by Ares Kalandides
In this new paper that appears in the July issue of the European Urban and Regional Studies, Prof. Dina Vaiou and myself examine how the neighbourhood becomes the resource through which people can claim the right to the city.
‘Ethnic’ neighbourhoods? Practices of belonging and claims to the city
by Ares Kalandides and Dina Vaiou
The formation or consolidation of ‘ethnic’ neighbourhoods in European cities has made ethnic/racial differences more visible in urban space and has brought back to the forefront of both academic and political debate questions about the spatial concentration of ‘strangers’ (segregation), citizenship rights and ‘integration’. The women and men who live in the city have, or may claim, a right to the city that includes on the one hand the right to appropriate urban space and on the other hand the right to participate in its production and in decisions about it but also in (re)defining patterns of living it. In this context, migrants reconfigure the meanings of belonging against dominant spatializations through their everyday practices. Moreover, more or less institutionalized forms of political participation create new spatial levels of citizenship not limited to the scale of the nation-state. Interactions among migrants and locals continuously redefine the subject of rights as they activate processes of access, participation and inclusion/exclusion in/from the urban public sphere. This paper discusses these processes and terms, drawing on examples from Berlin and Athens. We focus in particular on neighbouring as the space and resource of belonging and on how this is related to participation and urban citizenship. The two cities offer different contexts in which institutional policies, informal practices and claims for participation at the neighbourhood level define, in different ways, citizenship as a spatial strategy and help qualify the content of the ‘right to the city’.
For the full article go to EURS July 2012 issue
© “Discesa di un Sistema” by Kristina Milakovic
by Ares Kalandides
This is my latest article for the Tafter Journal. Here I take the viewpoint of a practitioner and discuss Place Branding in day-to-day work to extract a series of principles that can serve as reflection. You can read the full paper here.
The four principles are:
Principle No. 1: Consultant and client should take time to agree on their understanding of place branding and on what they can expect from it.
Principe No. 2: The motivation behind place branding needs to be as transparent as possible.
Principle No. 3: Consultant and client need to find a compromise between the need for fast visible results and a robust analysis that pays tribute to the complex and political nature of place.
Principle No. 4: A place branding strategy needs the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and the formation of strong partnerships.
by Ares Kalandides
Some months ago, I wrote a short article on my understanding of Integrated Place Branding. That was mostly driven by my own need to reflect on my daily work: what is it that I am doing? Many friends and students have commented since, arguing that it was not the what, but the how that interested them most. They don’t care what they do, as long as they do it well. Although I find this approach hard to understand, I decided that after delivering the what question I may just as well muse on the how one. So, here are some initial thoughts:
Principle 1: Be honest about your motivation
There are many different reasons why you may want to brand a place (i.e. change its image): The most common reason is that somebody wants to attract tourists and investment. But it may also be because you feel that the residents do not identify with their place, that they don’t respect nor love it. It may also be that you want to give people their dignity back: the place’s bad reputation may have personal consequences on anybody associated with it; people may be systematically discriminated against, just because they (are perceived to) come from there. Continue reading
by Ares Kalandides and Mihalis Kavaratzis
Let’s face it: There are probably few countries in Europe right now with a worse image than Greece (we can’t really think of any that even come close). From what we hear, it is especially in Germany, the Netherlands and in Austria where that image is the worst. And even Greece’s southern neighbours (Italy for example) seem to be glaring at us with the fear of contamination. Greece is Europe’s joke. Both being Greeks who have been living abroad for a while and have left for different reasons, we know very well how much of what is said today is absolutely true – and partly a reason we are not living there. But also, we know Greece very well, we have our families and our friends back there, and we know that there is much more to the country than what the populistic central European media wants us to believe. The problem, as usual, are the stereotypes: extending what may be true for some (or many) to everybody. So any expression of the type “the Greeks are” or “the Greeks do” (it could be the Germans, the Brits etc.) is reductive and simply stupid. But it serves the goal of stigmatizing a whole people, making it look like humans of a lower category.
From the Guest Editorial by Ares Kalandides, Mihalis Kavaratzis and Martin Boisen:
This is a special edition of the International Place Branding Conference series and the third special issue of the Journal of Place Management and Development dedicated to the conference. The two previous special issues have proven to be valuable reference points in recent place branding literature. Since the first International Place Branding Conference in Berlin in 2008, a particularly interesting tendency can be noted. In the beginning, the discussion had focused on the general discrepancies in place branding conceptualisations and approaches to its practical implementation. While, of course, these issues remain important and not entirely clarified, it seems that we are now ready to move towards a more elaborate discussion of partial issues. A certain amount of clarity and agreement has indeed been achieved. In this special issue a set of significant issues that affect the whole place branding endeavour are examined. The papers elaborate all of the conference’s themes: the roots and politics of place branding, analytical and assessment methodology as well as the relationship between culture and place branding….
Lunedì 6 febbraio 2012 – Ore 9.30-13.00 – Aula Pio XI
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore – Largo Gemelli, 1 – Milano
CITY INNOVATION LAB
Identità – Place branding - Competitività globale
Un nuovo approccio interdisciplinare per la valorizzazione e il posizionamento
internazionale di città e territori
Utrecht. Photo by Marinda Scaramanga
by Valentin Schipfer
What does Place Branding actually mean? Is the theoretic fundament clear or is it questionable? Can already more clarity be provided in its definitions and methods? Is there some progress made in this field by the scientific community? Into which directions has this field developed? Are there any new influences to this interdisciplinary discourse? All these self-reflecting questions were asked by the community during the International Place Branding Conference Special Edition in Utrecht from 20th to 21st of January 2012. Of course not all of them could be answered at once. Continue reading
Street Art in Lausanne
by Ares Kalandides
Marketing places, as an activity that seeks to position places in a globalized market environment, is a phenomenon that has existed for centuries, albeit probably in very different forms (Ashworth and Voogd 1990, Ashworth and Κavaratzis 2010). Yet, the last decade or more has seen an important shift from place marketing to place branding, at different scales (neighbourhood, city, nation etc.) and with different scopes (destinations, investment, talent etc.) (Kavaratzis 2007, Lucarelli and Berg 2011). Is place branding simply another term for place marketing or are we dealing with an altogether new practice? (Kavaratzis 2004, Kalandides and Kavaratzis 2009) It is worth considering the concepts together with others: what is place identity and place image? How do these differ, let’s say, from place reputation? How is it all related to place management or spatial planning? (Kalandides and Kavaratzis 2011)? The present article is a – highly subjective – attempt to throw light onto some of these issues, using eclectic examples from around the world, mostly from my own professional experience. Continue reading
by Ares Kalandides
“How do you feel as a gentrifier?” I was recently asked by a journalist. I initially thought she was referring to the fact that I live in one of the most gentrified areas in Berlin, Prenzlauer Berg. I was about to stammer something along the lines of: “I’ve been there before” or “I do not have enough money to be called a real gentrifier” etc. , but then she interjected. “I mean your Neukölln project”. Now this took me by surprise. The project I am working on in Neukölln (see past blog entries on NEMONA here and here), is about bringing young fashion designers and immigrant tailors/seamstresses together in a Berlin neighbourhood (Neukölln), with extremely low social indicators (poverty, unemployment, education etc.). Continue reading