobilise many thousands of people against a single regulatory intervention through a highly depoliticised discourse.

Nightlife may seem an inferior concern in Sydney’s (highly troublesome) trajectory, however I argue it is not, or at least should not be. As the city becomes a place just to work (and try to live) for many of its residents, creating opportunities for everyone to participate in the social and cultural life of the city at night – the City of Sydney’s seemingly abandoned ‘Open late for everyone’ goal – is crucial for the city’s resistance against the effects of neoliberalism that threaten it. The disruption and reflexivity found in our encounters with others does not exist without this participation, and without this reflexivity we will not imagine a better city to strive for, nor the people with whom, and the spaces within which, to strive for it. The political, as Swyngedouw (2014, 123 from Marchart 2007) puts it

is the space for the arrangement of egalitarian public encounter of heterogenous groups and individuals and the performative staging and acting of equality in the face of the in-egalitarian pratices embodied in the instituted ‘democratic’ order.

Readers of this work in Europe, or the UK – where the ‘night-time economy’ began – may note that the planning and governance of Sydney’s nightlife seems years behind cities in those places; this observation is frustratingly true. Where there is now an urgency to address a destruction of social and cultural life in the city at night, there is an agonising lack of innovative ideas to do so at the various levels of government and – at State level at least – an unconvincing willingness to try. The radical imposition of the lockouts, although inherently tied into state- sanctioned gentrification and its underlying class stigmatisation, may have become something of a scapegoat for the destruction of Sydney’s nightlife. Their sharp intervention, in contrast to the customarily stealthy creep of gentrification, meant that they bore the brunt of blame for Sydney’s (far more complex) nightlife issues. The result has seen both government and lockout opponents reach for troublesome ‘night-time economy’ arguments to revive the city at night, giving the framework new life when it should be long dead and buried. As Davidson and Iveson (2015, 546) suggest,

In any given city there may indeed be scope for debate about which policies might help that city to become more competitive, more global, more sustainable, more secure, and so on. But challenging the underlying necessity and legitimacy of these visions is far more difficult.

Where progressive policies may emerge, they daily come up against this challenge of ‘visions’ grounded in economic rationalities and neoliberal ideals. This thesis has undermined these visions and the (re)framings posed in this conclusion are routes to challenge them and make way

189 for innovative alternatives. These routes represent the hard slog ahead. As Harvey (2003, 941, italics added) has stated, the right to the city is “not merely a right of access… but an active right to make the city different, to shape it more in accord with our heart’s desire, and to re-make ourselves thereby in a different image”. Achieving the latter may be the greatest barrier to change.

I write this epilogue from New Orleans, the genuine music city to which worldwide jurisdictions now aspire. The contrast with where Sydney’s nightlife has ended up at the end of my PhD journey could hardly be more jarring. It is a city, of course, with a significant history of exclusion. The trajectory of Sydney’s nightlife governance takes no lessons from the problems that spatial inequality and segregation have brought time and time again around the globe. Class based spatial injustice worsens at a rapid pace in my home city, with the state doing far more to exacerbate than address the resulting issues. Here, in the nightlife of New Orleans, the entrenched worries of this country seem distant; I know they are not, and this draws me back to Rose’s (2007, 143) reminder that “discourse produces the world as it understands it”. In proposing reframings of nightlife, I can only hope that as residents, planners and policymakers in Sydney, we can look for moments to peer through the cracks to find and nurture the city’s nightlife beyond the ‘global city’ vision, so that we can amplify the useful, resonant discourses, perform the meaningful acts of resistance, and embrace the opportune moments for change.

Always stick around for one more drink. That’s when things happen. That’s when you find out everything you want to know.

- John Berendt, 1994, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

190 Bibliography

9 News. 2016. ‘Strip clubs and live music venues to be excluded from NSW lockout laws’. 9 News, 27 August, www.9news.com.au/national/2016/08/27/05/57/strip-clubs-and-live-music-venues-to-be- excluded-from-nsw-lockout-laws.

Acuto, M. 2012. ‘Ain't about politics? The wicked power‐geometry of Sydney's greening governance’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), pp.381–99.

Adam, B. 1990. Time and social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

______. 1998. Timescapes of modernity. London: Routledge.

Adelman, C. 1981. Uttering, muttering: collecting, using and reporting talk for social and educational research. London: Grant McIntyre.

After the Lockouts. 2018. After the lockouts. www.afterthelockouts.com.

Ahmed, S. 2000. Strange encounters: embodied others in post-coloniality. New York: Routledge.

______. 2004. The cultural politics of emotion. New York: Routledge.

Aitken, S. 1991. ‘Person-environment theories in contemporary perceptual and behavioural geography I: personality, attitudinal and spatial choice theories’. Progress in Human Geography, 15(2), pp.179–93.

Aitken, S. and Bjorklund, E. 1988. ‘Transactional and transformational theories in behavioral geography’. The Professional Geographer, 40(1), pp.54–64.

Akerton, M. 2016. ‘Bashing victim says “Stay safe, even around Newtown”’. Same Same, www.samesame.com.au/news/13569/Bashing-victim-says-Stay-safe-even-around-Newtown.

Allen, K. and Hollingworth, S. 2013. ‘“Sticky subjects” or “cosmopolitan creatives”? Social class, place and urban young people’s aspirations for work in the knowledge economy’. Urban Studies. 50(3), pp.499–517.

Allen, M. 2016. ‘Curfews and lockouts: battles over drinking time have a long history in NSW’. The Conversation, June 3, theconversation.com/curfews-and-lockouts-battles-over-drinking-time-have-a- long-history-in-nsw-58220.

Allport, G. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Alt Media. 2016. ‘Keepin’ it weird in Newtown’. Alt Media, 28 April, www.altmedia.net.au/keepin-it-weird- in-newtown/115347.

191 Amati, Marco. 2010. ‘Planning the night-time city’. Australian Planner, 47(2), pp.106–7.

Amin, A. 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity’. Environment and Planning A, 34(6), pp.959–80.

Amin, A. and Graham, S., 1997. The ordinary city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4), pp.411-29.

Amin, A. and Thift, N. 2002. Cities: reimagining the urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.

______. 2007. ‘Cultural-economy and cities’. Progress in Human Geography, 31(2), pp.143-61.

Amin, A., Thrift, N., and Massey, D. 2000. Cities for the few and not for the many. Bristol: Policy Press.

Andersen, L. and Malone, M. 2013. ‘All culture is local: good practice in regional cultural mapping and planning from local government, the CAMRA Toolkit. Sydney: UTS Press.

Anderson, J. 2004. ‘Talking whilst walking: a geographical archaeology of knowledge’. Area, 36(3), pp.254– 61.

Anderson, J. and Jones, K. 2009. ‘The difference that place makes to methodology: uncovering the “lived space” of young people's spatial practices’. Children's Geographies, 7(3), pp.291–303.

Anderson K. 1999. ‘Introduction’. Cultural geographies. K. Anderson and F. Gale (eds.). Australia: Longman, pp.1-21.

Anderson, T. 2009. ‘Better to complicate, rather than homogenize, urban nightlife: a response to Grazian’. Sociological Forum, 24(4), pp.918–25.

Armstrong, H. 2007. ‘Sydney: no shades of grey: erasing dirt & dereliction’. Liquid Cities Symposium: A Conversation between Berlin and Sydney, www.researchgate.net/profile/Helen_Armstrong4/publication/299337415_Liquid_Cities_no_Shad es_of_Grey/links/56f10a1a08ae584badc96510/Liquid-Cities-no-Shades-of-Grey.

Arthurson, K., Darcy, M., and Rogers, D. 2014. ‘Televised territorial stigma: how social housing tenants experience the fictional media representation of estates in Australia’. Environment and Planning A, 46(6), pp.1334–50.

Askew, L. and McGuirk, P. 2004. ‘Watering the suburbs: distinction, conformity and the suburban garden’. Australian Geographer, 35(1), pp.17–37.

Atay, A. and Brower, J. 2017. Communication, culture and making meaning in the city: ethnographic engagements in urban environments. London: Lexington Books.

Atkinson R. 2003. ‘Introduction: misunderstood saviour or vengeful wrecker? The many meanings and problems of gentrification’. Urban Studies, 40, pp.2343–50.

192 Atkinson R. & Bridge G. 2005. ‘Introduction’. The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. R. Atkinson and G. Bridge (eds.). London: Routledge, pp.1– 17.

Augé, M. 2008. Non-places: an introduction to supermodernity. London: Verso.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2016a. ‘#KeepSydneyOpen: thousands of protesters call for Sydney's lockout laws to be revoked’. ABC News, 21 February, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-21/about- 8000-protest-against-sydney-lockout-laws/7187372.

______. 2016b. ‘ICAC: NSW Liberal Figures and Businessmen Tried to Evade Political Funding Laws, Report Finds’. ABC News, 31 August, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/independent- commission-against-corruption-icac-spicer-report/7796928.

______. 2017. ‘Homotopia’. Radio National, 19 June, www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/features/homotopia.

Australian Council of Social Service and the Social Policy Research Centre. 2016. ‘Poverty in Australia 2016’. Australian Council of Social Service, www.acoss.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Poverty-in-Australia-2016.pdf.

Australian Government 2013. National Binge Drinking Strategy. Department of Health, 22 January, www.alcohol.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/content/cli.

The Australian Independent Media Network. 2016. ‘Democracy has become meaningless in NSW’. The AIM Network, 21 May, theaimn.com/democracy-become-meaningless-nsw.

Baboulias, Y. 2014. ‘A world built for the rich’. Al Jazeera. 24 October, www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/world-built-rich-201489141437354777.html

Bachelard, G. 1994. The poetics of space. M. Jolas (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Baird, M. 2016. Facebook post. 9 February, www.facebook.com/mikebairdMP.

Baird, P. and Scott, M. 2018. ‘Towards an ideal typical live music city’. City, Culture and Society, 6 April, doi-org.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/10.1016/j.ccs.2018.03.003.

Baker, T. and Ruming, K. 2015. ‘Making “Global Sydney”: spatial imaginaries, worlding and strategic plans’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), pp.62-78.

Bamford, M. 2016. ‘Brawl erupts after men “ejected from nearby nightclub”’. The Daily Telegraph, 29 February, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/brawl-erupts-after-men-ejected-from-nearby- nightclub/news-story/ed23bc47da60cf6049ff551a372768e5.

Banks, M. and O’Connor, J. 2017. ‘Inside the whale (and how to get out of there): moving on from two decades of creative industries research’. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(6), pp.637–54.

193 Barajas, J., Boeing, G., and Wartell, J. 2017. ‘Neighborhood change, one pint at a time’. Untapped: exploring the cultural dimensions of the craft beer revolution. N. Chapman, J. Lellock, and C. Lippard (eds.). Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, pp.155-76.

Barnes, K., Waitt, G., Gill, N., and Gibson, C. 2006. ‘Community and nostalgia in urban revitalisation: a critique of urban village and creative class strategies as remedies for social “problems”’. Australian Geographer, 37(3), pp.335–54.

Barnett, C., Clarke, N., Cloke, P., and Malpass, A. 2008. ‘The elusive subjects of neo-liberalism: beyond the analytics of governmentality’. Cultural Studies, 22(5), pp.624-53.

Barrell, J. 1972. The idea of landscape and the sense of place 1730-1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barrie, M. 2016a. ‘The death of Sydney’s nightlife and collapse of its night time economy’. LinkedIn, 3 April, www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-sydneys-nightlife-economic-collapse-its-night-time-matt- barrie.

______. 2016b. ‘Would the last person in Sydney please turn the lights out?’ LinkedIn, 3 February, www.linkedin.com/pulse/would-last-person-sydney-please-turn-lights-out-matt-barrie.

The Basement. 2018. Facebook post. 3 April, www.facebook.com/thebasementsyd.

Bastians, K. 2016. ‘Controversial six-storey development in heart of Double Bay gets green light’. Wentworth Courier, 29 July, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/wentworth- courier/controversial-sixstorey-development-in-heart-of-double-bay-gets-green-light/news- story/497dc46af26de127a6078ad7af681fcf.

Baudelaire, C. 1964. The painter of modern life. Aberdeen: Phaidon.

Baudrillard, J. 1983. The precession of simulacra. New York: Semiotext(e).

Bauman, Z. 1997. Postmodernity and its discontents. New York: New York University Press.

______. 2007. ‘Collateral casualties of consumerism’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(1), pp.25–56.

______. 2013. Liquid Modernity. Hoboken: Wiley.

Bavinton, N. 2010. ‘Putting leisure to work: city image and representations of nightlife’. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2(3), pp.236–50.

______. 2011. The production and use of space in the night-time economy. PhD diss., Western Sydney University.

Bayliss, D. 2007. ‘The rise of the creative city: culture and creativity in Copenhagen’. European Planning Studies, 15(7), pp.889–903.

194 Beauregard, R. 1986. ‘Chaos and complexity of gentrification’. Gentrification of the city. N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp.35–55.

______. 2002. ‘New urbanism: ambiguous certainties’. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, pp.181–94.

______. 2017. ‘Richard Florida 2017: The new urban crisis: how our cities are increasing inequality, deepening segregation, and failing the middle class––and what we can do about it’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(6), pp.1028–9.

Beck, U. 2006. The cosmopolitan vision. C. Cronin (trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beer, C. 2011. ‘Centres that never sleep? Planning for the night-time economy within the commercial centres of Australian cities’. Australian Planner, 48(3), pp.141–7.

Begley, P. 2016. ‘Machine men: how the AHA and ClubsNSW seek political influence’. SMH, 30 September, www.smh.com.au/nsw/machine-men-how-the-aha-and-clubsnsw-seek-political- influence-20160929-grrxe9.html.

Bell, D. 1973. The coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books.

Bell, D. and Binnie, J. 2004. ‘Authenticating queer space: citizenship, urbanism and governance’. Urban Studies, 41(9), pp.1807–20.

Bell, D., Holloway, S., Jayne, M., and Valentine, G. 2008. ‘Pleasure and leisure’. The Sage companion to the city. T. Hall, P. Hubbard, and J. Short (eds.). London: Sage, pp.167–84.

Bell, D. and Jayne, M. 2004. City of quarters: urban villages in the contemporary city. Aldershot: Ashgate.

______. 2006. Small cities: urban experience beyond the metropolis. London: Routledge.

Bennett, A. 2018. ‘Youth, music and DIY careers’. Cultural Sociology, 3 April, doi-org.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/10.1177/1749975518765858.

Bentley, M. 2017. ‘Drink restrictions lifted for small bars in the CBD and Kings Cross’. Broadsheet, 4 October, www.broadsheet.com.au/sydney/city-file/article/drink-restrictions-have-been-lifted-sydney- small-bars.

Berendt, J. 1994. Midnight in the garden of good and evil: a Savannah story. New York: Random House.

Berry, B. 1985. ‘Islands of renewal in seas of decay’. The new urban reality. P. Petersen (ed.). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, pp.69–96.

Bhardwa, B. 2013. ‘Alone, Asian and female: the unspoken challenges of conducting fieldwork in dance settings’. Dancecult: Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture, 5(1), pp.39–60.

Bianchini, F. 1990. ‘The crisis of urban public social life in Britain: origins of the problem and possible responses’. Planning Practice and Research, 5(3), pp.4–8.

195 Bianchini, F. 1995. ‘Night cultures, night economies’. Planning Practice and Research, 10(2), pp.121–6.

Bianchini, F., Fisher, M., Montgomery, J., and Worpole, K. 1988. City centres, city cultures: the role of the arts in urban revitalisation. Manchester: Centre for Local Economic Strategies.

Bille, M. and Sørensen, T. 2007. ‘An anthropology of luminosity: the agency of light’. Journal of Material Culture, 12(3), pp.263–84.

Billinge, M. 1977. ‘In search of negativism: phenomenology and historical heography’. Journal of Historical Geography, 3(1), pp.55–67.

Bingley, A. 2003. ‘In here and out there: sensations between self and landscape’. Social & Cultural Geography, 4(3), pp.329–45.

Birdsall, C. 2013. ‘(In)audible frequencies: sounding out the contemporary branded city’. Paris-Amsterdam underground: essays on cultural resistance, subversion, and diversion. C. Lindner and A. Hussey (eds.). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp.115–32.

Blaikie, N. 2000. Designing social research: the logic of anticipation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blanks, S. and Burke, J. 2016. ‘Removal of Rights in New South Wales’. BenchTV, 30 August, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmpjV0lgQtw&t=23s.

Blum, A. 2010. ‘The imagination of self-satisfaction: reflections on the platitude of the “creative city”’. Circulation and the city: essay on urban culture. A. Boutros and W. Straw (eds.). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp.64–95.

Boddy, M. 2007. ‘Designer neighbourhoods: new-build residential development in nonmetropolitan UK Cities - the case of Bristol’. Environment and Planning A, 39, pp.86–105.

Bogard, P. 2008. Let there be night: testimony on behalf of the dark. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

______. 2013. The end of night: searching for natural darkness in an age of artificial light’. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.

Bøhling, F. 2015. ‘Alcoholic assemblages: Exploring fluid subjects in the night-time economy’. Geoforum, 58, pp.132-42.

Bondi, L. 1999. ‘Between the woof and the weft: a response to Loretta Lees’. Environment and Planning D, 17, pp.253–60.

______. 2003. ‘Empathy and identification: conceptual resources for feminist fieldwork’. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), pp.64–76.

______. 2005. ‘Making connections and thinking through emotions: between geography and psychotherapy’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(4), pp.433–48.

Bonnett, A. 2010. Left in the past: radicalism and the politics of nostalgia. New York: Continuum.

196 Bonnett, A. 2016. The geography of nostalgia: global and local perspectives on modernity and loss. London: Routledge.

Bontje, M. and Lawton, P. 2013. ‘Mobile policies and shifting contexts: city regional competitiveness strategies in Amsterdam and Dublin’. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 104(4), pp.397–409.

Boogaarts, S. 2008. ‘Claiming your place at night: Turkish dance parties in the Netherlands’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(8), pp.1283–300.

Boorstin, D. 2012. The image: a guide to pseudo-events in America. New York: Vintage Books.

Böse, M. 2005. ‘Difference and exclusion at work in the club culture economy’. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(4), pp.427–44.

Bosi, L., Giugni, M., and Uba, K. 2016. The consequences of social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bounds, M. and Morris, A. 2006. ‘Second wave gentrification in inner-city Sydney’. Cities, 23(2), pp.99– 108.

Bourdieu, P. 1973. ‘Cultural reproduction and social reproduction’. Adult and continuing education. Volume V: adult education – viewed from the disciplines. P. Jarvis and C. Griffin (eds.). London: Routledge, pp.173-184.

______. 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.

______. 1986. ‘The forms of capital’. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. J. Richardson (ed.). New York: Greenwood Press, pp.241-58.

______. 1990. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bowden, T. 2004. ‘Vertical Slum Transformed’. 7.30 Report. www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1269339.htm.

Boys, C. 2015. ‘Merivale raises the bar’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 October, Good Food, p.10.

Brabazon, T. and Mallinder, S. 2007. ‘Into the night-time economy: work, leisure, urbanity and the creative industries’. Nebula, 4(3), pp.161-78.

Bradshaw, M. and Stratford, E. 2010. ‘Qualitative research design and rigour’. Qualitative research methods in human geography. I. Hay (ed.). pp.69–80.

Brands, J. and Schwanen, T. 2014. ‘Experiencing and governing safety in the night-time economy: nurturing the state of being carefree’. Emotion, Space and Society, 11, pp.67-78.

197 Brands, J., Schwanen, T., and van Aalst, I. 2013. ‘What are you looking at? Visitors’ perspectives on CCTV in the night-time economy’. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(1), pp.23-39.

______. 2015. ‘Fear of crime and affective ambiguities in the night-time economy’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.439–55.

Brands, J., van Aalst, I., and Schwanen, T. 2015. ‘Safety, surveillance and policing in the night-time ecoomy’. Geoforum, 62, pp.24-37.

Branley, A. 2016a. ‘Leaked Documents Show Star Casino Under-Reporting Violence’. PM with Mark Colvin, 31 October, www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4566342.htm.

______. 2016b. ‘Star Casino Violence Three Times Worse Than Official Crime Statistics, Leaked Report Says’. ABC News, 1 November, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-31/leaked-report-reveals-extent-of- violence-at-star-casino-sydney/7980186.

Brennan-Horley, C., Luckman, S., Gibson, C., and Willoughby-Smith, J. 2010. ‘GIS, ethnography, and cultural research: putting maps back into ethnographic mapping’. The Information Society, 26(2), pp.92–103.

Brenner, N. 2009. ‘What is critical urban theory?’ City, 13(2), pp.198-207.

______. 2015. ‘Is “tactical urbanism” an alternative to neoliberal urbanism?’ MOMA post. 24 March, post.at.moma.org/content_items/587-is-tactical-urbanism-an-alternative-to-neoliberal-urbanism.

______. 2017. ‘Open city or the right to the city?’ The right to the city: a Verso report. EBook: Verso Books, pp.33-44.

Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., and Mayer, M. 2012. Cities for people, not for profit: critical urban theory and the right to the city. London: Routledge.

Brenner, N. and Thedore, N. 2002. ‘Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), pp.349-79.

Bridge, G. 2001. ‘Bourdieu, rational action and the time-space strategy of gentrification’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26, pp.205–16.

______. 2006a. ‘It's not just a question of taste: gentrification, the neighbourhood, and cultural capital’. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), pp.1965–78.

______. 2006b. ‘Perspectives on cultural capital and the neighbourhood’. Urban Studies, 43(4), pp.719– 30.

Bridge, G. and Dowling, R. 2001. ‘Microgeographies of retailing and gentrification’. Australian Geographer, 32, pp.93–107.

The British Broadcasting Corporation. 2016. ‘Sydney's lockout “laughing stock”’. BBC News, 10 February, www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35499522.

198 Bromley, R., Tallon, A., and Thomas, C. 2003. ‘Disaggregating the space–time layers of city-centre activities and their users’. Environment and Planning A, 35(10), pp.1831–51.

Brook, B. 2016. ‘Head of NSW Police Association says they are “open to conversation” on changes to Sydney’s lockout laws’. News, 2 June, www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/head-of- nsw-police-association-says-they-are-open-to-conversation-on-changes-to-sydneys-lockout-laws/news- story/55aa3b24ebc2fb7902dcfcf7f19d3afd.

