Political and Social Challenges to Walking in Town Call for Papers: Special Issue, Espaces Et Sociétés Journal, Deadline 15 July 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Political and Social Challenges to Walking in Town Call for papers: special issue, Espaces et sociétés journal, deadline 15 July 2017 20th century urbanism, whether regulated by power balances, political visions, centrality the State or the market, has granted to and marginalisation, segregation and walking two functions applied in completely inequality. We would like you to reflect on different ways in urban spaces. On the one these issues and answer to the following hand, it has been envisioned as an auxiliary questions, among others. travel mode, preliminary to access individual I. Does the distinction between leisure-walking or collective transportation, enabling the use and transit-walking account for heterogeneous of transport networks at urban or regional social behaviours? You can discuss the role of level. While creating distances that only rapid sites’ segregation and specialised planning in transport can cover, this system has also the disjunction of pedestrian practices and the fostered social-spatial segregation. In existence of differentiated collective addition, it has created major obstacles to identifications allowing for the emergence of transit (physical barriers, safety issues, other interest groups. Is it possible to empirically difficulties) which reduced the short-range verify the assumption that utilitarian walking effectiveness of pedestrian travel. Pedestrian gives little support to a “logic of collective accessibility thus became highly unequal in action” (Olson 1965) whereas leisure-walking contemporary cities, depending on location does? What determines whether city dwellers (dense city centre, suburban areas organised see themselves as car drivers, bike or public by major transportation routes or ring roads, transportation riders rather than pedestrians? recently urbanised peripheries) and personal How do these configurations evolve with the situations (persons with reduced mobility, car development of leisury-sport activities, dependency, existence and affordability of pedestrian (visits, hiking, running, etc.) or not collective transportation, etc.). (cycling…), and of new means of individual On the other hand, walking has been transportation (scooters, skates, rollerblades considered as a leisure activity for which …)? specific sites were planned, in accordance II. Walkers’ strategies and tactics to deal with with the envisioned public. As early as the their environment and the inequalities they Renaissance, the development of the “art of reveal or encourage are also of interest. What walking” (Solnit, 2001) meant opening parks are the consequences of each and everyone’s and gardens, later incorporated as ‘green personal characteristics and social status areas’ in functional urbanism. The (upper or lower categories, elderly persons, development of tourism and of wandering, in children, women, foreign tourists or groups major shopping streets, boulevards or targeted by racism or police harassment, Ramblas, supported the broadening of street workers, etc.)? To what extent do the sidewalks for window-shopping, the creation fear to get lost, to end up in an ill-reputed of “passages”, the pedestrianisation of some neighbourhood, fear of assault or harassment streets in historical centres or the creation of or general orientation abilities matter? How pedestrian routes for the purpose of promoting are dependency or limited access to walking heritage. The “come-back of walking in town” modified or backed by the emergence of new (Thomas 2004; Papon & de Solère 2010) communication tools? It will be particularly appears in a literary and media corpus relevant to question organisational patterns in promoting strolls, personal development or urban spaces where walking is the only urban exploration and would explain the option: staircases, narrow streets, “leisurisation” (Latouche & Laperrière 2001, pedestrianised areas for heritage, touristic or Monnet 2012) of already-central sites: so- commercial purposes, street-less and called pedestrian, shared or “pacified” ways, precarious self-built areas, enclosed spaces. reconfigured squares to reduce traffic or Are there specific forms of mutual assistance parking, pedestrian-only embankments, etc. or exclusion? What is the track record of As such, walking is not only the most several decades of street pedestrianisation universal means of access to what a city has across Europe and elsewhere? To what extent to offer, but as a practice it also reveals and is community life revived by this policy? perpetuates planning and representation, III. What kind of knowledge is provided by reflections of power balance and conflicts? empirical research on collective dimensions of Emergence of a public issue on walking and pedestrian transit? Is the latter a sign of the its recognition (Hassenteufel 2010; Honneth (dis-)continuity of urban fabric? Can we refer 2004) can thus be of interest, as well as the to “pedestrian dependency” with regards to diverse motivations of those concerned: accessing public transportation and services? improving road safety and standing up for Who would the dependent pedestrians be? To categories seen as vulnerable, promoting of which spaces are they restricted? Research alternative modes of transportation, can show that the presence or absence of safeguarding health a/o the environment, pedestrians and the co-existence of different “right to the city” or mobility claims…How are types of use (residence, work, transit, walking and the pedestrian envisioned in shopping, tourism, etc.) reveal (in-)formal regulations or by patented actors of urban rules for sharing streets or public spaces. production, and how do these visions evolve? Under what conditions are crowds (in train Where does walking fit in urban planning and stations, markets, department stores, hot transport policies, particularly when fighting spots) attractive or repulsive for walking? In insecurity or exclusion? To what kind of which urban spaces are walking quality negotiations do these objectives lead within indicators (walkscore, walkability index, etc.) urban or metropolitan communities? relevant, what kind of actors elaborate them To further supplement these questions, and with which political agenda(s)? you are welcome to submit any proposal IV. What are the collective values related to related with issues of walking in town, as well walking in town, and how are they defined or as its social and political impact, regardless of limited? On what grounds and under what the disciplinary approach, the methodology or conditions does walking become a topic of the site. The issue will follow the journal’s collective mobilisation, activism a/o public editorial policy strictly and will favour new action? Who are the actors starting or relaying research findings, clearly presented and such movements, what are their social, accessible to international and multi- political or economic goals, what are the disciplinary readers. References: Hassenteufel P., 2010, Les processus de mise sur agenda : sélection et construction des problèmes publics, Informations sociales, n°157, p.50-58. Honneth A., 2004, La théorie de la reconnaissance: une esquisse, Revue du MAUSS, no23, p.133-136 Latouche D. & H. Laperrière, 2001, Faire la fête ou faire la tête, Agora débats/jeunesses, n°24, p.95-104. Monnet J., 2012, Villes et loisirs: les usages de l'espace public, Historiens & Géographes n°419, p.201- 213. Olson M., 1965 [2011], Logique de l'action collective, Bruxelles: éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles. Papon F. & R. de Solère, 2010, Les modes actifs : marche et vélo de retour en ville, La mobilité des Français, panorama issu de l’enquête nationale transports et déplacements 2008, Paris: CGDD, p.65-82. Solnit R., 2001, Wanderlust. A History of Walking, New York: Penguin. Thomas R., 2004, L'accessibilité des piétons à l'espace public urbain, Espaces et sociétés n°113-114, p.233-249. You can submit original papers in English. See the recommendations to authors: http://www.espacesetsocietes.msh-paris.fr/eng/norms-for-the-presentation-of-submitted-papers- recommendations-to-authors/ Timeline: 15 July 2017: deadline for reception of finished papers 15 October 2017: contacting authors upon completion of the first reviews March or September 2019: final publication of the issue Coordination: Jérôme Monnet (Espaces et Sociétés), Ruth Pérez Lopez (UAM Lerma, Mexico), Jean-Paul Hubert (IFSTTAR, France). Contact: [email protected] .