EAUH Tagung

Morgen beginnt in Helsinki die Tagung der European Association for Urban History. Gemeinsam mit Laura Falender habe ich dort die Sektion M33 “At Home in the “Concrete Jungle”: Lived Experience and Reputation in Twentieth-century Mass Housing” organisiert. Es geht um die unterschiedliche Wahrnhemung und Bewertung des Lebens in Großsiedlungen, die von Außen oft als “soziale Brennpunkte” gebrandmarkt werden, von den Bewohnerinnen und Bewohnern dagegen meist deutlich positiver gesehen werden. Uns interessiert dabei die historische Genese dieses Widerspruchs in den 1970er Jahren, der bis heute wirksam ist.

Wir freuen uns auf insgesamt sieben spannende Präsentationen:

Monika Motylinska Technical University Berlin, Germany: A „Concrete Ghetto“ or a „Prime Example with Blemishes“? On Reputation of the Housing Estate Emmertsgrund in Germany

Mikkel Høghøj Aarhus University, Institute for Culture and Society, Denmark: Interpretating ‘welfare’ in mass housing in Aarhus in the 1950′s and onward

Peter Shapely Bangor University, United Kingdom: Conceptualizing the British Inner City, 1967-1979: The L8 Factor

Christiane Reinecke University of Leipzig, Germany: Emotional topographies in the making: Social Scientists in search of the lonely crowd in French and West German large-scale housing estates in the 1960s

Evert Vandeweghe Flanders Heritage Agency, Belgium: From “Little Russia” to “Planet of the Apes”: Nicknaming Twentieth-century Mass Housing in Belgium

James Alexander Greenhalgh University of Lincoln, United Kingdom: A Place for Community on the Estate: spatial contests over community centres on mid-twentieth century British housing estates

Giovanni Cristina EHESS/Centre de Recherches Historiques, France: The “Villaggio del Pilastro” between grassroots participation and marginalization: urban identities and representations in a mass-housing of postwar Bologna (1960-1991)

CfP: Lived Experience and Reputation in Twentieth-century Mass Housing (EAUH 2016)

We invite paper proposals for a session at the EAUH 2016: At Home in the “Concrete Jungle”: Lived Experience and Reputation in Twentieth-century Mass Housing (Session M33)

European Association for Urban History
13th International Conference on Urban History
Helsinki, 24-27 August 2016

Deadline: October 31, 2015

Session Organizers:
Laura Falender, University of Oslo, Norway
Sebastian Haumann, TU Darmstadt, Germany

In studies of twentieth-century mass housing estates and “new towns,” many scholars have examined the production end: the planning, design, and construction of new housing projects. Less attention has been given to the consumption side: the lived experience in new social and spatial housing environments, and ways in which these areas were interpreted and established (often negative) reputations. Indeed, a tension between the disparate accounts of the consumption side—the residents’ accounts of community-formation on the one hand, and outsiders’ condemnations of “concrete jungles” and “soulless suburbs” on the other—has been characteristic. In many ways, this tension has shaped life within and the policies concerning housing estates until today.
The purpose of this session is to initiate a comparative debate on the experiential and interpretative realm of mass housing in the twentieth century. We invite papers from any disciplinary background to consider this tension between experience and reputation. Questions that papers might consider include:
• Why did architects’ and politicians’ intentions for new mass housing not translate into broad public acceptance or enthusiasm?
• Which were the crucial historical junctures for the divergence of experience and reputation?
• What actors were involved in establishing a local “sense of place” in new housing developments, or in building negative reputations?
• How did insider- and outsider-produced narratives compare in terms of themes, reasoning and rhetoric?
• What consequences arose from tensions between lived experience and reputation?
While most of the questions appear to be relevant for all “Western” societies, hinting at major commonalities, answers will differ considerably. A great variation in terms of the nature of the state (e.g. liberal, social-democratic); the size, accessibility, and potential regulation of the private housing market; and the class context in which mechanisms of social sorting related to housing occurred, existed throughout Western Europe and North America. By reflecting on commonalities and differences we expect to clarify key factors and turning points in the contentious history of mass housing estates.

To submit a paper proposal, please create a user account on the conference management system https://eauh2016.net/programme/call-for-papers/ and upload your abstract (Max. 300 Words) to session M33. The deadline for paper proposals is October 31, 2015. We will inform you by December 15 about the acceptance of your proposal.

For further information on the EAUH conference, please visit the conference website at: https://eauh2016.net

EAUH 2014

Zurück von der Tagung der European Association for Urban History in Lissabon.

Highlight war für mich ein round table “Urban Agency”, organisiert von Bert de Munck und Simon Gunn. Diskutiert wurde ausgehend von der Frage, wie “Stadt” oder “das Urbane” stärker als eigenständiger Faktor in die Forschung einbezogen werden kann. Die Diskussion war theoretisch-methodisch angelegt, ausgehend von Bert de Muncks Plädoryer dafür, an die Actor-Network Theorie anzuknüpfen. Insgesamt hat dieser Vorschlag zwar wenig Widerhall gefunden, aber das Interesse an einer Neubestimmung stadtgeschichtlicher Forschungsansätze war dennoch nicht zu übersehen. Aus meiner Sicht steht dieser round table (gemeinsam mit dem ESF Expolatory Workshop, den wir im März in Darmstadt veranstaltet haben), am Anfang einer Debatte, die uns noch länger beschäftigen wird.

Die Sektion “The Urban Economy: Networks, Flows and Place”, in der ich mein eigenes Paper vorstellen durfte, hat ebenfalls zu spannenden Diskussionen geführt. Hier hat sich aus meiner Sicht bestätigt, dass es dringend nötig ist, die mittlerweile sehr kulturalistisch durchdrungene historische Forschung wieder stärker mit der Wirtschaftsgeschichte zu verknüpfen, die genau diesen methodischen “turn” nicht mitvollzogen hat. Dass diese Differenz den Austausch, bzw. die Einbeziehung einer Wirtschaftsgeschichte, die stark ökonomisch und quantifizierend argumentiert, schwierig – aber keineswegs unmöglich – macht, hat sich auch in dieser Sektion gezeigt.