Brooks, E. 2017. ‘Carlotta: the lockout laws have left the young LGBTQ community “fighting for acceptance”’. HuffPost Australia, 12 January, www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/01/11/carlotta-the- lockout-laws-have-left-the-young-lgbtq-community_a_21653203.

Broudehoux, A. 2007. ‘Spectacular Beijing: the conspicuous construction of an Olympic metropolis’. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(4), pp.383–99.

Brown, B. 2018. ‘In defence of civil disobedience’. The Saturday Paper, 24 March, www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2017/03/25/defence-civil- disobedience/14903604004405.

Brown, R. and Gregg, M. 2012. ‘The pedagogy of regret: Facebook, binge drinking and young women’. Continuum, 26(3), pp.357-69.

Brown, W. 2003. ‘Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy’. Theory & Event, 7(1).

Bruce-Smith, A. 2016. ‘10,0000+ people who are fkn done with #CasinoMike are marching on The Star’. Pedestrian TV, 14 March, www.pedestrian.tv/news/10000-people-who-are-fkn-done-with- casinomike-are-marching-on-the-star.

Bryan, D., McGuirk, P., O'Neill, P. and Stilwell, F. 2005. ‘Understanding Sydney as a global city’. Refereed Proceedings of the 2nd Bi-Annual National Conference on The State of Australian Cities. P. Troy (ed.). Brisbane: Griffith University, pp.1–11.

Büscher, M. and Urry, J. 2009. ‘Mobile methods and the empirical’. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), pp.99–116.

Büscher, M., Urry, J., and Witchger, K. 2010. ‘Introduction: mobile methods’. Mobile methods. M. Büsher, J. Urry, and K. Witchger (eds.). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, pp.1–19.

Buser, M., Bonura, C., Fannin, M., and Boyer, K. 2013. ‘Cultural activism and the politics of place- making’. City, 17(5), pp.606–27.

Butcher, M. 2017. ‘Re-working encounter: the role of reflexivity in managing difference’. Social & Cultural Geography, 6 July, doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2017.1346198.

Butcher, R. 2017. ‘Shocking report reveals more than half of London’s gay bars have closed down in a decade’. Gay Times, 6 July, www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/78803/sadiq-khan-london-amy-lame-gay- bars.

199 Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge.

______. 1997. Excitable speech: a politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.

Butler, Josh. 2017. ‘“Keep Sydney Open” celebrate wins against lockout laws with a huge Kings Cross festival’. HuffPost Australia, 30 June, www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/06/29/keep-sydney-open- celebrate-wins-against-lockout-laws-with-a-hu_a_23009140.

Butler, T. 2002. ‘Thinking global but acting local: the middle classes in the city’. Sociological Research Online, 7(3), pp.1–19.

______. 2006. ‘A walk of art: the potential of the sound walk as practice in cultural geography’. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(6), pp.889–908.

______. 2007. ‘Re-urbanizing London’s docklands: gentrification, suburbanization or new urbanism?’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(4), pp.759-81.

Butler, T. and Robson, G. 2001. ‘Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: a comparison of three South London neighbourhoods’. Urban Studies, 38(12), pp.2145–62.

Butterworth, B. 2017. ‘Council makes “exceptional” ruling on future of Soho’s G-A-Y late venue after closure fears’. Pink News, 12 October, www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/12/iconic-soho-venue-g-a-y- late-given-extended-opening-due-to-exceptional-circumstances.

Buttimer, A. 1976. ‘Grasping the dynamism of lifeworld’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 66(2), pp.277–92.

Buttimer, A. and Seamon, D. 1980. The human experience of spaces and place. London: Croom Helm.

Bynner, C. 2017. ‘Intergroup relations in a super-diverse neighbourhood: the dynamics of population composition, context and community’. Urban Studies, 30 November, doi:10.1177/0042098017740287.

Byrne, D. 2016. ‘Mike Baird needs to stop lecturing and start listening to lock-out law critics. SMH, 12 September, www.smh.com.au/opinion/mike-baird-needs-to-stop-lecturing-and-start-listening-to- lockout-law-critics-20160912-gre3v3.html.

Callinan, I. 2016. ‘Review of amendments to the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW)’. Independent Liquor Law Review. 16 September, www.liquorlawreview.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/report/LiquorLawReviewReport.pdf.

Calvino, I. 1997. Invisible cities. London: Vintage.

Cameron, J. and Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2003. ‘Feminising the economy: metaphors, strategies, politics’. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 10(2), pp.145–57.

Cameron, S. 2003. ‘Gentrification, housing redifferentiation and urban regeneration: “Going for Growth” in Newcastle upon Tyne’. Urban Studies, 40, pp.2367–82.

200 Caretta, M.A. and Riaño, Y. 2016. ‘Feminist participatory methodologies in geography: creating spaces of inclusion’. Qualitative Research, 16(3), pp.258-66.

Carpiano, R. 2009. ‘Come take a walk with me: the “go-along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being’. Health & Place, 15(1), pp.263–72.

Casey, E. 2001. ‘Between geography and philosophy: what does it mean to be in the place-world?’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(4), pp.683–93.

Castells, M. 2004. The network society: a cross-cultural perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Castree, N. 2006. ‘From neoliberalism to neoliberalisation: consolations, confusions and necessary illusions’. Environment and Planning A, 38, pp.1–6.

Catanzaro, M. 2014. Capturing disappearance: a visual-phenomenological investigation of Sydney's irregular performance spaces. PhD diss., Western Sydney University.

______. 2015. ‘Photographic inquiry and the reflective practitioner’. Global Media Journal, 9(2).

Chancellor, J. 2015. ‘Skinny Surry Hills House Sells for $965,000 at Auction’. Property Observer, 23 May, www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/residential-investment/sales-andauctions/42940-narrow- surry-hills-terrace-fetches-965-000.html.

Chatterton, P. 2000. ‘Further academic adventures in clubland’. City, 4(1), pp.151–5.

______. 2000. ‘Will the real Creative City please stand up?’ City, 4(3), pp.390-7.

______. 2002. ‘Governing nightlife: profit, fun and (dis) order in the contemporary city’. Entertainment Law, 1(2), pp.23–49.

Chatterton, P. and Hollands, R. 2002. ‘Theorising urban playscapes: producing, regulating and consuming youthful nightlife city spaces’. Urban Studies, 39(1), pp.95–116.

______. 2003. Urban nightscapes: youth cultures, pleasure spaces and corporate power. London: Routledge.

Chatterton, P. and Pickerill, J. 2010. ‘Everyday activism and transitions towards post‐capitalist worlds’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(4), pp.475–90.

Chayka, K. 2016. ‘Same old, same old. How the hipster aesthetic is taking over the world’. The Guardian, 7 August, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/hipster-aesthetic-taking-over-world.

Chettle, N. 2016. ‘Sydney charity fears homeless are being driven out of CBD’. ABC News, 14 February, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-14/fears-sydneys-homeless-being-driven-out-of-town/7163292.

Chikritzhs, T. 2009. ‘Australia’. Nightlife and crime: social order and governance in international perspective. P. Hadfield (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.307-28.

201 Chikritzhs, T. and Stockwell, T., 2002. The impact of later trading hours for Australian public houses (hotels) on levels of violence. Journal of studies on alcohol, 63(5), pp.591-9.

City of Sydney. 1994. ‘Living city: Sydney City Council's blueprint for Sydney’. Sydney: City of Sydney.

______. 2007. ‘Late night trading premises Development Control Plan’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/119508/LateNightTradingDCP2007.pdf.

______. 2008a. ‘The fine grain: revitalising Sydney’s lanes’. Six Degree Architects, meetings-archive.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/meetings/2008/Committee/Environment/030 308/080303_ehc_item04_attachmenta1.pdf

______. 2008b. Sustainable Sydney 2030, the vision. Sydney: City of Sydney.

______. 2008c. ‘Sustainable Sydney 2030, support document, strategic direction 5: a lively, engaging city centre’. City of Sydney, cdn.sydney2030.com.au/documents/supportdocument/Dircetion5Alivelyengagingcitycentre.pdf.

______. 2011a. ‘Discussion Paper: OPEN Sydney, future directions for Sydney at night’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy.

______. 2011b. ‘Night time city policy consultation report’. Kathy Jones and Associates Strategic Communications and Project Management, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city- wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy.

______. 2011c. ‘Night time economy: forum’. Sydney Your Say, archive.sydneyyoursay.com.au/nighteconomy?module=forum#tool.

______. 2011d. ‘Night-time economy management: international research and practice, a review for the City of Sydney’. P. Hadfield, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at- night/night-time-economy.

______. 2011e. ‘Night time economy phase two’. Sydney Your Say, sydneyyoursay.com.au/nighteconomyphase2.

______. 2011f. ‘Late night management areas research project’. Parsons Brinckerhoff, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy.

______.2011g. ‘Sydney night time economy: cost benefit analysis, a report for the City of Sydney Council’. T. Bevan, TBR and A. Turnham, MAKE Associates in partnership with M. Lester, Long View Partners & Philip Hadfield Consulting, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city- wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy.

______. 2012a. ‘Crown and Baptist Streets village summary report, City of Sydney floor space and employment survey’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/learn/research-and- statistics/surveying-our-community/floor-space-and-employment-survey/2012-fes-overview-and- summary-reports.

202 City of Sydney. 2012b. ‘OPEN future directions for Sydney at night, draft strategy and action plan’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/city-wideprojects/sydney-at-night/night-time-economy.

______. 2012c. ‘Recipes for change: how food is changing the cultural and community life of cities, panel discussion’. City of Sydney, 13 November, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/news-and- updates/videos- podcasts/city-talks/recipes-for-change.

______. 2012d. ‘Summary of online submissions for OPEN Sydney discussion paper’. City of Sydney, meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/aboutcouncil/meetings/documents/meetings/2012/Com mittee/Cultural/180612/120618_CCSC_ITEM08_ATTACHMENTC.PDF.

______. 2012e. ‘What’s on, City Conversations 2012: the big decision, how to fix Sydney’s transport’. City of Sydney, 19 November, whatson.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/events/16043-cityconversations-2012- the-big-decision-how-to-fix-sydney-s-transport.

______. 2013a. ‘Business in 2030, global business, fine grains and big ideas’. City of Sydney, www.sydney2030.com.au/business-in-2030/globalbusiness/fine-grains-and-big-ideas.

______. 2013b. ‘Creative city: cultural policy discussion paper’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/135281/CPDP.pdf.

______. 2013c. ‘OPEN Sydney, future directions for Sydney at night: strategy and action plan 2013-2030’. Sydney: City of Sydney.

______. 2013d. ‘Summary of submissions to OPEN Sydney draft strategy and action plan’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/130436/130218_CCC_ITEM02_ATTA CHMENTA.PDF.

______. 2013e. ‘Transforming Sydney: light rail, laneways, retail and night-time activity will revitalise the heart of our city’. City of Sydney, 22 May, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/news-and- updates/global-issues-ideas-and-conversations/city-talks-sydney/transforming-sydney

______. 2013f. ‘Village centres: Crown Street’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/business/business-support/village-centres/crown-street.

______. 2015. ‘Crown and Baptist Streets’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/business/business-support/business-in-your-local-area/crown-and- baptist-streets.

______. 2016a. ‘Alcohol consumption in live music venues’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/281867/Alcohol-Consumption-in-Live- Music-Venues.pdf

203 City of Sydney. 2016b. ‘The economic and cultural contributions of live music venues in the City of Sydney, 2016’. P. Muller and D. Carter, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/280996/Valuing-Live-Music-Venues- accessible.pdf.

______. 2016c. ‘Mapping culture: venues & infrastructure in the City of Sydney’. I. Ang, D. Rowe, L. Magee, A. Wong, T. Swist, D. Rouillard and A. Pollio, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/280993/Mapping-Culture-Venues-and- Infrastructure-in-the-City-of-Sydney.PDF

______. 2016d. ‘New ideas for old buildings. Discussion paper’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/281454/Creative_Spaces_and_the_Built _Environment_Discussion_Paper.pdf .

______. 2016e. ‘SydneyYourSay’. SydneyYourSay, www.sydneyyoursay.com.au.

______. 2017a. ‘About us’. City of Sydney, www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/about-us.

______. 2017b. ‘Our partners’. SYDNYE2017, www.sydneynewyearseve.com/partners.

______. 2018. ‘Late-night trading in Sydney. SydneyYourSay, www.sydneyyoursay.com.au/late-night- trading-sydney.

Clark, E. 2005. ‘The order and simplicity of gentrification: a political challenge’. Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. R. Atkinson and G. Bridge. London: Routledge, pp.261-9.

Clark, T. 2004. The city as an entertainment machine. Boston: Elsevier.

Clement, J. 2014. ‘Kings Cross landlords urged to follow Newcastle’s lead and offer free rent to jump-start ailing commercial strip’. The Wentworth Courier, 21 August, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/kings-cross-landlords-urged-to-follow-newcastles- lead-and-offer-free-rent-to-jumpstart-ailing-commercial-strip/news- story/820ca2e81522386d039c21fba4d9a439?sv=45f9e4796e8ec4035f23c601280b9cd3#.U_V7Wj YNXPs.

Clennell, A. 2014a. ‘Barry mans up on thugs’. The Daily Telegraph, 21 January, pp.1.

______. 2014b. ‘Here is your hit list premier’. The Daily Telegraph, 17 January, pp.4.

______. 2014c. ‘Lock, stock & Barry’. The Daily Telegraph, 22 January, pp.1.

______. 2016. ‘Last drinks for 1.30am lockout in move for 3am closing time’. The Daily Telegraph, 25 July, pp.2.

Cockburn, P., Gerathy, S., and Reddie, M. 2018. ‘Sydney live music venue The Basement closing in a week but offices won’t replace it’. ABC News, 26 March, www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-26/sydneys-the- basement-to-be-replaced-with-offices/9586262.

204 Codrea-Rado, A. 2017. ‘What Europe’s “Night Mayors” Can Teach New York’. The New York Times, 30 August, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/arts/new-york-night-mayor-europe.html.

Cohen, E. 1988a. ‘Authenticity and commoditization in tourism’. Annals of Tourism Research. 15(3), pp.371–86.

______. 1988b. ‘Traditions in the qualitative sociology of tourism’. Annals of Tourism Research. 15(1), pp.29–46.

Cohen, S. 1972. Folk devils and moral panics: the creation of the mods and rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Coletta, C. 2013. ‘What creative life do you want for Sydney’. City of Sydney, 10 April, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/news-and-updates/global-issues-ideas-and- conversations/city-talks/what-creative-life-do-you-want-for-sydney.

Collier, G. and Smith, P. 2009. ‘Beyond lip service: A council approach to planning for behaviour change’. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 25, pp.129–38.

Conigrave, K. 2016. ‘Last drinks laws: a health perspective’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28, pp.111.

Cook, I. and Swyngedouw, E. 2012. ‘Cities, social cohesion and the environment: towards a future research agenda’. Urban Studies. 49(9), pp.1959–79.

Cooke, R. 2014. ‘The People Versus the Political Class’. The Monthly, June, www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/june/1401544800/richard-cooke/people-versus-political-class.

Coomber, K., Pennay, A., Droste, N., Mayshak, R., Martino, F., Bowe, S., and Miller, P. 2016. ‘Observable characteristics associated with alcohol intoxication within licensed entertainment venues in Australia’. International Journal of Drug Policy, 36, pp.8-14.

Council of Capital City Lord Mayors. 2015. Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, lordmayors.org.

Crabtree, L. 2016. ‘Unbounding home ownership in Australia’. Housing and home unbound: intersections in economics, environment and politics in Australia. N. Cook, A. Davison, and L. Crabtree (eds.). Abingdon: Routledge, pp.173–190.

Crain, M. 2012. ‘“I Amsterdam” A Governmentality Approach to City Marketing’. Masters diss., University of Amsterdam, en/scriptie/432825.

Crang, M. 2005. ‘Qualitative methods: there is nothing outside the text?’ Progress in Human Geography, 29(2), pp.225-33.

______. 2012. ‘Temporal ecologies: multiple times, multiple spaces, and complicating space times’. Environment and Planning A, 44(9), pp.2119-23.

Crang, M. and Cook, I. 2007. Doing ethnographies. London: Sage.

205 Cranston, M. 2017. ‘Flight Centre’s Jude Turner sees value in Potts Point despite lockout laws’. Australian Financial Review, 17 February, www.afr.com/real-estate/flight-centres-jude-turner-sees-value-in- potts-point-despite-lockout-laws-20161201-gt1qq9.

Crary, J. 2013. 24/7: terminal capitalism and the ends of sleep. New York: Verso.

Crawford, A. and Flint, J. 2009. ‘Urban safety, anti-social behaviour and the night-time economy’. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(4), pp.403-13.

Creative Footprint. 2008. Creative Footprint, creative-footprint.org.

Cresswell, T. 2006. On the move: mobility in the modern Western World. New York: Routledge.

______. 2009. ‘Discourse’. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. R. Kitchin and N. Thrift (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.211-4.

______. 2010. ‘Towards a politics of mobility’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(1), pp.17-31.

______. 2011. ‘Mobilities I: catching up’. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), pp.550-8.

Crewe, L. 2000. ‘Geographies of retailing and consumption’. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), pp.275–91.

Crivello, S. 2011. ‘Spatial dynamics in the urban playscape: Turin by night’. Town Planning Review, 82(6), pp.709-31.

Cronin, A. and Hetherington, K. 2008. Consuming the entrepreneurial city: image, memory, spectacle. New York: Routledge.

Crouch, D. 2010. ‘Flirting with space: thinking landscape relationally’. Cultural Geographies, 17(1), pp.5- 18.

Cunningham, K. 2017. ‘Police are trying to shut down this weekend’s Keep Sydney Open rally’. Junkee, 20 January, inthemix.junkee.com/police-trying-shut-weekends-keep-sydney-open-rally/149570.

Curran, G. 2007. ‘Reclaim the Streets’. 21st Century Dissent. G. Curran (ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.180-201.

Curran, W. 2017. Gender and gentrification. London: Routledge.

D'Andrea, A., Ciolfi, L., and Gray, B. 2011. ‘Methodological challenges and innovations in mobilities research’. Mobilities, 6(2), pp.149-60.

Daily Review. 2017. ‘NSW police make last minute attempt to ban Keep Sydney Open rally’. Daily Review, 20 January, dailyreview.com.au/nsw-police-make-last-minute-attempt-ban-keep-sydney-open- rally/54840.

206 Darcy, M. and Rogers, D. 2014. ‘Inhabitance, place-making and the right to the city: public housing redevelopment in Sydney’. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14(3), pp.236-56.

______. 2016. ‘Place, political culture and post-Green Ban resistance: public housing in Millers Point, Sydney’. Cities, 57, pp.47-54.

Darlinghurst Business Partnership. 2015. ‘Economic effects of Sydney’s “lockout laws”’. 14 May, www.dbp.org.au/lockout-survey-results.

Davidson, M. 2007a. ‘Gentrification as global habitat: a process of class formation or corporate creation?’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(4), pp.490-506.

Davidson, M. 2007b. ‘Searching for the socially sustainable city: achieved through inducing the right mixture’. The proceedings of the State of Australian Cities National Conference, Adelaide, Australia. November, pp.28-30.

______. 2009. ‘Social Sustainability: a potential for politics?’ Local Environment, 14(7), pp.601-19.

______. 2010a. ‘Social sustainability and the city’. Geography Compass, 4(7), pp.872-80.

______. 2010b. ‘Sustainability as ideological praxis: the acting out of planning’s master‐ signifier’. City, 14(4), pp.390-405.

Davidson, M. and Iveson, K. 2015. ‘Recovering the politics of the city: from the “post-political city” to a “method of equality” for critical urban geography’. Progress in Human Geography, 39(5), pp.543- 59.

Davidson, M. and Lees, L. 2005. ‘New-build “gentrification” and London’s riverside renaissance’. Environment and Planning A, 37, pp.1165-90.

______. 2010. ‘New-build gentrification: its histories, trajectories and critical geographies’. Population, Space and Place, 16, 395-411

Davies, A. 2016a. ‘Architects of Sydney defend public interest as Barangaroo casino faces final hurdle’. SMH, 28 April, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/architects-of-sydney-defend-public-interest-as- barangaroo-casino-faces-final-hurdle-20160428-gohcag.html.

______. 2016b. ‘Mapping Sydney’s creative clusters’. SMH, 8 April, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/boho- sydney-mapping-our-creative-clusters-20160408-go1dbo.html.

Dawkins, R. 2016. ‘Richard Dawkins: Ignoramuses Should Have No Say on Our EU Membership—and That Includes Me’. Richard Dawkins Foundation, 9 June 9, richarddawkins.net/2016/06/richard- dawkins-ignoramuses-should-have-no-say-on-our-eu-membership-and-that-includes-me. de Certeau, M. 1984. The practice of everyday life. S. Rendall (trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

207 De Leon, J. and Cohen, J. 2005. ‘Object and walking probes in ethnographic interviewing’. Field Methods, 17(2), pp.200-4.

De Souza, M. 2006. ‘Social movements as “critical urban planning” agents’. City, 10(3), pp.327-42.

______. 2010. ‘Which right to which city? In defence of political-strategic clarity’. Interface, 2(1), pp.315- 33.

Degen, M. 2017. ‘Urban regeneration and “resistance of place”: foregrounding time and experience’. Space and Culture, 20(2), pp.141-55.

______. 2018. ‘Timescapes of urban change: the temporalities of regenerated streets’. The Sociological Review, 13 April, doi:10.1177/0038026118771290.

Degen, M. and Rose, G. 2012. ‘The sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of walking and perceptual memory’. Urban Studies, 49(15), pp.3271-87.

DeLyser, D. and Sui, D. 2013. ‘Crossing the qualitative-quantitative divide II: inventive approaches to big data, mobile methods, and rhythmanalysis’. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), pp.293-305.

DeSilvey, C. 2010. ‘Memory in motion: soundings from Milltown, Montana’. Social & Cultural Geography, 11(5), pp.491-510.

DeVerteuil, G. 2014. ‘Does the punitive need the supportive? A sympathetic critique of current grammars of urban injustice’. Antipode, 46(4), pp.874-93.

