IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v61y2024i6p1031-1048.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In/formal reappropriations: Spatialised needs and desires in residential alleys in Melbourne, Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Miza Moreau

Abstract

This paper engages in critical debate with urban informality in interstitial urban spaces through the lens of micro-scalar spatial practices motivated by everyday needs and desires. The aim is to examine the generative potential of small-scale reappropriations to change the functions, meanings and governing policies of undervalued urban spaces. An empirical focus is taken on residential alleys in inner-city neighbourhoods of Melbourne, Australia. Remnants of 19th-century sanitation and drainage infrastructure, these alleys are now underdetermined spaces of manifold functions and meanings. Drawing from extensive fieldwork documentation and interviews, this study maps and interrogates the interplay of formal and informal spatial practices. Formal practices, driven by assertion of authority rather than vision for public space, operate like Bourdieu’s habitus . Informal practices, driven by everyday needs and desires, have a teleoaffective dimension that can modify the social field in which these dispositions are formed and thereby alter habitus .

Suggested Citation

  • Miza Moreau, 2024. "In/formal reappropriations: Spatialised needs and desires in residential alleys in Melbourne, Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(6), pages 1031-1048, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:61:y:2024:i:6:p:1031-1048
    DOI: 10.1177/00420980231195617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00420980231195617
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00420980231195617?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donovan Finn, 2014. "DIY urbanism: implications for cities," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 381-398, December.
    2. Miza Moreau, 2022. "From underdetermined to overdetermined space: public/private interfaces and activities in residential alleys," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 39-60, January.
    3. Armelle Tardiveau & Daniel Mallo, 2014. "Unpacking and Challenging Habitus: An Approach to Temporary Urbanism as a Socially Engaged Practice," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 456-472, August.
    4. Nicholas A Phelps & Cristian Silva, 2018. "Mind the gaps! A research agenda for urban interstices," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(6), pages 1203-1222, May.
    5. Kurt Iveson, 2013. "Cities within the City: Do-It-Yourself Urbanism and the Right to the City," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 941-956, May.
    6. Kim Dovey & Simon Wollan & Ian Woodcock, 2012. "Placing Graffiti: Creating and Contesting Character in Inner-city Melbourne," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 21-41.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Megan Heim LaFrombois, 2017. "Blind spots and pop-up spots: A feminist exploration into the discourses of do-it-yourself (DIY) urbanism," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(2), pages 421-436, February.
    2. Carvajal Bermúdez, Juan Carlos & König, Reinhard, 2021. "The role of technologies and citizen organizations in decentralized forms of participation. A case study about residential streets in Vienna," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Marco Cremaschi & Flavia Albanese & Maurizio Artero, 2020. "Migrants and Refugees: Bottom-Up and DIY Spaces in Italy," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 189-199.
    4. Robin A. Chang, 2021. "How Do Scholars Communicate the ‘Temporary Turn’ in Urban Studies? A Socio-Semiotic Framework," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 133-145.
    5. Stefano Bloch, 2015. "Book review: Street Art, Public City: Law, Crime and the Urban Imagination," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(13), pages 2500-2503, October.
    6. Stefano Bloch, 2016. "Why do Graffiti Writers Write on Murals? The Birth, Life, and Slow Death of Freeway Murals in Los Angeles," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 451-471, March.
    7. Jay Mitra & Mariusz Sokolowicz & Ursula Weisenfeld & Agnieszka Kurczewska & Silke Tegtmeier, 2020. "Citizen Entrepreneurship: A Conceptual Picture of the Inclusion, Integration and Engagement of Citizens in the Entrepreneurial Process," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 6(2), pages 242-260, July.
    8. Gornik, Markus, 2020. "Smart governance: Kashiwa-no-ha smart city in Japan as a model for future urban development?," Wuppertaler Studienarbeiten zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, volume 22, number 22.
    9. Hanna Hilbrandt, 2019. "Everyday urbanism and the everyday state: Negotiating habitat in allotment gardens in Berlin," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(2), pages 352-367, February.
    10. Catalina Ortiz, 2024. "Writing the Latin American city: Trajectories of urban scholarship," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(3), pages 399-425, February.
    11. Federico Savini, 2016. "Self-Organization and Urban Development: Disaggregating the City-Region, Deconstructing Urbanity in Amsterdam," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1152-1169, November.
    12. Rory Crath, 2017. "Governing youth as an aesthetic and spatial practice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(5), pages 1263-1279, April.
    13. Claire E Bach & Nathan McClintock, 2021. "Reclaiming the city one plot at a time? DIY garden projects, radical democracy, and the politics of spatial appropriation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(5), pages 859-878, August.
    14. Khandakar Farid Uddin & Awais Piracha, 2023. "Neoliberalism, Power, and Right to the City and the Urban Divide in Sydney, Australia," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Colleen Hammelman & Elizabeth Shoffner & Maria Cruzat & Samantha Lee, 2022. "Assembling agroecological socio-natures: a political ecology analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture in Rosario, Argentina," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 371-383, March.
    16. Peter Aning Tedong & Jill L. Grant & Wan Nor Azriyati Wan Abd Aziz, 2015. "Governing Enclosure: The Role of Governance in Producing Gated Communities and Guarded Neighborhoods in Malaysia," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 112-128, January.
    17. Gaetano Bertino & Tatjana Fischer & Gustav Puhr & Guenter Langergraber & Doris Österreicher, 2019. "Framework Conditions and Strategies for Pop-Up Environments in Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-30, December.
    18. Qiu, Yixin & Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Arndt, Félix & Ng, Wilson, 2023. "Microfoundations and dynamics of do-it-yourself ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    19. Darja Reuschke & Carol Ekinsmyth, 2021. "New spatialities of work in the city," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(11), pages 2177-2187, August.
    20. Shiran Geng & Hing-Wah Chau & Elmira Jamei & Zora Vrcelj, 2022. "Understanding the Street Layout of Melbourne’s Chinatown as an Urban Heritage Precinct in a Grid System Using Space Syntax Methods and Field Observation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-24, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:61:y:2024:i:6:p:1031-1048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.