______. 2015. Resilience in the post-welfare inner city: voluntary sector geographies in London, Los Angeles and Sydney. Bristol: Policy Press.

DeVerteuil, G. and Wilton, R. 2009. ‘The geographies of intoxicants: from production and consumption to regulation, treatment and prevention’. Geography Compass, 3(1), pp.478-94.

Dewdney, C. 2004. Acquainted with the night: excursions through the world after dark. New York: Bloomsbury.

Dewsbury, J., Harrison, P., Rose, M., and Wylie, J. 2002. ‘Enacting geographies’. Geoforum, 33(4). pp.437- 40.

Dikeç, M. 2017. Urban rage: the revolt of the excluded. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dingle, T. and O'Hanlon, S. 2009. ‘From manufacturing zone to lifestyle precinct: economic restructuring and social change in inner Melbourne, 1971–2001’. Australian Economic History Review, 49(1), pp.52-69. do Mar Pereira, M. 2016. ‘Struggling within and beyond the performative university: articulating activism and work in an “academia without walls”’. Women's Studies International Forum, 54, pp.100-10.

208 Doctor, D. 2016. ‘New poll shows young people support the lockout laws. So Keep Sydney Open’s founder has challenged them to rally’. Broadsheet, 1 September, www.broadsheet.com.au/sydney/entertainment/new-poll-shows-young-people-support-lockout-laws- so-keep-sydney-opens-founder-has-challenged-them-ra.

Donnelly, N., Poynton, S., and Weatherburn, D. 2017. ‘The effect of lockout and last drinks laws on non- domestic assaults in Sydney: an update to September 2016’. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 201.

Donnelly, N., Weatherburn, D., Routledge, K., Ramsey, S., and Mahoney, N. 2016. ‘Did the “lockout law” reforms increase assaults at The Star casino, Pyrmont?’. Crime and Justice Statistics, 114.

Donoughue, P. 2018. ‘Melbourne is the live music capital of the world, study says. ABC News, 12 April, www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-12/melbourne-is-the-live-music-capital-of-the-world-census- shows/9643684.

Dorling, D. 2018. ‘Moral sentiments and The New Urban Crisis’. International Review of Applied Economics, 32(1), pp.134-6.

Douglas, G. 2018. The help-yourself city: legitimacy and inequality in DIY urbanism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dow, S. 2018. ‘Sydney’s late night economy waning’. The Saturday Paper, 14 April, www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2018/04/14/sydneys-late-night-economy-waning/15236280006092.

Dowling, R. 2005. ‘Social and cultural geographies of Australia’. Social & Cultural Geography, 6(5), pp.767-75.

______. 2009. ‘Geographies of identity: landscapes of class’. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), pp.833-9.

______. 2010. ‘Power, subjectivity and ethics in qualitative research’. Qualitative research methods in human geography. I. Hay (ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press, pp.26-39.

Ducatel, K. and Blomley, N. 1990. ‘Rethinking retail capital’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 14(2), pp.207-27.

Duff, C. and Moore, D. 2014. ‘Going out, getting about: atmospheres of mobility in Melbourne’s night-time economy’. Social & Cultural Geography, 16(3), pp.299-314.

Dumas, D. 2016. ‘Sydney's lockout laws: Bar Century set to close as lockout laws blamed in part for downturn in trade’. SMH, 12 Feburary, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydneys-lockout-laws-bar- century-set-to-close-as-lockout-laws-blamed-in-part-for-downturn-in-trade-20160212-gmsias.html.

Duncan, A. 2014. ‘Illegal warehouse parties boom as Sydney says screw you to lockout’. Pedestrian TV, 11 August, www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/illegal-warehouse-parties-boom-as-sydney-says-screw-you- to-lockout.

209 Duncan, A. 2015. ‘Watch: organiser of Sydney street party protesting lockout laws speaks’. Pedestrian TV, 12 September, www.pedestrian.tv/news/watch-organiser-of-sydney-street-party-protesting-lockout- laws-speaks-out.

Duncan, J. and Duncan, N. 1988. ‘(Re) reading the landscape’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6(2), pp.117-26.

Dunn, K. 2010. ‘Interviewing’. Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. I. Hay (ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press, pp.101-38.

Edensor, T. 2010. ‘Thinking about rhythm and space’. Geographies of rhythm: nature, place, mobilities and bodies. T. Edensor (ed.). Farnham: Ashgate, pp.1-18.

______. 2015. ‘The gloomy city: Rethinking the relationship between light and dark’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.422-38.

______. 2017. From light to dark: daylight, illumination, and gloom. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Egerton-Warburton, D. 2018. ‘Fewer alcohol-related visits to inner Sydney emergency room since “lockout laws” introduced’. The Conversation, 26 February, theconversation.com/fewer-alcohol-related- visits-to-inner-sydney-emergency-room-since-lockout-laws-introduced-92343.

Ekirch, A. 2005. At day’s close: night in times past. New York: Norton.

Eldridge, A. 2010. ‘Public panics: problematic bodies in social space’. Emotion, Space and Society, 3(1), pp,40-4.

______. 2010. ‘The urban renaissance and the night-time economy: who belongs in the city at night? Social sustainability in urban areas: communities, connectivity and the urban fabric. T. Manzi, K. Lucas, T. Lloyd-Jones, and J. Allen (eds.). London: Earthscan, pp.183-98.

Emmel, N. and Clark, A. 2009. ‘The methods used in connected lives: investigating networks, neighbourhoods and communities’. National Centre for Research Methods. eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/800.

Engerman, D. 1994. ‘Research agenda for the history of tourism: towards an international social history’. American Studies International, 32(2), pp.3-31.

Enman, S. 2017. ‘NYC’s Office of Nightlife expected to be here by 2018’. Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 4 August, www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2017/8/4/nycs-office-nightlife-expected-be-here-2018.

Enright, T. and Rossi, U. 2018. The urban political: ambivalent spaces of late neoliberalism. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Epstein J. 1975. ‘Boutique America!’ American Scholar, 44(4), pp.533-9.

210 Ersoy, A. 2017. The impact of co-production: from community engagement to social justice. Bristol: Polity Press.

Eshuis, J. and Klijn, E. 2017. ‘City Branding as a Governance Strategy’. The Sage Handbook of New Urban Studies. J. Hannigan and G. Richards (eds.). London: Sage, pp.92–105.

Evans, G. 2011. ‘Events, cities and the night-time economy’. The Routledge handbook of events. S. Page and J. Connell (eds.). Abingdon: Routledge, pp.415-30.

______. 2012. ‘Hold back the night: Nuit Blanche and all-night events in capital cities’. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(1-2), pp.35-49.

______. 2017. ‘Creative Cities – An International Perspective’. The Sage Handbook of New Urban Studies. J. Hannigan and G. Richards (eds.). London: Sage, pp.311–29.

Evans, J. and Jones, P. 2011. ‘The walking interview: methodology, mobility and place’. Applied Geography, 31(2), pp.849-58.

Evershed, N. 2016. ‘Sydney's lockout laws: five key facts about the city's alcohol debate’. The Guardian, 11 February, www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/feb/11/sydneys-lockout-laws-five-key-facts- about-the-citys-alcohol-debate.

Fagan, B. and Dowling, R. 2005. ‘Neoliberalism and suburban employment: Western Sydney in the 1990s’. Geographical Research, 43(1), pp.71–81.

Fainstein, S. 2010. The just city. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

______. 2014. ‘The just city’. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), pp.1-18.

Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

______. 2009. ‘Language and globalization’. Semiotica, 173, pp.317-42.

Farrelly, E. 2014. ‘Lock out laws shut down Sydney’s Oxford Street’. SMH, 27 August, www.smh.com.au/comment/lock-out-laws-shut-down-sydneys-oxford-street-20140827-108xej.html.

______. 2016a. ‘There’s never been a better time to protest in the streets’. SMH, 30 October, www.smh.com.au/comment/theres-never-been-a-better-time-to-protest-in-the-streets-20161027- gsbxwx.html.

______. 2016b. ‘WestConnex is a war on inner Sydney and city dwellers’. SMH, 28 April, www.smh.com.au/comment/westconnex-is-a-war-on-inner-sydney-city-dwellers-20160427- gog082.html.

______.2017a. ‘Call me a cynic, Sydney’s planning changes just won’t deliver’. SMH, 13 January, www.smh.com.au/opinion/sydneys-planning-changes-just-wont-deliver-20170112-gtqk28.html.

211 Farrelly, E. 2017b. ‘I’ve always loved Sydney, but I’m starting to fear the marriage is over’. SMH, 10 March, www.smh.com.au/opinion/ive-always-loved-sydney-but-im-starting-to-fear-the-marriage-is- over-20170309-guutd4.html.

______. 2017c. ‘Sydney isn’t a big retirement village. It can’t be perfectly safe’. SMH, 6 January, www.smh.com.au/opinion/sydney-isnt-a-big-retirement-village-it-cant-be-perfectly-safe-20170105- gtmgud.html.

Farrelly, K. 2016. ‘Stylish Surry Hills has a reputation to uphold’. Domain, 2 April, domain.com.au/news/stylish-surry-hills-has-a-reputation-to-uphold-20160331-gnpooz.

Farrer, J. 2011. ‘Global nightscapes in Shanghai as ethnosexual contact zones’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(5), pp.747-64.

Faruqi, O. 2016a. ‘Lockout laws vs greyhounds: the absurd, hypocritical bullshit dominating politics’. Junkee, 13 July, junkee.com/lockout-laws-vs-greyhounds/81638.

______.2016b. ‘Property developers are trying to demolish Kings Cross and turn it into high-rise apartments’. Junkee, 24 October, junkee.com/property-developers-teaming-demolish-kings-cross- turn-high-rise-apartments/88009.

Fenster, T. and Misgav, C. 2014. ‘Memory and place in participatory planning’. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(3), pp.349-69.

Fernandez, T. and Vukovic, D. 2017. ‘Mike Baird resignation: thoughts from protesters and haters’. ABC News, 27 January, www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-20/mike-baird-resignation-thoughts-from- protesters-and-haters/8195434.

Field, D. 2016. ‘Thousands of Australian families “can’t afford home Internet”’. ABC News, 21 February, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-21/thousands-of-australian-families-’can’t-afford-home- internet’/7185452.

Fincher, R. 1998. ‘In the Right Place at the Right Time? Life Stages and Urban Spaces’. Cities of difference. R. Fincher and J.M. Jacobs (eds.). New York: Guilford Press, pp.49-68.

Fincher, R. and Iveson, K. 2008. Planning and diversity in the city: redistribution, recognition and encounter. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fink, J. 2012. ‘Walking the neighbourhood, seeing the small details of community life: reflections from a photography walking tour’. Critical Social Policy, 32(1), pp.31-50.

Fitzgerald, D. 2014. ‘Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo will be moved to Parramatta’. The Daily Telegraph, 25 November, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta/powerhouse-museum-to-move-to- parramatta/news-story/4379a29c384d1f22b22754865a4b7c10.

Florida, R. 2002. The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

212 ______. 2003. ‘Cities and the creative class’. City & Community, 2(1), pp.3-19.

______. 2005. Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge.

______. 2017. The new urban crisis: how our cities are increasing inequality, deepening segregation, and failing the middle class — and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.

Flowerdew, J. 2004. ‘The discursive construction of a world-class city’. Discourse & Society, 15(5), pp.579- 605.

Forrest, J. and Dunn, K. ‘Constructing Racism in Sydney, Australia’s Largest EthniCity’. Urban Studies, 44(4), pp.699–721.

Forster, C. 1999, Australian Cities: Continuity and Change. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Forster, Christine. 2017. ‘Sydney’s been locked out too long’. The Daily Telegraph, 1 February, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/christine-forster-sydneys-been-locked-out-too-long/news- story/58713ceb63cf73a4ad1cd68c76c7d4c1.

Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language. A. Sheridan Smith (trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.

______. 1977. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. A. Sheridan (trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

______. 1979a. ‘On governmentality’. Ideology and Consciousness, 6(1), pp.5-22.

______. 1979b. The history of sexuality, volume I: an introduction. R. Hurley (trans.) London: Allen Lane.

______. 1980. Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-177. C. Gordon (ed. and trans.), L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and K. Sopers (trans.). Brighton: Harvester.

______. 1991. Discipline and punish. A. Sheridan (trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Foucault, M., Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P. 1991. The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Friedmann, J. 2002. ‘The world city hypothesis’. The city: critical concepts in the social sciences. Volume I: the city in global context. M. Pacione. London: Routledge, pp.151-163.

Fukunishi, S. 2016. ‘26 Things that are so Surry Hills it hurts’. The Urban List, 14 March, www.theurbanlist.com/sydney/a-list/26-things-that-are-so-surry-hills-it-hurts.

Gabriel, N. 2014. ‘Urban political ecology: environmental imaginary, governance, and the non‐ human’. Geography Compass, 8(1), pp.38-48.

213 Gallan, B. 2012. ‘Gatekeeping Night Spaces: the role of booking agents in creating “local” live music venues and scenes’. Australian Geographer, 43(1), pp.35-50.

______. 2014. Becoming crepuscular: rethinking the human relationship to day and night. PhD diss., University of Wollongong, ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4187.

______. 2015. ‘Night lives: Heterotopia, youth transitions and cultural infrastructure in the urban night’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.555-70.

Gallan, B. and Gibson, C. 2011. ‘New dawn or new dusk? Beyond the binary of day and night’. Environment and Planning A, 43(11), pp.2509-15.

______. 2013. ‘Mild-mannered bistro by day, eclectic freak-land at night: memories of an Australian music venue’. Journal of Australian Studies, 37(2), pp.174-93.

Garcia, C., Eisenberg, M., Frerich, E., Lechner, K., and Lust, K. 2012. ‘Conducting go-along interviews to understand context and promote health’. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), pp.1395-403.

Garrett, B. 2015. ‘The privatisation of cities' public spaces is escalating. It is time to take a stand’. The Guardian, 4 August, www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops-privately-owned-public-space- cities-direct-action.

Gay, D. 2016. ‘The suburban myths about WestConnex’. The Daily Telegraph, September 20, 2016, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-suburban-myths-about-westconnex/news- story/88c67f4cb46d3444638683684f8830d36.

Geoghegan, P. 2015. ‘Which is the world’s most segregated city’. The Guardian, 28 October, www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/28/which-is-the-worlds-most-segregated-city.

Gertner, D. 2011. ‘Unfolding and configuring two decades of research and publications on place marketing and place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(2), pp.91-206.

Gibbs, D. and Krueger, R. 2007. ‘Containing the contradictions of rapid development? New economy spaces and sustainable urban development’. The sustainable development paradox: urban political economy in the United States and Europe. R. Krueger and D. Gibbs (eds.). New York: Guilford Press, pp.95-122.

Gibson, C. 2003. ‘Digital divides in New South Wales: a research note on socio-spatial inequality using 2001 Census data on computer and Internet technology’. Australian Geographer, 34(2), pp.239– 57.

______. 2006. ‘Sydney’s creative economy: social and spatial challenges’. Talking about Sydney: population, community and culture in contemporary Sydney. R. Freestone, B. Randolph, and C. Butler-Bowdon (eds.). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, pp.185-198.

______. 2012. ‘Cultural economy: achievements, divergences, future prospects’. Geographical Research, 50(3), pp.282-90.

214 Gibson, C., Brennan-Horley, C., and Warren, A. 2010. ‘Geographic Information Technologies for cultural research: cultural mapping and the prospects of colliding epistemologies’. Cultural Trends, 19(4), pp.325-48.”

Gibson, C., Crosby, A., Grodach, C., Lyons, C., O’Connor, J., and Gu, X. 2017. ‘Can our cities’ thriving creative precincts be saved from “renewal”’. The Conversation, 30 August, theconversation.com/can-our-cities-thriving-creative-precincts-be-saved-from-renewal-83042.

Gibson, C., Grodach, C., Lyons, C., Crosby, A., and Brennan-Horley, C. 2017. ‘Made in Marrickville: enterprise and cluster dynamics at the creative-industries-manufacturing inferface, Carrington Road precinct’. Report DP170104255-2017/02, Australian Research Council Discovery Project: Urban Cultural Policy and the Changing Dynamics of Cultural Production. QUT, University of Wollongong and Monash University.

Gibson, C. and Homan, S. 2004. ‘Urban redevelopment, live music and public space: cultural performance and the re-making of Marrickville’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1), pp.67-84.

Gibson, C. and Klocker, N. 2004. ‘Academic publishing as “creative” industry, and recent discourses of “creative economies”: some critical reflections’. Area, 36(4), pp.423–34.

______. 2005. ‘The “cultural turn” in Australian regional economic development discourse: neoliberalising creativity?’. Geographical Research, 43(1), pp.93-102.

Gibson, C. and Kong, L. 2005. ‘Cultural economy: a critical review’. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), pp.541-61.

Gibson, K. 1998. ‘Social Polarization and the Politics of Difference: Discourses in Collision or Collusion?’ Cities of difference. R. Fincher and J.M. Jacobs. New York: Guilford Press, pp.301-16.

Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006. The end of capitalism (as we knew it): a feminist critique of political economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

______. 2008. ‘Diverse Economies: Performative Practices for “Other Worlds”’. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5), pp.613-32.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., Cameron, J., and Healy, S. 2013. Take back the economy: an ethical guide for transforming our communities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gill, S. 1995. ‘Globalisation, market civilisation, and disciplinary neoliberalism’. Millennium, 24(3), pp.399- 423.

Glass, M. 2016. ‘Performing neoliberalism: practices, power and subject formation’. The Handbook of Neoliberalism. S. Springer, K. Birch, and J. MacLeavy (eds.). London: Routledge, pp.351-60.

______. 2018. ‘Seeing like a city through the Singapore City Gallery’. City, 22(2), pp.236–256.

215 Glass, M. and Rose-Redwood, R. 2014. ‘Finding new spaces for performativity and politics’. Performativity, politics and the production of social space. M. Glass and R. Rose-Redwood (eds.). New York: Routledge.

Glass, R. 1964. ‘Introduction: aspects of change’. London: aspects of change. Centre for Urban Studies (ed.). London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Gleeson, B. 2006. ‘Desocializing space: the decline of the public realm in Western Sydney 1’. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(1), pp.19–34.

Goffman, E. 1989. ‘On fieldwork’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(2), pp.123-32.

Gold, J., Stock, M., and Relph, E. 2000. ‘Classics in human geography revisited’. Progress in Human Geography, 24(4), pp.613–9.

Goss, J. 1999. ‘Modernity and postmodernity in the retail landscape’. Cultural Geographies. K. Anderson and F. Gale (eds.). South Melbourne: Addison Wesley, pp.199- 219.

______. 2004. ‘Geography of consumption I’. Progress in Human Geography, 28(3), pp.369-80.

Graham, B. 2018. ‘Late night picture of Sydney slammed on social media’. News, 11 April, www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/late-night-picture-of-sydney-slammed-on- social-media/news-story/ba6b210f57004161228c9ed1d14e2a3f.

Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., and Smith, G. 1971 [1929–35]. Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Grazian, D. 2008. On the make: the hustle of urban nightlife. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

______. 2009. ‘Urban nightlife, social capital, and the public life of cities’. Sociological Forum, 24(4), pp.908-17.

Greater Sydney Commission. 2018. ‘Greater Sydney region plan: a metropolis of three cities – connecting people’. NSW Government, March, https://gsc-public-1.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/greater- sydney-region-plan-0318.pdf.

Green, K. 2018. ‘Trying to have fun in “No Fun City”: legal and illegal strategies for creating punk spaces in Vancouver, British Colombia’. Punk & Post Punk, 7(1), pp.75–92.

Gregoire, P. 2016. ‘If you though NSW had enough shitty policy laws, here’s four new ones’. Vice, 26 May, www.vice.com/en_au/article/yvxa57/an-analysis-of-all-the-shitty-laws-introduced-by-the-nsw- government-since-2011.

Gregory, D. 1978. ‘The discourse of the past: phenomenology, structuralism and historical geography’. Journal of Historical Geography, 4(2), pp.161-73.

______. 1994. Geographical imaginations. Oxford: Blackwell.

216 Gregson, N. and Rose, G. 2000. ‘Taking Butler elsewhere: performativities, spatialities and subjectivities’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(4), pp.433-52.

Griffiths, N. 2017. ‘Iconic Sydney venue to close its doors next month’. The Music, 12 September, themusic.com.au/news/all/2017/09/12/iconic-sydney-venue-to-close-its-doors-next-month.

Griffiths, R. 1998. ‘Making sameness: place marketing and the new urban entrepreneurialism’. Cities, Economic Competition, and Urban Policy. N. Oatley (ed.). London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp.41–57.

Gripenberg, P. 2011. ‘The walking video interview (WVI) as potential technique to tap into the everyday experiences of ICTs’. Iris, 34.

Grodach, C. 2013. ‘Cultural economy planning in creative cities : discourse and practice’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), pp.1747-65.

______. 2017. ‘Urban cultural policy and creative city making’. Cities, 68, pp.82-91.

Grodach, C., Foster, N., and Murdoch, J. 2018. ‘Gentrification, displacement and the arts: untangling the relationship between arts industries and place change’. Urban Studies, 55(4), pp.807-25.

Guardian readers and Marsh, S. 2016. ‘“I’d rather chill in and relax”: why millennials don’t go clubbing’. The Guardian, 24 March, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/24/id-rather-chill-in- and-relax-why-millennials-dont-go-clubbing.

Gwyther, G. 2008. ‘Once were Westies’. Griffith Review, 20, pp.81.

Hackworth J. and Smith N. 2001. ‘The changing state of gentrification’. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92(4), pp.464-77

Hadfield, P. 2009. ‘From threat to promise: nightclub “security”, governance and consumer elites’. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(4), pp.429-47.

______. 2015. ‘The Night-Time City. Four Modes of Exclusion: Reflections on the Urban Studies Special Collection’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.606–16.

Hadfield, P., Lister, S., Hobbs, D., and Winlow, S. 2001. ‘The “24-Hour City” - Condition Critical?’ Town and Country Planning, 70(11), pp.300-2.

Hadfield, P. and Measham, F. 2009. ‘Shaping the night: how licensing, social divisions and informal social controls mould the form and content of nightlife’. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(3), pp.219-34.

______. 2015. ‘The outsourcing of control: alcohol law enforcement, private-sector governance and the evening and night-time economy’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.517-37.

Hae, L. 2011a. ‘Dilemmas of the nightlife fix: post-industrialisation and the gentrification of nightlife in New York City’. Urban Studies, 48(16), pp.3449–65.

217 Hae, L. 2011b. ‘Gentrification and politicization of nightlife in New York City’. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 10(3), pp.564–84.

______. 2012. The gentrification of nightlife and the right to the city: regulating spaces of social dancing in New York. New York: Routledge.

Hage, G. 1997. ‘At home in the entrails of the west: multiculturalism, “ethnic food” and migrant home- building’. Home/world: space, community and marginality in Sydney’s west. H. Grace, G. Hage, L. Johnson, J. Langsworth, and M. Symonds. Sydney: Pluto Press, pp.99-153.

Hall, T. 2009. ‘Footwork: moving and knowing in local space(s)’. Qualitative Research, 9(5), pp.571-85.

Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. 1996. ‘The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies?’ Progress in Human Geography, 20(2), pp.153-74.

______. 1998. The entrepreneurial city: geographies of politics, regime, and representation. Chichester: Wiley.

Hamnett, C. 1991. ‘The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16(2), pp.173-89.

______. 2003. Unequal city: London in the global arena. London: Routledge.

Hamnett, C. and Whitelegg, D. 2007. ‘Loft conversion and gentrification in London: from industrial to postindustrial land use’. Environment and planning A, 39(1), pp.106-24.

Han, M. 2015. ‘Sydney property market in ‘bubble territory’ since December, says Professor’. Financial Review, 7 September, www.afr.com/news/sydney-property-market-in-bubble-territorysince- december-20150907-gjgwe7.

Hannam, K., Sheller, M., and Urry, J. 2006. ‘Mobilities, immobilities and moorings’. Mobilities, 1(1), pp.1-22.

Harada, T. and Waitt, G. 2013. ‘Researching transport choices: the possibilities of “mobile methodologies” to study life‐on‐the‐move’. Geographical Research, 51(2), pp.145-52.

Harris, A. 2016. ‘Kings Cross faces permanent transformation in face of massive tower property deal’. The Daily Telegraph, 23 October, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/kings-cross-faces-permanent- transformation-in-face-of-massive-tower-property-deal/news- story/414fb365677b7a20ce34e170a2c7e954.

Harrison, C. 2017. ‘Hi, my name’s Australia, and I have a drinking problem’. HuffPost Australia, 3 January, www.huffingtonpost.com.au/chris-harrison/hi-my-names-australia-and-i-have-a-drinking- problem_a_21646036.

Harvey, D. 1973. Social justice and the city. London: Edward Arnold.

218 Harvey, D. 1978. ‘The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1‐4), pp.101-31.

______. 1989. ‘From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism’. Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 71(1), pp.3–17.

______. 1996. Justice, nature, and the geography of difference. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

______. 2001. Spaces of capital: towards a critical geography. New York: Routledge.

______. 2003. ‘The right to the city’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), pp.939–41.

______. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

______. 2010. The enigma of capital. New York: Oxford University Press.

______. 2012. Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution. New York: Verso.

Haydock, W. 2014. ‘The “civilising” effect of a “balanced” night-time economy for “better people”: class and the cosmopolitan limit in the consumption and regulation of alcohol in Bournemouth’. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 6(2), pp.172-85.

Haylen, J. 2016. ‘Sydney should be Australia’s urban projection to the world’. The Daily Telegraph, 1 September, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sydney-should-be-australias-urban-projection-to-the-world/ne ws-story/6773f6f5f58706948488570b7dd37602.

Haylett, C. 2003. ‘Culture, class and urban policy: reconsidering equality’. Antipode, 35(1), pp.55-73.

Hayward, K. and Hobbs, D. 2007. ‘Beyond the binge in “booze Britain”: market-led liminalization and the spectacle of binge drinking’. The British Journal of Sociology, 58(3), pp.437-56.

Hennessy, J. 2016. ‘Police horse walks into bar in Bondi, NSW nanny state officially peaked’. Pedestrian TV, 3 April, www.pedestrian.tv/news/police-horse-walks-into-bar-in-bondi-nsw-nanny-state- officially-peaked.

Herrera, Y. and Braumoeller, B. 2004. ‘Symposium: discourse and content analysis’. Qualitative Methods, 2(1), pp.15-9.

Hewitt, T. 2016. ‘Rethinking encounter: intercultural interactions between parents in Australia’s culturally diverse primary schools’. Australian Geographer, 47(3), pp.355–70.

Heynen, N. 2014. ‘Urban political ecology I: The urban century’. Progress in Human Geography, 38(4), pp.598-604.

Hill, J. 2017. ‘Newtown reclaims its streets’. Alt Media, 22 March, www.altmedia.net.au/newtown-reclaims- its-streets/123301.

219 Hill, L. 2013. ‘Archaeologies and geographies of the post-industrial past: landscape, memory and the spectral’. Cultural Geographies, 20(3), pp.379-96.

Hills, B. 2011. ‘Kings Cross Crackdown’. The Sunday Telegraph, 29 May, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/kings-cross-crackdown/news-story/d37f9fd9eed1a1b9cc7d535ed22caa 8c.

Hitchins, R. and Jones, V. 2004. ‘Living with plants and the exploration of botanical encounter with human geographic research practice’. Ethics, Place and Environment, 7(1-2), pp.3-18.

Hjorthol R. and Bjørnskau T. 2005. ‘Gentrification in Norway: capital, culture or convenience?’ European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(4) pp.353-71.

Ho, K. and Douglass, M. 2008. ‘Globalisation and liveable cities: experiences in place-making in Pacific Asia’. International Development Planning Review, 30(3), pp.199-213.

Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., and Winlow, S. 2003. Bouncers: violence and governance in the night- time economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hobbs, D., Lister, S., Hadfield, P., Winlow, S., and Hall, S. 2000. ‘Receiving shadows: governance and liminality in the night-time economy’. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), pp.701-17.

Hobbs, D., Winlow, S., Hadfield, P., and Lister, S. 2005. ‘Violent Hypocrisy Governance and the Night- Time Economy’. European Journal of Criminology, 2(2), pp.161–83.

Hogan, L. 2015. ‘Glasses of wine on the footpath? This is what Tyler Brûlé wants us to struggle for?’ The Guardian, 28 May, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/28/glasses-of-wine-on-the-footpath-this-is-what-tyle r-brule-wants-us-to-struggle-for?CMP=share_btn_fb.

Hollands, R. 2002. ‘Divisions in the dark: youth cultures, transitions and segmented consumption spaces in the night-time economy’. Journal of Youth Studies, 5(2), pp.153-71.

______. 2016. Young adults and the night-time economy. Routledge handbook of youth and young adulthood, A. Furlong (ed.). London: Routledge, pp.237-43.

Hollands, R., Berthet, M., Nada, E., and Bjertnes, V. 2017. ‘Urban cultural movements and the night: struggling for the “right to the creative (party) city” in Geneva’. The Sage handbook of new urban studies. J. Hannigan and G. Richards (eds.). London: Sage, pp.295–310.

Hollands, R. and Chatteron, P. 2002. ‘Changing times for an old industrial city: hard times, hedonism and corporate power in Newcastle’s nightlife’. City, 6(3), pp.291–315.

______. 2003. ‘Producing nightlife in the new urban entertainment economy: corporatization, branding and market segmentation’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), pp.361- 85.

220 Homan, S. 2003. The Mayor’s a square : live music and law and order in Sydney. Newtown: Local Consumption Publications.

______. 2017. ‘Lockout laws or “rock out” laws? governing Sydney’s night-time economy and implications for the “music city”’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, doi: 10.1080/10286632.2017.1317760.

Hopkins, M. 2018. ‘Living in Sydney will now fuck your wallet harder than London & New York’. Pedestrian TV, 16 March, www.pedestrian.tv/money/it-now-costs-more-to-live-in-sydney-than- london-or-new-york.

Hu, R., Blakely, E., and Zhou, Y. 2013. ‘Benchmarking the competitiveness of Australian global cities: Sydney and Melbourne in the global context’. Urban Policy and Research, 31(4), pp.435-52.

Huang, W. and Wang, P. 2018. ‘“All that’s best of dark and bright”: day and night perceptions of Hong Kong cityscape’. Tourism Management, 66, pp.274-86.

Hubbard, P. 2005. ‘The geographies of “going out”: emotion and embodiment in the evening economy’. Emotional geographies, J. Davidson, L. Bondi, and M. Smith (ed.). Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.117- 34.

______. 2013. ‘Carnage! Coming to a town near you? Nightlife, uncivilised behaviours and the carnivalesque body’. Leisure Studies, 32(3), pp.265-82.

______. 2017. The battle for the high street: retail gentrification, class and disgust. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hubbard, P. and Colosi, R. 2015. ‘Taking back the night? gender and the contestation of sexual entertainment in England and Wales’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.589-605.

Hubbard, P., Gorman-Murray, A., and Nash, C. 2005. ‘Cities and sexualities’. Handbook of the sociology of sexualities. J. DeLatamer and R. Plante (eds.). Cham: Springer, pp.287-303.

Hubbard, P., Matthews, R., Scoular, J., and Agustín, L. 2008. ‘Away from prying eyes? The urban geographies of adult entertainment’. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3), pp.363-81.

Hughes, G. 1995. ‘Authenticity in tourism’. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), pp.781-803.

Hunt, E. 2016. ‘“Nightlife is still alive and well”: do critics have it wrong on Sydney’s lockout laws?’ The Guardian, 31 August, www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/31/nightlife-is-still-alive-and- well-do-critics-have-it-wrong-on-sydneys-lockout-laws.

Hunt, E. and Australian Associated Press. 2016. ‘Sydney lockout laws a “sledgehammer” to nightlife: Clover Moore’. The Guardian, 4 April, www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/04/sydney- lockout-laws-a-sledgehammer-to-night-life-clover-moore.

221 Hurdley, R. and Dicks, B. 2011. ‘In-between practice: working in the “thirdspace” of sensory and multimodal methodology’. Qualitative Research, 11(3), pp.277-92.

Imrie, R. 2004. ‘Urban geography, relevance, and resistance to the “policy turn”. Urban Geography, 25(8), pp.697-708.

Ingold, T. 2004. ‘Culture on the ground: the world perceived through the feet’. Journal of Material Culture, 9(3), pp.315-40.

______. 2014. ‘That's enough about ethnography!’ HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), pp.383- 95.

Ingold, T. and Vergunst, J. 2008. Ways of walking: ethnography and practice on foot. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Irvine, J. 2016. ‘Lockout laws a winner for Potts Point and Kings Cross apartments’. SMH, 19 February, www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/lockout-laws-a-winner-for-potts-point-and-kings-cross- apartments-20160229-gn5ys8.html.

Iveson, K. 2011. ‘Social or spatial justice? Marcuse and Soja on the right to the city’. City, 15(2), pp.250–9.

______. 2013. ‘Cities within the city: Do‐it‐yourself urbanism and the right to the city’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), pp.941-56.

______. 2014. ‘Building a city For “the people”: the politics of alliance-building in the Sydney Green Ban movement’. Antipode, 46(4), pp.992–1013.

Jackson, P. 1991. ‘Mapping meanings: a cultural critique of locality studies’. Environment and Planning A, 23, pp.215-28.

______. 1995. ‘Manufacturing meanings: culture, capital and urban change’. The urban context: ethnicity, social networks, and situational analysis. A. Rogers and S.Vertovec (eds.). Oxford: Berg, pp.165- 88.

Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.

Jacobs, J. M. 1998. ‘Staging difference: aestheticization and the politics of difference in contemporary cities’. Cities of difference. R. Fincher and J.M. Jacobs (eds.). Guilford Press: New York, pp.252-78.

Jager, M. 1986. ‘Class definition and the aesthetics of gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne’. Gentrification of the city. N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp.78-91.

James. 2015. ‘Since lockout laws, Newtown has been a hideous place to be at night’. 10 June, www.sneakymag.com/life/since-the-lockouts-laws-newtown-has-been-a-hideous-place-to-be-at-night.

Jansson, A. 2003. ‘The negotiated city image: symbolic reproduction and change through urban consumption’. Urban Studies, 40(3), pp.463-79.

222 Jarvis, N. 2016a. ‘1.30am lockouts haven’t reduced violence in Kings Cross’. Junkee, 8 June, inthemix.junkee.com/1-30am-lockouts-havent-reduced-violence-in-kings-cross/143767.

______. 2016b. ‘London’s new mayor has a bold plan to save the city’s club scene’. Junkee, 9 May, inthemix.junkee.com/londons-new-mayor-has-a-bold-plan-to-save-the-citys-club-scene/142363.

Jayne, M. 2012. ‘Mayors and urban governance: discursive power, identity and local politics’. Social & Cultural Geography, 13(1), pp.29-47.

Jayne, M. and Valentine, G. 2016. ‘Alcohol-related violence and disorder: new critical perspectives’. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), pp.67-87.

Jayne, M., Valentine, G., and Holloway, S. 2008a. ‘Fluid boundaries—British binge drinking and European civility: alcohol and the production and consumption of public space’. Space and Polity, 12(1), pp.81-100.

______. 2008b. ‘Geographies of alcohol, drinking and drunkenness: a review of progress’. Progress in Human Geography, 32(2), pp.247-63.

______. 2010. ‘Emotional, embodied and affective geographies of alcohol, drinking and drunkenness’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(4), pp.540-54.

Jenke, T. 2018. ‘Beloved Sydney venue The Basement is set to close its doors. The Brag, 25 March, thebrag.com/sydney-venue-the-basement-close-doors.

Jensen, A. 2011. ‘Mobility, space and power: On the multiplicities of seeing mobility’. Mobilities, 6(2), pp.255-71.

Jones, A. 2018. ‘Closure of iconic Sydney music venue another victim of the lockout laws’. 2GB, 29 March, www.2gb.com/closure-of-iconic-sydney-music-venue-another-victim-of-the-lockout-laws.

Jones, E. 2017. ‘What are the relationships between the global city, industrialisation, night time economy and patterns of crime, deviance and control?’ www1.essex.ac.uk/sociology/documents/ideate-spr- 17.pdf#page=140.

Jones, P., Bunce, G., Evans, J., Gibbs, H., and Hein, J. 2008. ‘Exploring space and place with walking interviews’. Journal of Research Practice, 4(2): article D2.

Jones, P. and Evans, J. 2012. ‘Rescue geography: place making, affect and regeneration’. Urban Studies, 49(11), pp.2315-30.

Jordan, J. 2002. ‘The art of necessity: the subversive imagination of anti-road protest and Reclaim the Streets’. Cultural Resistance Reader. S. Duncombe (ed.). London: Verso Books, pp.347—357.

Joyner, T. 2016. ‘Suicide attempts, overdoses at Star Casino among reasons for 173 ambulance calls a year, FOI documents show’. ABC News, 8 October, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-01/suicide-attempts- at-casino-as-gamblers-encouraged-to-play/7895044.

223 Junkee. 2016. ‘Amsterdam’s Night Mayor is coming to Sydney to show Mike Baird how to run a city’. Junkee, 8 July, junkee.com/amsterdams-night-mayor-is-coming-to-sydney-to-show-mike-baird-how- to-run-a-city/81515.

Kassel, K. 2016. ‘Sydney’s anti-lockout protesters delivered two years’ worth of anger to parliament’. Vice, 13 May, www.vice.com/en_au/article/3bwp8v/an-anti-lockout-petition-signed-by-12000-people-was- presented-to-the-nsw-government-thursday.

Katz, C. 1994. ‘Playing the field: questions of fieldwork in geography’. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp.67-72.

Katz, J. 2010. ‘Time for new urban ethnographies’. Ethnography, 11(1), pp.25-44.

Keating C. 2008. Surry Hills: the city’s backyard. Sydney: Halstead Press.

Keenan, S. 2014. Subversive property: law and the production of spaces of belonging. New York: Routledge.

______. 2017. ‘A border in every street’. The Disorder of Things, 29 June, thedisorderofthings.com/2017/06/29/a-border-in-every-street.

Keep Sydney Open. 2016a. ‘About’. Keep Sydney Open, www.keepsydneyopen.com/#about.

______. 2016b. Facebook status update. 16 May, www.facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen/posts/1193641180668759:0.

______. 2016c. Facebook video post. 31 August, www.facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen/videos/1273384842694392.

______. 2016d. ‘Keep Sydney Open rally’. Facebook event. 21 February, www.facebook.com/events/434172900111114.

______. 2016e. ‘Keep Sydney Open rally #2’. Facebook event. 9 October, www.facebook.com/events/1159692567402833.

______. 2016f. ‘Submission by Keep Sydney Open (KSO) Review of the Liquor Amendment Act 2014 by the Hon. IDF Callinan AC QC’. 4 April, www.keepsydneyopen.com/assets/160404-Keep_Sydney_Open_Submission.pdf.

______. 2017a. ‘Keep Sydney Open rally #3’. Facebook event. 18 February, www.facebook.com/events/370987713260989.

______. 2017b. ‘Should we run for the upper house in NSW?’ Facebook post. 20 October, www.facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen.

______. 2017c. ‘Should Keep Sydney Open run for NSW Parliament?’ Facebook video post, 18 October, www.facebook.com/KeepSydneyOpen/videos/1743402189025986.

224 Keighren, I. 2005. ‘Geosophy, imagination, and terrae incognitae: exploring the intellectual history of John Kirtland Wright’. Journal of Historical Geography, 31(3), pp.546-62.

Keil, R. 2007. ‘Sustaining modernity, modernizing nature: the environmental crisis and the survival of capitalism’. The sustainable development paradox: urban political economic in the United States and Europe. R. Krueger and D. Gibbs (eds.). London: Guilford Press, pp. 41–65.

______. 2009. ‘The urban politics of roll-with-it neoliberalization’. City, 13(2-3), pp.231-45.

______. 2016. ‘Urban neoliberalism: rolling with the changes in a globalizing world’. The handbook of neoliberalism. S. Springer, K. Birch, and J. MacLeavy (eds.). Abington: Routledge, pp.457-70.

Kelton, S. 2016. ‘Plan to introduce a night mayor in Adelaide to oversee live entertainment, late-night trading’. The Advertiser, 2 August, www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/city/plan-to-introduce-a-night-mayor-in-adelaide-to-oversee-li ve-entertainment-latenight-trading/news-story/d8e4c2077352da060bb5792bf7bd1360.

Kembrey, M. 2015. ‘Council mergers: expert adviser Graham Sansom slams merger proposals’. SMH, 20 December, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/council-mergers-expert-adviser-graham-sansom-slams- merger-proposals-20151219-glrg0o.html.

Kenna, T. 2007. ‘Consciously constructing exclusivity in the suburbs? Unpacking a master planned estate development in Western Sydney’. Geographical Research, 45(3), pp.300–13.

Kennedy, J. 2017. ‘Sydney live music: Proposal to keep inner west arts and music scene alive by cutting red tape’. ABC News, 16 May, www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-16/proposal-to-keep-sydney-arts-and- live-music-scene-alive/8528830.

Khalik, J. 2016. ‘Mike Baird faces pressure on lockout laws after greybounds backflip’. The Australian, 11 October, at.theaustralian.com.au/link/469a1c1c8888654810a747ca4e094f2f?domain=theaustralian.com.au.

Kimble, J. 2012. ‘The 50 most stylish neighbourhoods in the world: 23. Surry Hills’. Complex, 10 October, www.complex.com/style/2012/10/the-50-most-stylish-neighborhoods-in-the-world/surry-hills.

Klein, N. 2000. No Logo. London: Flamingo.

Kloosterman, R. and Van Der Leun, J. 1999. ‘Just for starters: commercial gentrification by immigrant entrepreneurs in Amsterdam and Rotterdam neighbourhoods’. Housing Studies, 14(5), pp.659- 77.

Knight, E. 2016. ‘James Packer’s Barangaroo could be the world’s tallest white elephant’. SMH, 18 October, www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/james-packers-barangaroo-could-be- the-worlds-tallest-white-elephant-20161018-gs4u3m.html.

Kobayashi, A. 1994. ‘Coloring the field: gender, “race,” and the politics of fieldwork’. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp.73-80.

225 Koh, T. 2016. ‘Callinan’s Report Has Locked Us out of the Debate’. The Daily Telegraph, 19 September, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/justic-callinans-report-has-locked-us-out-of-the- debate/news-story/d9c588141c290af68b6adde1a25690aa.

Kornberger, M. and Clegg, S. 2011. ‘Strategy as performative practice: the case of Sydney 2030’. Strategic Organization, 9(2), pp.136–62.

Koslofsky, C. 2011. Evening’s empire: a history of the night in early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koziol, M. 2014. ‘And the winner of Sydney’s lockout laws is… Star Casino!’ SMH, 29 August, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/and-the-winner-of-sydneys-lockout-laws-is--star-casino-20140826- 108efu.html.

______. 2015. ‘Newtown Bars to Trial 3am Lockout and Shots Ban’. SMH, 31 July, www.smh.com.au/nsw/newtown-bars-to-trial-3am-lockout-and-shots-ban-20150731-giomj5.html.

______. 2017a. ‘Live music shut down in inner-city suburb after single complaint from noise-hating neighbour. SMH, 24 January, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/live-music-shut-down-in-innercity- suburb-after-single-complaint-from-noisehating-neighbour-20170124-gtxlth.html.

______. 2017b. ‘Young Liberals launch fresh assault on NSW government over “nanny state” lockout laws’. SMH, 22 June, www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/young-liberals-launch-fresh-assault-on-nsw- government-over-nanny-state-lockout-laws-20170621-gwvezk.html.

Krätke, S. 2012. ‘The new urban growth ideology of “creative cities”’. Cities for People, Not for Profit. N. Brenner, P. Marcuse, and M. Mayer (eds.). New York: Routledge, pp.138–49.

Kreitzman, L. 1999. The 24-hour society. London: Profile.

Kusenbach, M. 2003. ‘Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool’. Ethnography, 4(3), pp.455-85.

Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. 1985. Hegemony and social strategy: towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

Landry, C. 2000. The creative city, a toolkit for urban innovators. London: Earthscan.

______. 2011. ‘The art of city making: how imagination and creativity play their part’. City of Sydney, 2 November, www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9EgVli5WZ8&list=PL19DA33BD8D14D25B&index=3?.

Larner, W. 2000. ‘Neo-liberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality’. Studies in Political Economy, 63(1), pp.5-25.

______. 2003. ‘Neoliberalism?’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21, pp.509-12.

226 Larner, W. 2012. ‘New subjects’. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to economic geography. T. Barnes, J. Peck, and E. Sheppard (eds.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp.358–71.

Lash, S. and Urry, J. 1994. Economies of signs and space. London: Sage.

Latham, A. 2003. ‘Urbanity, lifestyle and making sense of the new urban cultural economy: notes from Auckland, New Zealand’. Urban Studies, 40(9), pp.1699-724.

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laurier, E. and Philo, C. 2006. ‘Possible geographies: a passing encounter in a café’. Area, 38(4), pp.353– 63.

Law, L. 2005. ‘Sensing the city: urban experiences’. Introducing human Ggeographies. P. Cloke, P. Crang, and M. Goodwin (eds.). London: Arnold, pp.439–50.

Lawrence, V. 2016. ‘Watch: Star Casino security hospitalise patron in savage smackdown’. Pedestrian TV, 11 February, www.pedestrian.tv/news/watch-star-casino-security-hospitalise-patron-in-savage- smackdown.

Lawson, V. 2003. ‘Gimme shelter’. SMH, 27 June, www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/26/1056449364620.html.

Le Messurier, D. 2018. ‘City of Sydney hits snooze button on city’s nightlife revival plan’. The Daily Telegraph, 11 April, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/city-of-sydney-panel-tasked-with-reviving-citys-nightlife-stalled /news-story/e2b1cd2a839a09b6e677c1e833e245f1.

Lea, J. 1986. ‘Police racism: some theories and their policy implications’. Confronting crime. R. Matthews and J. Young (eds.). London: Sage, pp.145–65.

Lee, J. and Ingold, T. 2006. ‘Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socializing’. Locating the field: space, place and context in anthropology. S. Coleman and P. Collins (eds.). Oxford: Berg, pp.67-86.

Lees, L. 1994. ‘Rethinking gentrification: beyond the position of economics and culture’. Progress in Human Geography, 18, 2, pp.137-50.

______.2000. ‘A reappraisal of gentrification: towards a “geography of gentrification”’. Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), pp.389-408.

______. 2003a. ‘Super-gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City’. Urban Studies, 40, pp.2487–509.

______. 2003b. ‘Visions of “urban renaissance”: the urban task force report and the urban white paper’. Urban renaissance? New labour, community and urban policy. R. Imrie and M. Raco (eds.). Bristol: Policy Press, pp.61–82.

227 Lees, L. 2012. ‘The geography of gentrification: thinking through comparative urbanism’. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), pp.155-71.

Lees, L., Shin, H., and López-Morales, E. 2016. Planetary gentrification. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lees, L., Slater, T., and Wyly, E. 2008. Gentrification. London: Routledge.

Lefebvre, H. 1991 [1974]. The production of space. D. Nicholson-Smith (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.

______. 1996 [1968] ‘The right to the city’. Writings on Cities. E. Kofman and E. Lebas (eds.). London: Blackwell, pp.63–184.

Leon, J. 2017. ‘Global cities at any cost: resisting municipal mercantilism’. City, 21(1), pp.1-19.

Leontidou, L. 2010. ‘Urban social movements in “weak” civil societies: the right to the city and cosmopolitan activism in Southern Europe’. Urban Studies, 47(6), pp.1179-203.

Leslie, T. 2016. ‘Political donations: here’s what the latest data doesn’t tell us’. ABC News, 1 February, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/heres-what-the-latest-political-donations-data-doesnt-tell- us/7130126.

Levy, M. 2017. ‘Newtown Social Club to close in April, blaming Sydney’s “regulatory climate”. SMH, 26 January, www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/newtown-social-club-to-close-in-april-blaming- sydneys-regulatory-climate-20170126-gtysnd.html.

Lew, A. 2011. ‘Understanding experiential authenticity through the best tourism places’. Tourism Geographies, 13(4), pp.570-5.

Lewis, A. 2016. ‘We break down the 5 most enraging bits of the Callinan Report on Sydney’s lockout laws’. Junkee, 15 September, fasterlouder.junkee.com/we-break-down-the-5-most-enraging-bits-of-the- callinan-report-into-sydneys-lockout-laws/866569.

Ley, D. 1980. ‘Liberal ideology and the post-industrial city’. Canadian Geographer, 25, pp.238-58.

______. 1987. ‘The rent-gap revisited’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, pp.465-8.

______. 1994. ‘Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(1), pp.53-74.

______. 1996. The new middle class and the remaking of the central city. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

______. 2003. ‘Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification’. Urban Studies, 40(12), pp.2527– 44.

Ley, D. and Samuels, M. 1978. Humanistic geography. London: Croom Helm.

228 Leyshon, M., DiGiovanna, S., and Holcomb, B. 2013. ‘Mobile technologies and youthful exploration: stimulus or inhibitor?’ Urban Studies, 50(3), pp.587-605.

Lindsay, J. 2009. ‘Young Australians and the staging of intoxication and self-control’. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(4), pp.371-84.

Lippert, R. and Wood, D. 2012. ‘New urban surveillance: technology, mobility, and diversity in 21st century cities’. Surveillance & Society, 9(3), pp.257-62.

Lofland, L. 1989. ‘Private lifestyles, changing neighborhoods, and public life: A problem in organized complexity’. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 80(2), pp.89-96.

Lorimer, H. 2005. ‘Cultural geography: the busyness of being more-than-representational’. Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), pp.83-94.

Lovatt, A. 1996. ‘The ecstasy of urban regeneration: regulation of the night-time economy in the transition to a post-Fordist city’. From the margins to the centre: cultural production and consumption in the post-industrial city. J. O’Connor and D. Wynne (eds.). London: Routledge, pp.141-68.

Lovatt, A. and O’Connor, J. 1995. ‘Cities and the night-time economy’. Planning Practice & Research, 10(2), pp.127-34.

Low, S. and Iveson, K. 2016. ‘Propositions for more just urban public spaces’. City, 20(1), pp.10-31.

Lowenthal, D. 1961. Geography, experience, and imagination: towards a geographical epistemology 1’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 51(3), pp.241-60.

Luckins, T. 2009. ‘Gentrification and cosmopolitan leisure in inner-urban Melbourne, Australia, 1960s– 1970s’. Urban Policy and Research, 27(3), pp.265-75.

Luckman, S., Gibson, C., and Lea, T. 2009. ‘Mosquitos in the mix: how transferable is creative city thinking?’ Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 30(1), pp.70–85.

Luger, J. 2016. ‘Singaporean “spaces of hope?” Activist geographies in the city-state’. City, 20(2), pp.186- 203.

Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.

McBeath, S. 2017. ‘Sydney violence: tempers flare as police break up pub brawls’. The Daily Telegraph, 12 March, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sydney-violence-tempers-flare-as-police-break-up- pub-brawls/news-story/18e0484fe392c6e87a7f0bb4d5740598.

McCann, E. 2004. ‘Urban political economy beyond the “global city”’. Urban Studies, 41(12), pp.2315-33.

McCann, E. and Ward, K. 2011. Mobile urbanism: cities and policymaking in the global age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

229 McCauley, D. 2016. ‘Isaac and Susan Wakil, the reclusive property moguls behind Sydney’s vacant buildings’. The Daily Telegraph, 11 April, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/realestate/selling/isaac-and-susan-wakil-the-reclusive-property-moguls-b ehind-sydneys-vacant-buildings/news-story/9ca078d29a1f71238a1aa938a1e83613.

McCullagh, A. 2016. ‘Lower north shore revellers have turned Crows Nest into the new Kings Cross as lockout laws continue to bite’. The Daily Telegraph, 13 October, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/mosman-daily/lower-north-shore-revellers-have-turned- crows-nest-into-the-new-kings-cross-as-lockout-laws-continue-to-bite/news- story/fca7063f534f3ccc2e28ac6fe1c8224b.

McDermott, Q. 2016. ‘Money and influence. Four Corners, 23 May, www.abc.net.au/4corners/money-and- influence-promo/7429766.

MacDonald, H. 2015. ‘“Green, global, and connected”: can Sydney solve its metropolitan governance problems?’ Transforming Distressed Global Communities: Making Inclusive, Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable Cities. F. Wagner, R. Mahayni, and A. Piller (eds.). Burlington: Ashgate, pp.211–29.

McGaw, J. and Vance, A. 2008. ‘Who has the street-smarts? The role of emotion in co-creating the city’. Emotion, Space and Society, 1(1), pp.65-9.

McGhee, A. 2016. ‘Political donations to reach $1 billion thanks to big business donors’. ABC News, 6 December, www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/political-donations-top-$1b-thanks-to-big- business/8097030.

McGuirk, P. 2004. ‘State, strategy, and scale in the competitive city: a neo-Gramscian analysis of the governance of “Global Sydney”’. Environment and Planning A, 36(6), pp.1019–43.

McGuirk, P. and O’Neill, P. 2002. ‘Planning a prosperous Sydney: the challenges of planning urban development in the new urban context’. Australian Geographer, 33(3), pp.301–16.

______.2010. ‘Using questionnaires’. Qualitative research methods in human geography. I. Hay (ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press, pp.191-216.

McKenny, L. 2012. ‘City sets sights on being better late than ever’. SMH, 27 June, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/city-sets-sights-on-being-better-late-than-ever-20120626- 210mr.html.

McKinnon, A. 2017. ‘Opera House’s days of hosting live outdoor music could be toast’. The Guardian, 25 February, www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/25/opera-houses-days-of-hosting-live- outdoor-music-could-be-toast.

MacLean, S. 2016. ‘Young adults, alcohol use and the constitution of friendship’. Sociology, 50(1), pp.93- 108.

230 MacLean, S. and Moore, D. 2014. ‘“Hyped up”: assemblages of alcohol, excitement and violence for outer- suburban young adults in the inner-city at night’. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(3), pp.378-85.

MacLeod, G. 2013. ‘New urbanism/smart growth in the Scottish Highlands: mobile policies and post- politics in local development planning’. Urban Studies, 50(11), pp.2196-221.

McNab, H. 2017. ‘Newtown Liquor Accord disputes BOCSAR assault statistics’. Central Sydney, 8 March, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/central-sydney/newtown-liquor-accord-disputes-bocsar- assault-statistics/news-story/5a06d726adbd42ca9eb97bd50dd021f1.

McNamara, L. and Quilter, J., 2015. Public intoxication in NSW: the contours of criminalisation. Sydney Law Review 37, pp.1.

McNeill, D. 2011. ‘Fine grain, global city: Jan Gehl, public space and commercial culture in central Sydney’. Journal of Urban Design, 16(2), pp.161–78.

Mack, E. 2016. ‘Angry residents are complaining about noise from the Sydney Opera House now’. Music Feeds, 5 November, musicfeeds.com.au/news/angry-residents-complaining-noise-sydney-opera- house-now.

______. 2017. ‘New Premier says Sydney needs lockouts coz “mum & dads in the suburbs are worried about what their kids are doing”’. Music Feeds, 29 January, musicfeeds.com.au/news/new-premier- says-sydney-needs-lockout-laws-mums-dads-suburbs-worried-young-kids.

Mackay, L. 2005. VIVACITY 2020, The night-time economy in the UK, the literature. Secure Urban Environments by Design, http://www.vivacity2020.co.uk/Members/Late%20Night%20Economy%20and%20Crime%20- %20Literature%20Review.doc.

Macken, L. 2018a. ‘Kings Cross cashes in on well-heeled demand as media veteran Steve Askew scores $10 million buyer for penthouse’. Domain, 15 April, www.domain.com.au/news/kings-cross-cashes-in- on-wellheeled-demand-as-media-vereran-steve-askew-scores-10-million-buyer-for-penthouse- 20180415-h0ylcj.

______. 2018b. ‘Paddington’s Four In Hand hotel listed for $6 million as a private residence’. Domain, 14 April, www.domain.com.au/news/paddingtons-four-in-hand-hotel-listed-for-6-million-as-a-private- residence-20180414-h0yku1.

Mackinnon, O. 2017. ‘NSW Premier reveals what she’s doing about the lockout laws’. Kiis 1065, 24 January, www.kiis1065.com.au/shows/kyle-jackie-o/new-nsw-premier-reveals-what-she-s-doing- about-the-lockout-laws.

Major, M. 2017. ‘The colour of the night – light and darkness in the city’. Colour Design, pp.371-95.

231 Marchart, O. 2007. Post-foundational political thought: political difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Marcuse, P. 1985. ‘Gentrification, abandonment, and displacement: connections, causes, and policy responses in New York City’. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 28, pp.195-240.

______. 2014a. ‘Reading the right to the city’. City, 18(1), pp.4-9.

______. 2014b. ‘Whose right(s) to what city? Cities for people, not for profit. N. Brenner, P. Marcuse, and M. Mayer (eds.). New York: Routledge, pp.24-41.

Marcuse, P. 2015a. ‘Depoliticizing urban discourse: how “we” write’. Cities, 44, pp.152-6.

______. 2015b. ‘Gentrification social justice and personal ethics’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), pp.1263-9.

______. 2016. ‘For the repoliticization of global city research’. City & Community, 15(2), pp.113–7.

Markham, F., Doran, B. and Young, M. 2016. ‘The relationship between electronic gaming machine accessibility and police-recorded domestic violence: a spatio-temporal analysis of 654 postcodes in Victoria, Australia, 2005–2014’. Social Science & Medicine, 162, pp.106–14.

Markusen, A. 2014. ‘Creative cities: a 10-year research agenda’. Journal of Urban Affairs. 36(s2), pp.567-89.

Marques, L. 2017. ‘Creative Clusters in Urban Spaces’. The Sage handbook of new urban studies. J. Hannigan and G. Richards (eds.). London: Sage, pp.343–56.

Martin, N. 2014. ‘Food fight! Immigrant street vendors, gourmet food trucks and the differential valuation of creative producers in Chicago’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(5), pp.1867-83.

Maruyama, S. 2017. ‘Are residents better off under the Sydney “lockout laws”?’ The Conversation, 12 September, theconversation.com/are-residents-better-off-under-the-sydney-lockout-laws-83443.

Massey, D. 1994. Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

______. 2006. ‘Landscape as a provocation: reflections on moving mountains’. Journal of Material Culture, 11(1-2), pp.33-48.

Masuda, J. and Bookman, S. 2016. ‘Neighbourhood branding and the right to the city’. Progress in Human Geography, 42(2), pp.165-82.

Matthews, S. 2009. ‘To compare regulatory and planning models which reduce crime in the night time economy’. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia, https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/2009_Matthews_Suzanne.pdf.

232 May, A. and Lesh, J. 2016. ‘Lockout laws repeat centuries-old mistake of denying value of cities as messy places’. The Conversation, 7 June, theconversation.com/lockout-laws-repeat-centuries-old-mistake- of-denying-value-of-cities-as-messy-places-58281.

May, J. 1996. ‘“A little taste of something more exotic”: the imaginative geographies of everyday life’. Geography, 81, pp.57-64.

May, R. 2014. Urban nightlife: entertaining race, class, and culture in public space. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Mayer, M. 2003. ‘The onward sweep of social capital: causes and consequences for understanding cities, communities and urban movements’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), pp.110-32.

______. 2009. ‘The “right to the city” in the context of shifting mottos of urban social movements’. City, 13(2-3), pp.362-74

______. 2012. ‘The “right to the city” in urban social movements’. Cities for people, not for profit. N. Brenner, P. Marcuse, and M. Mayer (eds.). New York: Routledge, pp.63-86.

______. 2013. ‘First world urban activism’. City, 17(1), pp.5-19.

Mayor of London. 2017. ‘New vision for London to become a 24-hour city’. Mayor of London, 26 July, www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/new-vision-london-become-24-hour-city.

Measham, F. 2004. ‘Play space: historical and socio-cultural reflections on drugs, licensed leisure locations, commercialisation and control’. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 15(5-6), pp.337-45.

Mee, K. 2002. ‘Prosperity and the suburban dream: quality of life and affordability in western Sydney’. Australian Geographer, 33(3), pp.337–51.

Melbin, M. 1987. Night as frontier: colonizing the world after dark. New York: Free Press.

______.1978. ‘Night as frontier’. American Sociological Review, 43(1), pp.3-22.

Melocco, J. 2014. ‘Surry Hills designer building has 57 people vying for every apartment – and it’s not even built yet’. Wentworth Courier, 26 August, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/surry- hills-designer-building-has-57- people-vying-for-every-apartment-and-its-not-even-built-yet/news-story/2da01786be590630d6d8911 ca88dd03c.

______. 2016. ‘Warehouse sale breaks Surry Hills record as prestige buyers take on hipsters’. Domain, 3 September, www.domain.com.au/news/warehouse-sale-breaks-surry-hills-record-as-prestige-buyers- take-on-hipsters-20160903-gr82j1.

Meltzer, R. and Schuetz, J. 2012. ‘Bodegas or bagel shops? Neighborhood differences in retail and household services’. Economic Development Quarterly, 26(1), pp.73-94.

233 Méndez, M. and Otero, G. 2018. ‘Neighbourhood conflicts, socio-spatial inequalities, and residential stigmatisation in Santiago, Chile’. Cities, 74, pp.75-82.

Menéndez, P., Weatherburn, D. Kypri, K., and Fitzgerald, J. 2015. ‘Lockouts and last drinks: the impact of the January 2014 liquor licence reforms on assaults in NSW, Australia’. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 183.

Mercer, D. and Mayfield, P. 2015. ‘City of the spectacle: White Night Melbourne and the politics of public space’. Australian Geographer, 46(4), pp.507-34

Merrifield, A. 2014. ‘The entrepreneur's new clothes’. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(4), pp.389-91.

Merriman, P. 2014. ‘Rethinking mobile methods’. Mobilities, 9(2), pp.167-87.

______. 2015. ‘Mobilities I: departures’. Progress in Human Geography, 39(1), pp.87-95.

Merriman, P., Revill, G., Cresswell, T., Lorimer, H., Matless, D., Rose, G., and Wylie, J. 2008. ‘Landscape, mobility, practice’. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(2), pp.191-212.

Messerschmidt, J. and Tomsen, S. 2018. ‘Masculinities and Crime’. Routledge handbook of critical criminology. W. DeKeseredy and M. Dragiewicz (eds.). London: Routledge, pp.83–95.

Middleton, J. and Yarwood, R. 2015. ‘“Christians, out here?” Encountering street-pastors in the post- secular spaces of the UK’s night-time economy’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.501-16.

Midwinter-Pitt, V. 2007. Rampant: how a city stopped a plague. P. Chapman (producer). Ultimo: ABC Commercial (film), 57 min.

Miles, S. 2012. ‘The neoliberal city and the pro-active complicity of the citizen consumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(2), pp.216-30.

Miller, J. 2014. ‘Approximating new spaces of consumption at the Abasto Shopping Mall, Buenos Aires, Argentina’. Journal of Cultural Geography, 31(2), pp.206-17.

Mills, C. 1988. ‘Life on the upslope: the postmodern landscape of gentrification’. Environment and Planning D, 6, pp.169-89.

Mills, S. 2016. ‘Not so grassroots: how the snowflake model is transforming political campaigns’. The Conversation, 14 March, theconversation.com/not-so-grassroots-how-the-snowflake-model-is- transforming-political-campaigns-54166.

Mohanty, C. 2003. Feminism without borders: decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press.

Molloy, M. and Larner, W. 2010. ‘Who needs cultural intermediaries indeed?’ Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(3), pp.361-77.

234 Montgomery, J. 1995. ‘The story of Temple Bar: creating Dublin's cultural quarter’. Planning Practice and Research, 10(2), pp.135-72.

______. 1995. ‘Urban vitality and the culture of cities’. Planning Practice and Research, 10(2), pp.101–9.

______. 2007. The new wealth of cities, city dynamics and the fifth wave. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Moore, C. 2012. ‘Small bars 101 forum’. Clover Moore, clovermoore.com.au/small-bars-101-forum.

______. 2013. ‘Arts & culture: a flourishing cultural life enriches our city and community’. www.clovermoore.com.au/workingfor-sydney/issues/arts-culture.

______. 2016. ‘Work on WestConnex should be suspended until a better business case is proved’. SMH, 28 February, www.smh.com.au/opinion/work-on-westconnex-should-be-suspended-until-a-better- business-case-is-proved-20160228-gn5jlp.html.

Moore, T. 2017. ‘Flat white urbanism: there must be better ways to foster a vibrant street life’. The Conversation, 2 June, theconversation.com/flat-white-urbanism-there-must-be-better-ways-to-foster- a-vibrant-street-life-78338.

Moran, J. 2014. ‘Kings Cross club owners look outside CBD to avoid lockout laws’. The Daily Telegraph, 14 March, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/kings-cross-club-owners-look-outside-cbd-to-avoid-lockout-laws/news-st ory/843c590f48e68e5473b81ab92b57921c.

Morrison, C. 2012. ‘Solicited diaries and the everyday geographies of heterosexual love and home: reflections on methodological process and practice’. Area, 44(1), pp.68-75.

Morton, E. 2016. ‘The subtle design features that make cities feel more hostile’. Atlas Obscura, 5 May, www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-subtle-design-features-that-make-cities-feel-more-hostile.

Moskovitch, G. 2016. ‘Blood bath over Mike Baird’s Vivid Sydney Facebook post’. Tone Deaf, 30 May, tonedeaf.com.au/blood-bath-over-mike-bairds-vivid-sydney-facebook-post.

Moss, P. Feminist geography in practice: research and methods. Oxford: Blackwell.

Moulier-Boutang, Y. 2011. Cognitive capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.

Mukerji, C. 1997. ‘Pictorial prints and the growth of consumerism: class and cosmopolitanism in early modern culture’. The consumer society. N. Goodwin, F. Ackerman, and D. Kiron (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp.126-9.

Munro, J. 2017. ‘Why Keep Sydney Open should stay away from parliament’. Junkee, 24 October, junkee.com/keep-sydney-open-parliament/132059.

Munto, M. 2017. ‘How Mayor Giuliani decimated New York City nightlife’. Vice, 7 March, noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/bjjdzq/how-mayor-giuliani-decimated-new-york-city-nightlife.

235 The Music. 2016. ‘Read Dave Faulkner’s gripping “Keep Sydney Open” speech in full’. The Music, 6 April, themusic.com.au/news/all/2016/04/06/read-dave-faulkners-gripping-keep-sydney-open- speech-in-full.

Myers, M. 2010. ‘“Walk with me, talk with me”: the art of conversive wayfinding’. Visual Studies, 25(1), pp.59-68.

Myerscough, J. 1988. The economic importance of the arts in Britain. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Nayak, A. 2006. ‘Displaced masculinities: chavs, youth and class in the post-industrial city’. Sociology, 40(5), pp.813-31.

Neate, R. 2017. ‘You must include gay venue on site of Joiners Arms, planners tell developers’. The Guardian, 5 August, www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/you-must-open-a-gay-venue-in- office-complex-planners-tell-developers.

New South Wales Government. 2009a. ‘Bringing back the music, Community brochure’. Department of Planning, d.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/planningsystem/pdf/Community_brochure%20final.pdf.

______. 2009b. ‘Planning circular: planning for entertainment’. Department of Planning, www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/~/media/C1F528B3BC0043C9B6691CC012795 240.ashx.

______. 2014a. ‘Fact sheet: small bar license’. Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing, www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/L_FS_SB.pdf.

______. 2014b. ‘Liquor Licence Freeze’. Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing, www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/liquor_licence_freeze.asp.

______. 2014c. ‘Plan of management for the Sydney CBD Entertainment Precinct’. Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing, www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/Documents/liquor/law-and-policy/sydney- CBD-plan-of-management.pdf.

______. 2014d. ‘State’s most violent venues named’. Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing, www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/media_releases/rel_souris_131129_violent_venues_list-round-10.pdf.

______. 2016a. ‘Have your say’. NSW Government, www.nsw.gov.au/improving-nsw/have-your-say.

______. 2016b. ‘Sydney lockout and last drink laws to remain’. www.nsw.gov.au/news-and- events/news/sydney-lockout-and-last-drink-laws-to-remain.

Newcastle City Council. 2015. ‘Launch of Newcastle Darker Nights campaign’. www.newcastle.gov.uk/news- story/launch-newcatle-darker-nights-campaign.

News. 2016. ‘Kings Cross nightclub owners band together for half billion dollar property sale’. News, 23 October, www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/kings-cross-nightclub-owners-band-together-for-half- billion-dollar-property-sale/news-story/8ba12de9b49ff3c23ffb9a076119d8da.

236 Nicholls, S. 2014a. ‘Nothing but silence from O'Farrell’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 January, pp.9.

______. 2014b. “Onward Christian Soldier: A Premier’s Faith.” SMH, 26 April, www.smh.com.au/nsw/onward-christian-soldier-a-premiers-faith-20140425-379pp.html.

______. 2016a. ‘Fresh investigation of lockout laws amid The Star violence revelations’. SMH, 1 November, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-star-violence-revelations-spark-new-investigation-of- lockout-law-effects-20161101-gsf40l.html.

______. 2016b. ‘Lockout law decision shapes up as Baird’s toughest test yet’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August, pp.16

______. 2016c. ‘There’s a reason Mike Baird has banned greyhounds and not casinos’. SMH, 14 July, www.smh.com.au/opinion/theres-a-reason-mike-baird-has-banned-greyhounds-and-not-casinos- 20160714-gq5h11.html.

______. 2016d. ‘WestConnex, lockout laws, greyhounds: has NSW Premier Mike Baird’s bubble burst?’ SMH, 26 August, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/westconnex-lockout-laws-greyhounds-has-nsw- premier-mike-bairds-bubble-burst-20160826-gr1mrt.html.

______. 2016e. ‘Why Troy Grant is so wrong about the Kings Cross injecting room’. SMH, 25 July, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/why-troy-grant-is-so-wrong-about-the-kings-cross-injecting-room- 20160725-gqd3wj.html.

______. 2017a. ‘Anti-lockout Keep Sydney Open ponders NSW upper house bid’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 October, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/antilockout-keep-sydney-open-ponders-nsw- upper-house-bid-20171019-gz4f38.html.

Nicholls, S. 2017b. ‘Sydneysiders are being treated like mugs over Barangaroo public space’. SMH, 6 July, www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/sydneysiders-are-being-treated-like-mugs-over-barangaroo-public- space-20170706-gx5o9p.html.

Nofre, J. 2011. ‘Youth policies, social sanitation, and contested suburban nightscapes’. Everyday life in the segmented city. C. Perrone, G. Manella, L. Tripodi (eds.). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp.261–281.

______. 2013. ‘“Vintage nightlife”: gentrifying Lisbon downtown’. Fennia, 191(2), pp.106–121.

Nofre, J., Giordano, E., Eldridge, A., Martins, J., and Sequera, J. 2017. ‘Tourism, nightlife and planning: challenges and opportunities for community liveability in La Barceloneta’. Tourism Geographies, 28 September, doi:10.1080/14616688.2017.1375972.

Nofre, J., Sánchez‐Fuarros, Í., Martins, J., Pereira, P., Soares, I., Malet‐Calvo, D., Geraldes, M. and Díaz, A. 2017. ‘Exploring nightlife and urban change in Bairro Alto, Lisbon’. City & Community, 16(3), pp.330-344.

237 Norris, P. and Williams, D. ‘2008. “Binge drinking”, anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related disorder: examining the 2003 Licensing Act’. ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance. P. Squires (ed.). Bristol: Polity Press, pp.257-72.

Novy, C. 2013. ‘Struggling for the right to the (creative) city in Berlin and Hamburg: new urban social movements, new “spaces of hope”?’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), pp.1816-38.

Nowra, L. 2017. Woolloomooloo. Sydney: New South Publishing.

Nur, Y. 2016. ‘Dance yourself happy: the rise of the sober rave’. The Guardian, 18 March, www.theguardian.com/music/2016/mar/17/sober-raving-clubbing-morning-gloryville.

O’Connor, J. 1998. ‘Popular culture, cultural intermediaries and urban regeneration’. The entrepreneurial city: geographies of politics, regime and representation. P. Hubbard and T. Hall. Chichester: Wiley, pp.225-39.

O’Connor, J. and Shaw, K. 2014. ‘What next for the creative city?’. City, Culture and Society, 5(3), pp.165-70.

O’Dell, T. 2017. ‘Multi-targeted ethnography and the Challenge of Engaging New Audiences and Publics’. Sociological Research Online, 22(4), pp.193-207.

O’Donoghue, J. 2016. ‘Sydney: a case study in how to suffocate a vibrant city’. Daily Review, 5 September, dailyreview.com.au/sydney-%C2%AD-case-study-suffocate-vibrant-city/48575.

O'Hanlon, S. and Hamnett, C. 2009. ‘Deindustrialisation, gentrification and the re-invention of the inner city: London and Melbourne, c. 1960–2008’. Urban Policy and Research, 27(3), pp.211-6.

O'Hanlon, S. and Sharpe, S. 2009. ‘Becoming post-industrial: Victoria Street, Fitzroy, c. 1970 to now’. Urban Policy and Research, 27(3), pp.289-300.

O'Neill, P. and McGuirk, P. 2002. ‘Prosperity along Australia's eastern seaboard: Sydney and the geopolitics of urban and economic change’. Australian Geographer, 33(3), pp.241-61.

______. 2005. ‘Reterritorialisation of economies and institutions: the rise of the Sydney basin economy’. Space and Polity, 9(3), pp.283-305.

O’Sullivan, M. 2016. ‘Greens call for “civil disobedience” after WestConnex stage two approved’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April, www.smh.com.au/nsw/green-light-for-westconnex-second-stage- as-protesters-occupy-planning-offices-20160421-gobstz.html.

238 Oatway, L. 2017. ‘Sydney doesn’t belong to you anymore’. Alt Media, 4 January, www.altmedia.net.au/sydney-doesnt-belong-to-you-anymore/121592.

Ocejo, R. 2009. City nights: the political economy of postindustrial urban nightlife. PhD diss., City University of New York.

______. 2014. Upscaling downtown: from Bowery saloons to cocktail bars in New York City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Oldenburg, R. 1999. The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Cambridge: Da Capo Press.

Olive, R. 2013. ‘“Making friends with the neighbours”: blogging as a research method’. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(1), pp.71-84.

Onwuegbuzie, A. and Collins, K. 2007. ‘A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research’. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), pp.281-316.

Orr, G. 2016. “Electoral commission makes a stand on Liberal breaches of NSW donations laws.” The Conversation, 29 May, theconversation.com/electoral-commission-makes-a-stand-on-liberal- breaches-of-nsw-donations-laws-56920.

Paganoni, M. 2012. ‘City branding and social inclusion in the glocal city’. Mobilities, 7(1), pp.13-31.

Palmer, B. 2000. Cultures of darkness: night travels in the histories of transgression. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Palu, K. 2016. ‘Voting for change: survey results show Sydney residents want lockout laws removed’. Yahoo7 News, 30 March, au.news.yahoo.com/a/31215171/voting-for-change-survey-results-show- sydney-residents-want-lockout-laws-removed.

Patil, T. 2015. ‘You can't have the struggle without the ugly fringe – publicness in Australian national imagination: media representations of the Muslim demonstrations in Sydney in 2012’. Continuum, 29(1), pp.57-69.

Patterson, R. 2016. ‘John Ibrahim: “A year or two from now you will see Double Bay turn into Kings Cross. It is coming, watch and see”’. Wentworth Courier, 16 March, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/a-year-or-two-from-now-you-will-see-double-bay- turn-into-kings-cross-it-is-coming-watch-and-see/news-story/9d10cc6260c6c59e53b3ee7d5a7ffa39.

Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Peck, J. 2004. ‘Geography and public policy: constructions of neoliberalism’. Progress in Human Geography, 28(3), pp.392-405.

______. 2005. ‘Struggling with the creative class’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), pp.740-70.

239 Peck, J. 2010. Constructions of neoliberal reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

______. 2016. ‘Economic rationality meets celebrity urbanology: exploring Edward Glaeser's city’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), pp.1-30.

Peck, J. and Theodore, N. 2010. ‘Mobilizing policy: models, methods and mutations’. Geoforum, 41(2), pp.169-74.

______. 2015. Fast policy: experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. 2002. ‘Neoliberalizing space’. Antipode, 34(3), pp.380-404.

______. 2012. ‘Apparitions of neoliberalism: revisiting “Jungle law breaks out”’. Area, 44(2), pp.245–249.

Pedestrian TV. 2016. ‘Protesters literally hang shit on Star Casino after anti-lockout March’. Pedestrian TV, 19 March, www.pedestrian.tv/news/protesters-literally-hang-shit-on-star-casino-after-anti-lockout- march.

Peet, R. 2002. ‘Ideology, discourse and the geography of hegemony: from socialist to neoliberal development in post-apartheid South Africa’. Antipode, 34, pp.54-84.

Perry, F. 2016. ‘What is your city doing to resist gentrification?’ The Guardian, 20 September, www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/19/city-resist-gentrification-displacement.

Pettigrew, T. 1998. ‘Intergroup contact theory’. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), pp.65–85.

Phillips, A. 2005. ‘Cultural geographies in practice: walking and looking’. Cultural Geographies, 12(4), pp.507-13.

Phillips, W. 1980. ‘“Six o’clock swill”: the introduction of early closing of hotel bars in Australia’. Historical Studies, 19(75), pp.250–66.

Pickles, J. 1985. Phenomenology, science and geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pile, S. 1996. The body and the city: psychoanalysis, space, and subjectivity. London: Routledge.

______.2010. ‘Intimate distance: the unconscious dimensions of the rapport between researcher and researched’. The Professional Geographer, 62(4), pp.483-95.

Pink, S. 2007. ‘Walking with video’. Visual Studies, 22(3), pp.240-52.

______. 2008. ‘Mobilising visual ethnography: making routes, making place and making images’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), doi:10.17169/fqs-9.3.1166.

______. 2011. ‘Multimodality, multisensoriality and ethnographic knowing: social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception’. Qualitative Research, 11(3), pp.261-76.

______. 2013. Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage.

240 Pink, S. 2015. Doing sensory ethnography. London: Sage.

Pink, S. and Fors, V. 2017. ‘Ethnography, stakeholders, and audiences: toward openness and inclusivity’. Sociological Research Online, 22(4), pp.169-73.

Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., and Tacchi, J. 2016. Digital ethnography: principles and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

Pink, S. and Leder Mackley, K. 2016. ‘Moving, making and atmosphere: routines of home as sites for mundane improvisation’. Mobilities, 11(2), pp. 171-87.

Potter, J. 1996. ‘Discourse analysis and constructionist approached: theoretical background’. J. Richardson (ed.). Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: British Psychological Society, pp.125-40.

Pottie-Sherman, Y. and Hiebert, D. 2015. ‘Authenticity with a bang: exploring suburban culture and migration through the new phenomenon of the Richmond night market’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.538-54.

Powell, D. 1993. Out west: perceptions of Sydney’s western suburbs. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Prince, R. 2016. ‘Neoliberalism everywhere: mobile neoliberal policy’. The handbook of neoliberalism. S. Springer, K. Birch, and J. MacLeavy. New York: Routledge, pp.397–406.

Prior, J., Boydell, S., and Hubbard, P. 2012. ‘Nocturnal rights to the city: property, propriety and sex premises in inner Sydney’. Urban Studies, 49(8), pp.1837-52.

Prior, J. and Hubbard, P. 2017. ‘Time, space, and the authorisation of sex premises in London and Sydney’. Urban Studies, 54(3), pp.633-48.

Proctor, R. 2008. ‘Agnotology: a missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study). Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. R. Proctor and L. Schiebinger. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp.1-33.

Pryor, L. 2016. ‘Our precious urban lives’. The New York Times, 28 October, www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/opinion/our-precious-urban-lives.html.

Punter, J. 2005. ‘Urban design in central Sydney 1945–2002: laissez-faire and discretionary traditions in the accidental city’. Progress in Planning, 63(1), pp.11–160.

Purcell, M. 2014. ‘Possible worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the right to the city’. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), pp.141-54.

Quastel, N. 2009. ‘Political ecologies of gentrification’. Urban Geography, 30(7), pp.694-725.

Quilter, J. 2012. Responses to the death of Thomas Kelly: taking populism seriously. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24, pp.439-48.

241 Quilter, J. 2013. The Thomas Kelly case: why a ‘one-punch law’ is not the answer. The Conversation, 13 November, theconversation.com/the-thomas-kelly-case-why-a-one-punch-law-is-not-the-answer- 20106.

______. 2014. ‘One-punch laws, mandatory minimums and “alcohol-fuelled” as an aggravating factor: implications for NSW criminal law’. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 3(1), pp.81-106.

______. 2015a. ‘Criminalisation of alcohol-fuelled violence: one-punch laws’. Criminalisation and Criminal Responsibility in Australia. T. Crofts and A. Loughnan (eds.). Australia: Oxford University Press, pp.82-104.

______. 2015b. ‘Populism and criminal justice policy: an Australian case study of non-punitive responses to alcohol-related violence’. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1), pp.24-52.

______. 2016. ‘Callinan review largely backs Sydney lockout laws, but alcohol's role in family violence is a blind spot’. The Conversation, 16 September, theconversation.com/callinan-review-largely-backs- sydney-lockout-laws-but-alcohols-role-in-family-violence-is-a-blind-spot-65404.

2016. ‘Sydney's lockout laws: cutting crime or civil liberties’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28, pp.93- 5.

Rabbiosi, C. 2016. ‘Place branding performances in tourist local food shops’. Annals of Tourism Research, 60, pp.154-68.

Race, K. 2003. ‘The death of the dance party’. Australian Humanities Review, 30, australianhumanitiesreview.org/2003/10/01/the-death-of-the-dance-party.

______. 2016. ‘The sexuality of the night: violence and transformation’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(1), pp.105–10.

Randolph, B. and Holloway, D. 2005. ‘The suburbanization of disadvantage in Sydney: new problems, new policies’. Opolis, 1(1), pp.49–65.

Rantisi, N., Leslie, D., and Christopherson, S. 2006. ‘Placing the creative economy: scale, politics, and the material’. Environment and Planning A, 38, pp.1789-97.

Raskall, P. 2002. ‘Equity issues in the “new prosperity” of the 1990s: the case of Sydney’. Australian Geographer, 33(3), pp.281-99.

Raymen, T. 2016. ‘Designing-in crime by designing-out the social? Situational crime prevention and the intensification of harmful subjectivities. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(3), pp.497-514.

Reclaim the Streets. 2014a. ‘Reclaim the streets.’ Facebook event. 6 September, www.facebook.com/events/666498926779734.

242 Reclaim the Streets. 2014b. ‘Reclaim the streets: stop Westconnex.’ Facebook event. 13 December, www.facebook.com/events/768488139878740.

______. 2015a. ‘Reclaim the streets.’ Facebook event, 13 September, www.facebook.com/events/881584515256628.

______. 2015b. ‘Reclaim the streets.’ Facebook event. 12 December, www.facebook.com/events/1274606679232253.

______. 2016a. ‘About: story’. Facebook page. www.facebook.com/pg/RTSsydney/about.

______. 2016b. Facebook status update. 4 April, www.facebook.com/RTSsydney.

______. 2016c. ‘Keep Newtown weird and safe’. Facebook event, 23 April, www.facebook.com/events/228027434229609.

______. 2016d. ‘Reclaim the streets’. Facebook event. 19 March, www.facebook.com/events/237327156602371.

______. 2016e. ‘Submission to Liquor Law Review.’ Reclaim the Streets. 3 April, www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Submissions/Reclaim%20the%20Streets.pdf.

Reinharz, S. 2011. Observing the observer: understanding our selves in field research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion.

Reynolds, R. 2009. ‘Endangered territory, endangered identity: Oxford Street and the dissipation of gay life’. Journal of Australian Studies, 33(1), pp.79-92.

Richards, S. 2012. Architect knows best: environmental determinism in architecture culture from 1956 to the present. Burlington: Ashgate.

Right to Dance. 2018. Right to dance. righttodance.sydney.

Rizk, J. and Birioukov, A. 2017. ‘Following the flâneur: the methodological possibilities and applications of flânerie in new urban spaces’. The Qualitative Report, 22(12), pp.3268-85.

Roberts, M. 2009. ‘Planning, urban design and the night-time city: still at the margins?’ Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(4), pp.487-506.

______. 2015. ‘“A big night out”: young people’s drinking, social practice and spatial experience in the “liminoid” zones of English night-time cities’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.571-88.

______. 2016. ‘What a “night czar” can do to help nightlife survive’. The Conversation, 19 October, theconversation.com/what-a-night-czar-can-do-to-help-nightlife-survive-67253.

243 Roberts, M. and Eldridge, A. 2007. ‘Quieter, safer, cheaper: planning for a more inclusive evening and night-time economy’. Planning, Practice & Research, 22(2), pp.253-66.

______. 2009. Planning the night-time city. London: Routledge.

Roberts, M. and Gornostaeva, G. 2007. ‘The night-time economy and sustainable town centres: dilemmas for local government’. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 2(2), pp.134-52.

Roberts, M. and Turner, C. 2005. ‘Conflicts of liveability in the 24-hour city: learning from 48 hours in the life of London's Soho’. Journal of Urban Design, 10(2), pp.171-93.

Roberts, M., Turner, C., Greenfield, S. and Osborn, G. 2006. ‘A continental ambience? Lessons in managing alcohol-related evening and night-time entertainment from four European capitals’. Urban Studies, 43(7), pp.1105-25.

Roberts, T. 2012. ‘From ‘new materialism’ to ‘machinic assemblage’: agency and affect in IKEA’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(10), pp.2512-29.

Robertson, J. 2016. ‘Poll shows voters favour extending lockout laws’. SMH, 29 August, www.smh.com.au/nsw/majority-back-broader-lockout-laws-across-the-state-20160828-gr31t9.html.

______. 2017. ‘Sydney’s small bar revival: but why are so few open after midnight?’ SMH, 26 August, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydneys-small-bar-revival-but-why-are-so-few-open-after-midnight- 20170826-gy4snw.html.

Robertson, J. and Saulwick, J. 2015. ‘Poker machine profits come from Sydney's poorest suburbs’. SMH, 26 October, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/poker-machine-profits-come-from-sydneys-poorest- suburbs-20151023-gkh7j4.html.

Robinson, C. 2009. ‘“Nightscapes and leisure spaces”: an ethnographic study of young people’s use of free space’. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(5), pp.501-14.

______. 1998. Methods and techniques in human geography. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Robinson, J. 2002. ‘Global and world cities: a view from off the map’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), pp.531-54.

______.2006. Ordinary cities: between modernity and development. New York: Routledge.

Rodman, M. 1992. ‘Empowering place: multilocality and multivocality’. American Anthropologist, 94(3), pp.640-56.

Rogers, D. 2016. ‘Monitory democracy as citizen-driven participatory planning: the urban politics of Redwatch in Sydney’. Urban Policy and Research, 34(3), pp.225–39.

244 Rogers, D. and Darcy, M. 2014. ‘Global city aspirations, graduated citizenship and public housing: analysing the consumer citizenships of neoliberalism’. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 2(1), pp.72-88.

Rooke, D. 2016. ‘Sydney’s casinos escape lockout laws, smoking bans and more’. The Saturday Paper, 12 March, www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2016/03/12/sydneys-casinos-escape- lockout-laws-smoking-bans-and-more/14577012002995.

Room, R. 1988. ‘The dialectic of drinking in Australian life: from the Rum Corps to the Wine Column’. Australian Drug and Alcohol Review, 7(4), pp.413–37.

Rose, G. 1997. ‘Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics’. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), pp.305-20.

______. 2007. Visual methodologies: an introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage.

Rose, M. and Wylie, J. 2006. ‘Animating landscape’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, pp.475-9.

Rose, N. 1999. Powers of freedom: reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

______. 2017. ‘Still “like birds on the wire”? Freedom after neoliberalism’. Economy and Society, 46(3- 4), pp.303-23.

Ross, N., Renold, E., Holland, S., and Hillman, A. 2009. ‘Moving stories: using mobile methods to explore the everyday lives of young people in public care’. Qualitative Research, 9(5), pp.605-23.

NSW Parliamentary Research Service. 2015. ‘Liquor licensing restrictions to address alcohol-related violence in NSW: 2008-2014’. L. Roth and C. Angus. www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/Liquorlicensingrestrictionstoaddre ssalcohol-relatedviolenceinNSW:2008to2014/$File/Liquor+licensing+restrictions+to+address+alco hol-related+violence+in+NSW+2008+to+2014.pdf.

Rowe, D. and Bavinton, N. 2011. ‘Tender for the night: after-dark cultural complexities in the night-time economy’. Continuum, 25(6), pp.811-25.

Rowe, D. and Lynch, R. 2012. ‘Work and play in the city: some reflections on the night-time leisure economy of Sydney’. Annals of Leisure Research, 15(2), pp.132–47.

Rowe, D., Stevenson, D., Tomsen, S., Bavinton, N., and Brass, K. 2008. ‘The city after dark: cultural planning and governance of the night-time economy in Parramatta’. University of Western Sydney, Centre for Cultural Research, www.westernsydney.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/47000/City_After_Dark.pdf.

Rutland, T. 2013. ‘Activists in the making: urban movements, political processes and the creation of political subjects’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), pp.989-1011.

245 Ryall, J. 2014. ‘Fears over new late-night alcohol laws in Sydney CBD’. News, 22 January, www.news.com.au/national/fears-over-new-latenight-alcohol-laws-in-sydney-cbd/storyfncynjr2- 1226806881876.

Safi, M. 2015. ‘Stop the bets! Morrison’s focus on offshore betting won’t help problem gamblers’. The Guardian, 7 September, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/07/stop-the-bets- morrisons-focus-on-offshore-betting-wont-help-problem-gamblers.

Sassen, S. 1998. Globalization and its discontents: essays on the new mobility of people and money. New York: New Press.

______. 2000. ‘The global city: strategic site/new frontier’. American Studies, 41(2-3), pp.79-95.

______. 2001. The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

______. 2002. Global networks, linked cities. London: Routledge.

______. 2014. Expulsions: brutality and complexity in the global economy. London: Harvard University Press.

______. 2016a. ‘How Jane Jacobs changed the way we look at cities’. The Guardian, 5 May, www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/04/jane-jacobs-100th-birthday-saskia-sassen.

Satterthwaite, A. 2001. Going shopping: consumer choices and community consequences. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Saulwick, J. 2016. ‘Kings Cross property owners join together in hopes of mega property deal. SMH, 23 October, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/kings-cross-property-owners-join-together-in-hopes-of- mega-property-deal-20161023-gs8hrg.html.

______. 2017. ‘A decade on, urbanist Jan Gehl tells Sydney what the city needs to do next’. SMH, 9 February, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/a-decade-on-urbanist-jan-gehl-tells-sydney-what-the-city- needs-to-do-next-20170208-gu8ey0.html.

Savage, M. and Warde, A. 1993. Urban sociology, capitalism and modernity. London: Macmillan.

Schatz, L. and Rogers, D. 2016. ‘Participatory, technocratic and neoliberal planning: an untenable planning governance ménage à trois’. Australian Planner, 53(1), pp.37-45.

Schivelbusch, W. 1988. Disenchanted night: the industrialization of light in the nineteenth century. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schwanen, T. and Kwan, M. 2012. ‘Critical space–time geographies’. Environment and Planning A, 44(9), pp.2043-8.

Schwanen, T., van Aalst, I., Brands, J., and Timan, T. 2012. ‘Rhythms of the night: spatiotemporal inequalities in the nighttime economy’. Environment and Planning A, 44(9), pp.2064-85.

246 Scott, K. 2015. ‘Australia’s binge drinking culture puts mental health at risk, experts warn’. ABC News, 9 October, www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-09/australias-binge-drinking-culture-puts-mental-health-at- risk/6818970.

Seale, K. 2016. ‘Suburbanising the centre: the Baird government’s anti-urban agenda for Sydney’. The Conversation, 8 April, theconversation.com/suburbanising-the-centre-the-baird-governments-anti- urban-agenda-for-sydney-55754.

Seamon, D. 1989. A geography of the lifeworld: movement, rest, and encounter. New York: St Martin’s Press.

______.2000. ‘A way of seeing people and place’. Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research: underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodologies. S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, and H. Minami (eds.). Boston: Springer. pp.157-178.

______. 2015. ‘Lived emplacement and the locality of being: a return to humanistic geography?’ Approaches to Human Geography. S. Aiken and G. Valentine (eds.). London: Sage.

Seamon, D. and Sowers, J. 2008. ‘Place and placelessness, Edward Relph’. Key texts in human geography. P. Hubbard, R. Kitchin, and G. Valentine (eds.). Los Angeles: Sage, pp.43-51.

Searle, G. 2004. ‘Planning discourses and Sydney’s recent metropolitan strategies’. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), pp.367–91.

Sebag-Montefiore, C. 2017. ‘Why Australia has a serious gambling problem’. CNN, 1 September, edition.cnn.com/2017/08/28/health/Australia-gambling-addiction-poker-slot-machines/index.html.

Seccombe, M. 2016a. ‘Lockout laws and violence in the streets’. The Saturday Paper, 20 February, www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2016/02/20/lockout-laws-and-violence-the- streets/14558868002909.

______. 2016b. ‘NSW premier Mike Baird’s flaws beginning to show’. The Saturday Paper, 11 June, www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/06/11/nsw-premier-mike-bairds-flaws-beginning- show/14655672003359.

Seidler, J. 2017. ‘Our nanny state should not be celebrating today’. News, 6 March, www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/opinion-our-nanny-state-should-not-be-celebrating- today/news-story/77fafe0c8c0dfa4a80044f66532ba733.

Shaw, K. 2002. ‘Culture, economics and evolution in gentrification’. Just Policy, 28, pp.42-50.

______. 2004. ‘Local limits to gentrification’. Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. G. Bridge and R. Atkinson (eds.). London: Routledge, pp.168-84.

Shaw, R. 2010. ‘Neoliberal subjectivities and the development of the night-time economy in British cities’. Geography Compass, 4(7), pp.893–903.

247 Shaw, R. 2014. ‘Beyond night-time economy: affective atmospheres of the urban night’. Geoforum, 51, pp.87-95.

______. 2015. ‘“Alive after Five”: constructing the neoliberal night in Newcastle upon Tyne’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.456–70.

______. 2018. The nocturnal city. London: Routledge.

Shaw, W. 2006. ‘Sydney's SoHo syndrome? Loft living in the urbane city’. Cultural Geographies, 13, pp.182-206.

Sheller, M. and Urry, J. 2006. ‘The new mobilities paradigm’. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), pp.207- 26.

Shepherd, T. 2016. ‘Hey NIMBYs, just get out of the road’. The Daily Telegraph, 1 July, www.pressreader.com/australia/the-daily-telegraph-sydney/20160701/282819305523764.

Sherry, C. and Easthope, H. 2016. ‘Under-supply of schooling in the gentrified and regenerated inner city’. Cities, 56, pp.16-23.

Shi, X. 2016. ‘Mike Baird’s Sydney is a soulless ghost town’. New Matilda, 4 August, newmatilda.com/2016/08/04/mike-bairds-sydney-is-a-soulless-ghost-town.

Shifted Pictures. 2016. ‘Closed Sydney – lockouts timelapse’. Shifted Pictures. 28 June, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_3S3UotADk.

Shildrick, T. and MacDonald, R. 2006. ‘In defence of subculture: young people, leisure and social divisions’. Journal of Youth Studies, 9(2), pp.125-40.

Short, M. 2016. ‘Civil disobedience is needed when laws are stupid’. SMH, 31 January, www.smh.com.au/comment/civil-disobedience-is-needed-when-laws-are-stupid-20160128- gmg1bg.html.

Simmel, G. 1957. ‘Fashion’. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), pp.541-58.

Simonsen, K. 2013. ‘In quest of a new humanism: embodiment, experience and phenomenology as critical geography’. Progress in Human Geography, 37(1), pp.10-26.

Skelton, T. and Gough, K. 2013. ‘Introduction: young people’s im/mobile urban geographies’. Urban Studies, 50(3), pp.455-66.

Slater, T. 2002. ‘Fear of the city 1882-1967: Edward Hopper and the discourse of anti-urbanism’. Social & Cultural Geography, 3(2), pp.135-54.

______. 2006. ‘The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 30(4), pp.737-57.

______. 2009. ‘Missing Marcuse: on gentrification and displacement’. City, 13(2-3), pp.293-311.

248 Slater, T. 2014a. ‘The resilience of neoliberal urbanism’. openDemocracy, 28 January, www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/tom-slater/resilience-of-neoliberal-urbanism.

______. 2014b. ‘Unravelling false choice urbanism’. City, 18(4-5), pp.517-24.

______. 2017. ‘Territorial stigmatization: Symbolic defamation and the contemporary metropolis’. The Sage handbook of new urban studies. J. Hannigan and G. Richards (eds.). London: Sage, pp.111– 25.

Smith, L. 1967. ‘The micro-ethnography of the classroom’. Psychology in the Schools, 4(3), pp.216–21.

Smith, N. 1977. The return from the suburbs and the structuring of urban space: state involvement in Society Hill, Philadelphia. BSc diss., University of St Andrews. www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tslater/NeilSmithugraddiss.pdf

______. 1979. ‘Toward a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital not people’. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, pp.538-48.

______. 1982. ‘Gentrification and uneven development’. Economic Geography, 58, pp.139-55.

______. 1987. ‘Gentrification and the rent-gap’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(3), pp.462-5.

______. 1990. Uneven development: nature, capital and the production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.

______. 1996. The new urban frontier. London: Routledge.

______. 2002. ‘New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy’. Antipode, 34, pp.427-50.

Smith, N. and Williams, P. 1986a. ‘Alternatives to orthodoxy: invitation to a debate’. Gentrification of the City. N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp.1-14.

______. 1986b. ‘From “renaissance” to restructuring: the dynamics of contemporary urban development’. Gentrification of the City. N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp.204-24.

Smith, O. 2013. ‘Holding back the beers: maintaining “youth” identity within the British night-time leisure economy’. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(8), pp.1069-83.

______. 2014. Contemporary adulthood and the night-time leisure economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith, R. and Hall, T. 2013. ‘No time out: mobility, rhythmicity and urban patrol in the twenty-four hour city’. The Sociological Review, 61(1), pp.89-108.

Smith, S. 1989. The politics of ‘race’ and residence: citizenship, segregation and white supremacy in Britain. Cambridge: Polity Press.

249 Soja, E. 1989. Postmodern geographies: the reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.

______. 2010. Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Solman, P. 2017. ‘Has urban revival caused a crisis of success?’ PBS Newshour, 1 June, www.pbs.org/newshour/show/urban-revival-caused-crisis-success.

Sound Diplomacy. 2018. Sound Diplomacy, www.sounddiplomacy.com.

Special Broadcasting Service. 2014. ‘Stockholm’s hottest new nightlife trend is dancing while sober’. SBS News, 10 November, www.sbs.com.au/news/stockholm-s-hottest-new-nightlife-trend-is-dancing- while-sober.

______. 2016. ‘Premier softens NSW lockout response’. SBS News, 11 February, www.sbs.com.au/news/premier-softens-nsw-lockout-response.

Springer, S. 2010. ‘Neoliberal discursive formations: on the contours of subjectivation, good governance, and symbolic violence in posttransitional Cambodia’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(5), pp.931-50.

______. 2012. ‘Neoliberalism as discourse: between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism’. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), pp.133–47.

______. 2016. The discourse of neoliberalism: an anatomy of a powerful idea. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.

Springer, S., Birch, K., and MacLeavy, J. 2016. The handbook of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.

Springer, S., de Souza, M., and White, R. 2016. ‘Transgressing frontiers through the radicalization of pedagogy’. The radicalization of pedagogy: anarchism, geography, and the spirit of revolt. S. Springer, M. de Souza, and R. White. (eds.). London: Rowman & Littlefield International, pp.1- 26.

Springgay, S. and Truman, S. 2018. Walking methodologies in a more-than-human-world: WalkingLab. New York: Routledge.

Squires, W. 2016. ‘One of these cities treats adults as grown-ups, the other doesn’t’. SMH, 5 August, www.smh.com.au/opinion/a-trip-to-sydney-isnt-nearly-as-much-fun-as-it-used-to-be-20160804- gql5m4.html.

Star Observer. 2016. ‘“Giant f*ck you” protest organised after vicious bashing’. Star Observer, 14 April, www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/new-south-wales-news/giant-fck-you-protest- organised-after-bashing/148458.

Steinfort, L., Hendrikx, B., and Piipers, R. 2017. ‘Communal performativity - A seed for change? The solidarity of Thessaloniki's social movements in the diverse fights against neoliberalism’. Antipode, 49(5), pp.1446-63.

250 Stern, E. and Krakover, S. 1993. ‘The formation of a composite urban image’. Geographical Analysis, 25(2), pp.130-46.

Stevenson, D. 2018. ‘Feminism and its places: women, leisure and the night-time economy’. The Palgrave handbook of feminism and space, leisure and physical education. L. Mansfield, J. Caudwell, B. Wheaton, and B. Watson (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.557-69.

Stewart, R. and Nicholls, R. 2002. ‘Virtual worlds, travel, and the picturesque garden’. Philosophy & Geography, 5(1), pp.83-99.

Stiegler, Z. 2017. ‘Music and the politics of space: acoustic territories in New Orleans’. Communication and the Public, 2(4), pp.305-19.

Stoker, G. 2006. Why politics matter: making democracy work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Street, A. 2017a. ‘Can we make Sydney liveable again?’ SMH, 29 June, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/can- we-make-sydney-liveable-again-20170629-gx0ztp.html.

______. 2017b. ‘How inner city apartment developments have killed Australian rock’n’roll’. Domain, 27 March, www.domain.com.au/news/how-inner-city-apartment-developments-have-killed-australian- rocknroll-20170324-gv5t2o.

______. 2017c. ‘Reason Sydney outside top 10 cities in global liveability index is not terrorism’. Domain, 16 August, www.domain.com.au/news/reason-sydney-outside-top-10-cities-in-global-liveability- index-is-not-terrorism-20170816-gxxpmu.

______. 2017d. ‘Sydney To Me sums up the city perfectly: a soulless marketing exercise’. SMH, 30 January, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-to-me-sums-up-the-city-perfectly-a-soulless- marketing-exercise-20170130-gu1811.html.

______. 2017e. ‘With Sydney finally dead, Mike Baird’s work is done’. SMH, 19 January, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/with-sydney-finally-dead-mike-bairds-work-is-done-20170119- gtudfe.html.

Sturma, M. 1983. Vice in a vicious society: crime and convicts in mid-nineteenth-century New South Wales. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Su-Jan, Y., Limin, H., and Kiang, H. 2012. ‘Urban informality and everyday (night) life: a field study in Singapore’. International Development Planning Review, 34(4), pp.369-90.

Sullivan, D. and Shaw, S. 2011. ‘Retail gentrification and race: the case of Alberta Street in Portland, Oregon’. Urban Affairs Review, 47(3), pp.413-32.

Sumartojo, S. and Pink, S. 2017. ‘Moving through the lit world: the emergent experience of urban paths’. Space and Culture, 12 November, doi:10.1177/1206331217741079.

251 Sunderland, N., Bristed, H., Gudes, O., Boddy, J. and Da Silva, M. 2012. ‘What does it feel like to live here? Exploring sensory ethnography as a collaborative methodology for investigating social determinants of health in place’. Health & Place, 18(5), pp.1056-67.

The Surry Hills Creative Precinct. 2015. ‘Home/about’. The Surry Hills Creative Precinct. shcp.org.au/homeabout.

Swyngedouw, E. 2004. ‘Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), pp.25-48.

______. 2014. ‘Where is the “political”? Insurgent mobilisations and the incipient “return of the political”’. Space and Polity, 18(2), pp.122-36.

Swyngedouw, E. and Kaïka, M. 2003. ‘The making of “glocal” urban modernities’. City, 7(1), pp.5-21.

Tadié, J. and Permanadeli, R. 2015. ‘Night and the city: clubs, brothels and politics in Jakarta’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.471-85.

Talbot, D. 2004. ‘Regulation and racial differentiation in the construction of night-time economies: a London case study’. Urban Studies, 41(4), pp.887-901.

______. 2006. ‘The Licensing Act 2003 and the problematization of the night-time economy: planning, licensing and subcultural closure in the UK’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(1), pp159–71.

______. 2007. Regulating the night: race, culture and exclusion in the making of the night-time economy. Burlington: Ashgate.

______. 2009. ‘Regulating the other side: disorder, exclusion and subcultural closure in the night-time economy’. World Leisure Journal, 51(1), pp.14-26.

______. 2011. ‘The juridification of nightlife and alternative culture: two UK case studies’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(1), pp.81-93.

Talen, E. and Lee, S. 2018. Design for social diversity. New York: Routledge.

Taylor, A. 2017. ‘City of Sydney to allow shops to stay open until 10pm in bid to revive night life’. SMH, 10 October, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/city-of-sydney-to-allow-shops-to-stay-open-until-10pm-in- bid-to-revive-night-life-20171010-gyy68i.html.

______. 2018. ‘Live music harassed almost out of existence in Sydney, inquiry told’. SMH, 25 March, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/live-music-harassed-almost-out-of-existence-in-sydney-inquiry-told- 20180325-p4z652.html.

Theodosiou, P. 2016. ‘“Really out of step”: NSW government panned for Sydney nightlife video’. SBS News, 20 December, www.sbs.com.au/news/really-out-of-step-nsw-government-panned-for-sydney- nightlife-video.

252 Thomas, C. and Bromley, R. 2000. ‘City-centre revitalisation: problems of fragmentation and fear in the evening and night-time city’. Urban Studies, 37(8), pp.1403-29.

Thomson, J. 2018. ‘Sydney’s Kings Cross about to undergo its most profound change since the 1960s’. Domain, 15 February, www.domain.com.au/news/sydneys-kings-cross-about-to-undergo-its-most- profound-change-since-the-1960s-20180215-h0vzpk.

Thrift, N. 2003. ‘Practising ethics’. Using social theory: thinking through research. M. Pryke, G. Rose, and S. Whatmore (eds.). London: Sage, pp.106-21.

______. 2004. ‘Intensities of feeling: towards a spatial politics of affect’. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 86(1), pp.57-78.

______. 2008. Non-representational theory: space, politics, affect. New York: Routledge.

Thurnell-Read, T. 2017. ‘“Did you ever hear of police being called to a beer festival?” Discourses of merriment, moderation and “civilized” drinking amongst real ale enthusiasts’. The Sociological Review, 65(1), pp.83-99.

Tickell, A. and Peck, J. 2003. ‘Making global rules: globalization or neoliberalization?’ Remaking the global economy: economic-geographical perspectives. J. Peck and H. Yeung (eds.). London: Sage, pp.163-181.

Tierney, J. 2006. ‘“We want to be more European”: The 2003 Licensing Act and Britain’s night-time economy’. Social Policy and Society, 5(4), pp.453–60.

Tiffany, D. Infidel poetics: riddles, nightlife, substance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tin, J. 2017. ‘Sydney lockout laws: 20 Kings Cross, city pubs and venues get extra trading time’. The Daily Telegraph, 9 July, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sydney-lockout-laws-20-kings-cross-city- pubs-and-venues-get-extra-trading-time.

Tolia‐Kelly, D. 2006. ‘Affect–an ethnocentric encounter? Exploring the “universalist” imperative of emotional/affectual geographies’. Area, 38(2), pp.213-7.

Tomsen, S. 2014. ‘Identity wars. Crime, safety and conflict in Sydney’s night-time economy’. Etnografia e ricerca qualitative, 3, pp.463–80.

Tomsen, S. and Wadds, P. 2016. ‘Nightlife ethnography, violence, policing and security’. Australian Violence: Crime, Criminal Justice and Beyond. J. Stubbs and S. Tomsen (eds.). Leichhardt: The Federation Press, pp.194-209.

Tovey, J. 2010. ‘Surry Hills is city's hot spot of creativity, GPS study reveals’. SMH, 7 June, www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/surry-hills-is-citys-hot-spot-of-creativity-gps-study- reveals-20100606-xn83.html.

253 Trueman, M., Klemm, M., and Giroud, A. 2004. ‘Can a city communicate? Bradford as a corporate brand. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(4), pp.317-30.

Tsibiridou, F. 2017. ‘An ethnography of space, creative dissent and reflective nostalgia in the city centre of global Istanbul’. The Palgrave handbook of urban ethnography. I. Pardo and G. Prato (eds.). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.405-46.

Tuan, Y. 1971. ‘Geography, phenomenology, and the study of human nature’. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 15(3), pp.181-92.

______. 1977. Space and place. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

______. 1990 [1974]. Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. New York: Colombia University Press.

Tuskan, P. 2017. ‘City of Sydney announces $1.35M in new funding for live music and nighttime culture’. The Music Network, 27 June, themusicnetwork.com/news/city-of-sydney-announces-dollar135m- in-new-funding-for-live-music-and-nighttime-culture.

Upton, S. 2016. ‘Tilly Devine & the razor gang wars, 1927-31’. NSW State Archives and Records, gallery.records.nsw.gov.au/index.php/galleries/people-of-interest/tilly-devine-the-razor-gang-wars- 1927-31.

Urry, J. 1995. Consuming places. London: Routledge.

______. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.

Urry, J. and Larsen, J. 2011. The tourist gaze 3.0. London: Sage.

Vainer, C., Broudehoux, A., Sanchez, F. and Oliveira, F. 2016. Mega-events and the city – critical perspectives. Rio de Janeiro: Letra Capital.

Valentine, G. and Harris, C. 2016. ‘Encounters and (in) tolerance: perceptions of legality and the regulation of space’. Social & Cultural Geography, 17(7), pp.913-32.

Valentine, G. and Sadgrove, J. 2012. ‘Lived difference: a narrative account of spatiotemporal processes of social differentiation’. Environment and Planning A, 44(9), pp.2049–63.

______. 2014. ‘Biographical narratives of encounter: the significance of mobility and emplacement in shaping attitudes towards difference’. Urban Studies, 51(9), pp.1979–94. van Boom, Nienke. 2017. ‘Rebalancing the creative city after 20 years of debate’. The Sage handbook of new urban studies. J. Hannigan and G. Richards (eds.). London: Sage. pp.357–70.

Van den Nouwelant, R. 2017. Place, identity and community conflict in mixed-use neighbourhoods: the case of Kings Cross, Sydney. PhD diss., University of New South Wales.

254 Van den Nouwelant, R. and Steinmetz, C. 2013. ‘Concentration vs. dispersal of a late-night economy’. Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of Urban and Extra Urban Studies, 3(4), pp.31-43. van Liempt, I. 2015. ‘Safe nightlife collaborations: multiple actors, conflicting interests and different power distributions’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.486-500.

Van Liempt, I. and van Aalst, I. 2012. ‘Urban surveillance and the struggle between safe and exciting nightlife districts’. Surveillance & Society, 9(3), pp.280-92. van Liempt, I., van Aalst, I., and Schwanen, T. 2014. ‘Introduction: geographies of the urban night’. Urban Studies, 52(3), pp.407-21.

Van Weesep, J. 1994. ‘Gentrification as a research frontier’. Progress in Human Geography, 18(1), pp.74- 83.

VanHoose, K. and Savini, F. 2017. ‘The social capital of urban activism: practices in London and Amsterdam’. City, 21(3-4), pp.293-311.

Veblen, T. 1970. [1925]. Theory of the leisure class. London: Unwin Books.

Verbuč, D. 2017. ‘Notions of intimate publicness and the American do-it-yourself music spaces’. Communication and the Public, 2(4), pp.284-304.

Vergunst, J. and Árnason, A. 2012. ‘Introduction: routing landscape: ethnographic studies of movement and journeying’. Landscape Research, 37(2), pp.147-54.

Victorian Government. 2017. ‘All night public transport on weekends here to stay’. Minister for Public Transport. 22 April, www.premier.vic.gov.au/all-night-public-transport-on-weekends-here-to-stay.

Visentin, L. 2017. ‘Kings Cross Hotel to remove Keep Sydney Open banner as lockout supporters complain. The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 July, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/kings-cross-hotel- removes-keep-sydney-open-banner-after-residents-complain-20170707-gx6ets.html.

Wacquant, L. 2008. ‘Relocating gentrification: the working class, science and the state in recent urban research’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), pp.198-205.

______. 2009. Punishing the poor: the neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University Press.

______. 2015. ‘For a sociology of flesh and blood’. Qualitative Sociology, 38(1), pp.1-11.

Wacquant, L. Slater, T., and Pereira, V. 2014. ‘Territorial stigmatization in action’. Environment and Planning A, 46(6), pp.1270-80.

Wadds, P. 2013. ‘Policing nightlife : The representation and transformation of security in Sydney’s night- time economy’. PhD diss., University of Western Sydney.

255 Wadds, P. 2015. ‘Crime, policing and (in)security: press depictions of Sydney’s night-time economy’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(1), pp.95–112.

Wade, M. 2015. ‘Sydney’s most liveable suburbs: the Urban Living Index’. SMH, 18 November, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydneys-most-liveable-suburbs-the-urban-living-index-20151118- gl1tx0.html.

______. 2016. ‘Will changes to negative gearing make houses more affordable?’ SMH, 19 February, www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/will-changes-to-negative-gearing-make-houses-more- affordable-20160219-gmy9wp.html.

Waitt, G. 2004. ‘Pyrmont-Ultimo: the newest chic quarter of Sydney’. City of quarters: urban villages in the contemporary city. D. Bell and M. Jayne. Burlington: Ashgate, pp.15-36.

Waitt, G. 2010. ‘Doing Foucauldian discourse analysis – revealing social identities’. Qualitative research methods in human geography. I. Hay (ed.). pp.217–40.

Waitt, G. and Gibson, C. 2009. ‘Creative small cities: rethinking the creative economy in place’. Urban Studies, 46(5-6), pp.1223-1246.

Waitt, G., Jessop, L., and Gorman-Murray, A. 2011. ‘“The guys in there just expect to be laid”: embodied and gendered socio-spatial practices of a “night out” in Wollongong, Australia’. Gender, Place & Culture, 18(2), pp.255-75.

Walmsley, D. 2004. ‘Behavioral approaches in tourism research’. A companion to tourism. A. Lew, A. Williams, and C. Hall (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, pp.49-60.

Wang, S. 2011. ‘Commercial gentrification and entrepreneurial governance in Shanghai: A case study of Taikang Road creative cluster’. Urban Policy and Research, 29(4), pp.363-80.

Ward, B. 1972. What’s Wrong with Economics? London: MacMillan.

Warr, D. 2006. ‘There goes the neighbourhood: The malign effects of stigma’. Social City, 19(3), pp.1–11.

Watts, O. 2016. ‘The 24/7 city, creativity and the lockout laws’. The Conversation, 16 March, theconversation.com/the-24-7-city-creativity-and-the-lockout-laws-56271.

Western Australian Planning Commission. 2007. ‘Planning bulletin 85 – small bar licensed premises’. Western Australian Planning Commission. September.

Wetherell, S. 2017. ‘Richard Florida is sorry’. Jacobin. 19 August, jacobinmag.com/2017/08/new-urban- crisis-review-richard-florida.

Whitbourn, M. 2017. ‘Sydney lockouts: assaults “displaced” to suburbs around CBD and Kings Cross’. SMH, 5 March, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-lockouts-assaults-displaced-to-suburbs- around-cbd-and-kings-cross-20170305-guqyrr.html.

256 Wilding, M. 2017. ‘Here’s what London’s night czar has done in her first year’. Vice, 14 November, www.vice.com/en_uk/article/evb84k/heres-what-londons-night-czar-has-done-in-her-first-year.

Wilkinson, M., Cronau, P., and Davies, A. 2017. ‘Crown confidential – Packer’s losing hand’. Four Corners, March 6.

Wilkinson, S. and Wilkinson, C. 2018. ‘Researching drinking “with” young people: a palette of methods’. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 18(1), pp.6-16.

Williams, P. 1986. ‘Class constitution through spatial reconstruction? A re-evaluation of gentrification in Australia, Britain, and the United States’. Gentrification of the City. N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin, pp.56-77.

Williams, R. 2008. ‘Night spaces: darkness, deterritorialization, and social control’. Space and Culture, 11(4), pp.514-32.

Williams, S. 2017a. ‘Kings Cross’s oldest café Piccolo Bar closes after 65 years’. Commercial Real Estate, 25 June, www.commercialrealestate.com.au/news/kings-crosss-oldest-cafe-piccolo-bar-closes-after- 65-years.

______. 2017b. ‘Sign of the times as Kings Cross swaps sleaze for fake grit’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 September, pp.1.

Wills, J. 2015. ‘Populism, localism and the geography of democracy’. Geoforum, 62, pp.188–9.

Wilson, S. 2016. ‘Berghain techno parties now “high art” after landmark German court ruling’. Fact, 12 September, www.factmag.com/2016/09/12/berghain-techno-classed-as-high-culture.

Wilson, D. and Keil, R. 2008. ‘The real creative class’. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(8), pp.841-7.

Windsteiger, L. 2017. ‘How our narrowing social circles create a more unequal world’. The Guardian, 27 June, www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/27/people-like-us-why-narrowing-social-circles- create-more-unequal-world.

Wolifson, P. 2016. ‘Encountering the night with mobile methods’. Geographical Review, 106(2), pp.174– 200.

______. 2018. ‘“Civilising” by gentrifying: the contradictions of neoliberal planning for nightlife in Sydney, Australia’. Exploring nightlife: space, society and governance. J. Nofre and A. Eldridge (eds.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield International, pp.35-52.

Wolifson. P. and Drozdzewski, D. 2017. ‘Co-oping the night: the entrepreneurial shift and economic imperative in NTE Planning’. Urban Policy and Research, 35(4), pp.486–504.

Wolifson, P. and Gibson, C. 2016. ‘Beyond lockouts: Sydney needs to become a more inclusive city’. The Conversation, 17 March, theconversation.com/beyond-lockouts-sydney-needs-to-become-a-more- inclusive-city-55821.

257 World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Worpole, K. 1992. Towns for people: transforming urban life. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wright, P. and Palmer, D. 2009. ‘Big hART at John Northcott Estate: Community, Heath and the Arts’. UNESCO Observatory Refereed E-Journal, 1(4).

Wylie, J., 2006. ‘Depths and folds: on landscape and the gazing subject’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(4), pp.519-35.

Wynne, D., O'Connor, J., and Phillips, D. 1998. ‘Consumption and the postmodern city’. Urban Studies, 35(5-6), pp.841-64.

Yeo, S. and Heng, C. 2014. ‘An (extra) ordinary night out: urban informality, social sustainability and the night-time economy’. Urban Studies, 51(4), pp.712-26.

Yeo, S., Ho, K.C., and Heng, C. 2016. ‘Rethinking spatial planning for urban conviviality and social diversity: a study of nightlife in a Singapore public housing estate neighbourhood’. Town Planning Review, 87(4), pp.379-99.

Yin, R. Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

Young, C., Diep, M., and Drabble, S. 2006. ‘Living with difference? The “cosmopolitan city” and urban reimaging in Manchester, UK’. Urban Studies, 43(10), pp.1687-1714.

Young, I. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Young, M. and Markham, F. 2017a. ‘Coercive commodities and the political economy of involuntary consumption: the case of the gambling industries’. Environment and Planning A, 49(12), pp.2762-79.

______. 2017b. ‘Three charts on: Australia’s addiction to poker machines’. The Conversation, 27 June, theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-addiction-to-poker-machines-78353.

Young, M., Markham, F., and Doran, B. 2012. ‘Too close to home? The relationships between residential distance to venue and gambling outcomes’. International Gambling Studies, 12(2), pp.257–73.

Zuel, B. 2016. ‘Flight Facilities review: suburban dance gig a lesson to Sydney’s lockout laws’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 September, www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/flight-facilities-review- suburban-dance-gig-a-lesson-to-sydneys-lockout-laws-20160911-grdmbm.html.

Zukin, S. 1987. ‘Gentrification: culture and capital in the urban core’. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, pp.129-47.

______. 1990. ‘Socio-spatial prototypes of a new organisation of consumption: the role of real cultural capital’. Sociology, 24(1), pp.37-56.

258 Zukin, S. 1991. Landscapes of power: from Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

______. 1996. The cultures of cities. Cambridge: Blackwell.

______. 2008. ‘Consuming authenticity: from outposts of difference to means of exclusion’. Cultural Studies, 22(5), pp.724-48.

______. 2009. ‘New retail capital and neighbourhood change: boutiques and gentrification in New York City’. City & Community, 8(1), pp.47-64.

______. 2010. Naked city: the death and life of authentic urban places. New York: Oxford University Press.

______. 2011. ‘Reconstructing the authenticity of place’. Theory and Society, 40(2), pp.161-5.

______. 2012. ‘The social production of urban cultural heritage: identity and ecosystem on an Amsterdam shopping street’. City, Culture and Society, 3(4), pp.281-91.

259

260 Appendix

Reference list for Box 1

Ackland, R. 2012. ‘No Cross revolution on way while politicians are under influence of liquor trade’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 July, pp.11.

Bartels, A. 2013. ‘Tough talking will not fix Kings Cross’. The Daily Telegraph, 10 October, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/all-the-tough-talk-will-not-fix-the-problems-in-kings- cross/news-story/36ce7f1d6a66425c853ecef4271662d9.

Bibby, P. 2013. ‘Four years for a life: Kelly family's outrage’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 November, pp.1.

Browne, R. 2014. ‘Alcohol warnings fail to get message through’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 January, pp.4.

Budd, H. 2012. ‘Kings Cross crackdown “won’t stop violence”’. The Daily Telegraph, 10 September, pp.10.

Clay, D. 2013. ‘Sobering-up cells just a PR exercise’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 July, pp.18.

Clennell, A. 2014b. ‘Here is your hit list premier’. The Daily Telegraph, 17 January, pp.4.

______. 2014d. ‘No kidding, it’s time for action’. The Daily Telegraph, 18 January, pp.40.

______. 2014e. ‘Premier dodges tough issue’. The Daily Telegraph, 14 January, pp.8.

Clennell, A. and Wood, A. 2013. ‘Drunk tanks get watered down a bit’. The Daily Telegraph, 18 January, pp.4.

Corderoy, A. 2013. ‘Hospital slams AHA for 'denial' of alcohol problems’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 March, pp.8.

The Daily Telegraph. 2012a. ‘Call to lift legal drinking age to 25’. The Daily Telegraph, 20 September, pp.14.

______. 2012b. ‘Cocktails too risky’. The Daily Telegraph, 12 December, pp.14.

______. 2012c. ‘Courts put bounce on boozy violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 19 November, pp.32.

______. 2012d. ‘Lockouts turn off alcohol before the violence can begin’. The Daily Telegraph, 6 August, pp.24.

______. 2012e. ‘Sucker punch the mark of a coward’. The Daily Telegraph, 15 September, pp.38.

______. 2013. ‘Shut pub and stop violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 22 March, pp.42.

______. 2014a. ‘Barry takes soft option on violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 19 January, pp.15.

261 The Daily Telegraph. 2014b. ‘No more talk, time for action’. The Daily Telegraph, 6 January, pp.5.

Dale, A. 2013. ‘Where’s the justice in king-hit killer’s plea?’ The Daily Telegraph, 19 June, pp.9.

Dalton, T. and Marshall, N. 2012. ‘King hit a deadly trend. A culture of violence. A plea for peace’. The Daily Telegraph, 15 September, pp.41.

Dalton, T. and Wood, A. 2012. ‘Energising drunks on a violent bender’. The Daily Telegraph, 17 September, pp.8.

Davies, L. 2012. ‘Curb on trading key to cutting violence – expert’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July, pp.2.

Denniss, R. 2014. ‘Premier is simply too scared to take up gauntlet on drunken violence’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 January, pp.14.

Devine, M. 2012. ‘Violence is killing our cities’. The Daily Telegraph, 11 July, pp.13.

______. 2013a. ‘It’s a jungle out there of the violent and psychotic’. The Daily Telegraph, 10 July, pp.13.

______. 2013b. ‘O’Farrell’s job to make streets of Sydney safer’. The Daily Telegraph, 5 June, pp.13.

Dunlevy, S. 2012a. ‘Booze trap set for kids. Youngsters groomed to drink’. The Daily Telegraph, 19 September, pp.12.

______. 2012b. ‘Calls to end the curse of cheap booze’. The Daily Telegraph, 22 August, pp.12.

Fife-Yeomans, J. 2014a. ‘Barry, how much more evidence do you need?’ The Daily Telegraph, 20 January, pp.1.

______. 2014b. ‘Daily Telegraph launches campaign to end alcohol-fuelled carnage’. The Daily Telegraph, 3 January, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/daily-telegraph-launches-campaign-to-end-alcoholfuelled-carnage/news- story/abdde8bcf87f50063c6e09b7f1235413.

Fife-Yeomans, J. and Wood, A. 2014a. ‘Courts fail society when one-punch cowards are set free to repeatedly bully their victims’. The Daily Telegraph, 4 January, pp.1.

______. 2014b. ‘We can stamp out violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 4 January, pp.4.

Gibbs, A. 2012. ‘The Cross gets safer as laws get tougher’. The Daily Telegraph, 20 September, pp.32.

Hagen, K. 2013. ‘Drinkers get loaded before, between venues and after their big night out’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 November, pp.2.

Hall, L. 2014. ‘Family calls for justice to be done’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 January, pp.8.

Hansen, J. 2014. ‘12 angry cowards… and their 12 innocent victims’. The Daily Telegraph, 5 January, pp.15

Hasham, N. 2013a. ‘“Powerless” on booze’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 December, pp.1.

______. 2013b. ‘Booze and youth make violent cocktail’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 December, pp.3.

262 Hasham, N. 2013c. ‘Review calls for risk-based liquor licensing fees for pubs and clubs’. The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 December, pp.7.

Hasham, N. and Olding, R. 2014. ‘Alcohol link to young hoons’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 January, pp.1.

Kean, M. 2014. ‘Enough is enough: time to stop alcohol-fuelled violence is now’. The Daily Telegraph, 3 January, pp.13.

Keene, N. 2013. ‘Lockouts a lesson in making streets safer’. The Daily Telegraph, 10 June, pp.15.

______. 2014. ‘On brunt end of a coward’s low act’. The Daily Telegraph, 4 January, pp.35.

Kelly, R. and Kelly, K. 2014. ‘Three key steps to finally prove we've had enough’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 January, pp.7.

McClennan, B. and Morri, M. 2014. ‘Agony hits again’. The Daily Telegraph, 6 January, pp.4.

McClennan, B. and Wood, A. 2014. ‘Families shattered as fear rules Sydney streets’. The Daily Telegraph, 3 January, pp.4.

McDougall, B. and Bodkin, P. 2014. ‘No more madness’. The Daily Telegraph, 2 January, www.dailytelegraph.com.au/violence-on-sydneys-streets-enough-is-enough/news- story/41885fcf622897abee755f7dddf58262.

McEwen, R. 2014. ‘It’s time Barry O’Farrell acted on alcohol-fuelled violence’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 January, pp.20.

McKenny, L. and Ralston, N. 2012. ‘Time to end the violence’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 July, pp.1.

Moore, M. 2012a. ‘Six decades spent easing liquor laws’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July, pp.2.

______. 2012b. ‘Streets get tough, laws get tougher’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 July, pp.11.

Moore, M. and McKenny, L. 2012. ‘Cross marks spot where violence is all too common’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July, pp.6.

Morri, M. 2012. ‘Kings Cross peace patrol. Trouble spotters are extra eyes for police on city mean streets’. The Daily Telegraph, 26 October, pp.31.

______. 2013a. ‘No tolerance for bloody thuggery’. The Daily Telegraph, 11 December, pp.7.

______. 2013b. ‘Our Angry Mile of mindless violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 3 June, pp.18.

Morrison, J. 2014. ‘More than booze behind thuggery’. The Daily Telegraph, 23 December, pp.25.

Munro, P. 2014. ‘Coward’s blow symbolises new culture of unbounded violence’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 January, pp.7.

Nicholls, S. 2012a. ‘Cross tragedy brings drinking controls closer’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 July, pp.15.

263 Nicholls, S. 2012b. ‘Plan to halt liquor violence urges 1am lockouts’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August, pp.5.

______. 2013a. ‘Hotels resist trial aiming to cut alcohol violence’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 September, pp.5.

______. 2013b. ‘Master plan to clean up Kings Cross’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 October, pp.7.

______. 2013c. ‘Minister's blitz Alcohol-fuelled violence in focus’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 September, pp.3.

______. 2013d. ‘Moves to cut booze violence come up short’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July, pp.11.

______. 2014a. ‘Nothing but silence from O'Farrell’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 January, pp.9.

______. 2014c. ‘Time to act’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 January, pp.1.

Noone, R. 2012a. ‘Breaking booze culture’. The Daily Telegraph, 25 August, pp.3.

______. 2012b. ‘Cracking down on boozy violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 25 August, pp.1.

Olding, R. 2012. ‘Attitude to drink must change, say Kelly family friend’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 July, pp.2.

______. 2013. ‘City's violent epicentre’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 December, pp.1.

Olding, R. and Browne, N. 2014. ‘New year, same mayhem’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 January, pp.1.

Olding, R. and Hashem, N. 2014. ‘Demand for tougher laws on drunken violence’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 January, pp.1.

Olding, R. and Nicholls, S. 2013. ‘Ban new booze licences in George Street, urges police commander’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 July, pp.1.

Ovadia, R. 2014. ‘Courts lack courage to bring thugs to account’. The Daily Telegraph, 3 January, pp.1.

Partridge, E. 2013a. ‘Expect more “senseless violence”: paramedic’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 December, pp.4.

______. 2013b. ‘Rising acts of random city violence put medics on edge’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 December, pp.4.

Patty, A. 2013. ‘One-punch laws a knee-jerk reaction that protects alcohol industry, claims legal group’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, pp.3.

Priest, T. 2012. ‘Arresting the alarming jump in street violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 8 August, pp.25.

______. 2013. ‘Let’s make 2014 a year of no excuses’. The Daily Telegraph, 17 December, pp.27.

Ralston, N. 2014. ‘For a life cut short, Christies call for change’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January, pp.1.

264 Robotham, J. 2012. ‘Trauma chief says doctors alone can’t cut alcohol deaths’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 July, pp.5.

Shakeshaft, A. 2012. ‘We all need to act on drinking problem’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 July. pp.9.

The Sydney Morning Herald. 2012. ‘Enough is enough with Kings Cross lawlessness’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 July, pp.12.

______. 2013a. ‘No time to waste in making Sydney's streets safer at night’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 July, pp.16

______. 2013b. ‘Punch-drunk culture needs to stop celebrating alcohol abuse’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 November, pp.16.

______. 2014a. ‘Newcastle measures worth a try but much more is needed’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 January, pp.12.

______. 2014b. ‘We must redouble our efforts against a culture of violence’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 January, pp.12.

______. 2014c. ‘Where’s Barry? Silence speaks volumes as alcohol debate rages’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 January, pp.16.

Tarasov, A. and Corderoy, A. 2013. ‘NSW worst at tackling alcohol abuse’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 December, pp.7.

Vumbaca, G. 2013. ‘Public needs to find stomach to stop boozed-up violence spree’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 December, pp.19.

Weatherburn, D. 2014. ‘Young men and alcohol make a deadly cocktail’. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 January, pp.14.

Weber, S. 2014. ‘It’s time to end all the stupid carnage on our streets’. The Daily Telegraph, 1 January.

Webster, T. 2014. ‘Unite to fight underbelly of violent rage’. The Daily Telegraph, 4 January, pp.36.

Whyte, S. 2014. ‘It ads up: Sending a message to stop the drunken violence’. The Daily Telegraph, 9 January, pp.5.

Wood, A. 2012. ‘Door shut on Cross lockouts’. The Daily Telegraph, 19 September, pp.17.

______. 2013a. ‘Cops call for action on booze’. The Daily Telegraph, 31 December, pp.11.

______. 2013b. ‘Going to war on alcohol’. The Daily Telegraph, 30 December, pp.7.

______. 2014. ‘Experts demand trial of lock-outs’. The Daily Telegraph, 3 January, pp.5.

265