[Kaupunkitutkimus] 3rd CfP (extended deadline: Dec 16) | SOCIALIST AND POST-SOCIALIST URBANIZATIONS, ARCHITECTURE, LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS | Tallinn, May 8-11, 2014

[Maros Krivy]

Dear friends, colleagues,

the deadline of the call for papers for the Urban and Landscape Days
11 conference "SOCIALIST AND POST-SOCIALIST URBANIZATIONS,
ARCHITECTURE, LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS" has been extended to December
16 and submissions are still welcome. Please see the details below.

Our keynote speakers include:
- LUKASZ STANEK (Manchester Architecture Research Centre, University
of Manchester)
- STEFAN RETTICH (KARO Architects, Leipzig)
- ANNE HAILA (University of Helsinki).

LUKASZ STANEK is currently based at the Manchester Architecture
Research Centre. His previous teaching positions include ETH Zurich,
Berlage Institute and Harvard GSD. Lukasz is studying the export of
architecture and urbanism from European socialist countries to Africa,
Asia, and the Middle East during the Cold War and the ways in which
these export practices shaped the emergence of postmodernism in
architecture. He is author of the seminal reinterpretation of the work
of Henri Lefebvre (Henri Lefebvre on Space: Architecture, Urban
Research, and the Production of Theory, 2011) and editor of the
forthcoming, previously unpublished, Vers une architecture de la
jouissance (written by Lefebvre in 1973).

STEFAN RETTICH is architect in Leipzig and Hamburg and partner of
KARO* architects. He has taught at the Bauhaus Kolleg in Dessau from
2007-2011 and is since then Professor for theory and design at the
School of Architecture Bremen. With KARO* he was invited to various
exhibitions, e.g. the XI. and the XII. architecture biennale in Venice
and has been awarded with the European Price for Urban Public Space in
2010, the Brit Insurance Design Award in 2011 and was shortlisted for
the Mies van der Rohe Award in 2011. KARO* Architects are well known
for their Open Air Library in Magdeburg (2009), for which they were
awarded the Hannes Mayer Prize in 2012.

ANNE HAILA is Professor of Urban Studies at the University of
Helsinki, Finland. She teaches urban studies, urban theory,
comparative urban research and urban development. In recent years she
has focussed on property rights, property markets and the role of
state intervention in regulating property market. Cases of her
research have been particularly Singapore (where she taught urban
economics for two years at the National University of Singapore),
Finland, China and Hong Kong. Her publications include 'The market as
the new emperor' (IJURR, 2007) and two now-classical papers 'Land as a
financial asset' (Antipode, 1988) and 'Four types of investment in
land and property' (IJURR, 1991).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -


SOCIALIST AND POST-SOCIALIST URBANIZATIONS: ARCHITECTURE, LAND AND
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Urban and Landscape Days XI
May 8-11, 2014
Tallinn, Estonia

Call for papers (deadline: Dec 16, 2013)

Although most European cities both in the 'East' and in the 'West'
grew rapidly in the post-war decades, the important questions
regarding the difference between urbanization under the two
conflicting political regimes has never been deeply analysed and
resolved in the urban studies. Thus, the post-1989 success and current
renaissance of the notion of 'post-socialism' seems surprising. At the
same time, however, the number of critical voices has been growing.
Still, can we seriously talk about post-socialism, lacking not only a
fully developed definition and understanding of ‘post-socialist city’
but also what is 'the socialist city'?

The missing or poor definition of ‘socialism’ is one of the key
weaknesses of the concept of post-socialism. Socialism comes into the
question of post-socialism in different ways: What are the 'socialist'
origins of 'post-socialist' practices? What importance did the
imagined return to 'pre-socialist' capitalism play in building the
'post-socialist' capitalism? Is negation of socialism (the
'anti-socialism') an important aspect of post-socialism? Whereas
socialism could be seen both as a political idea and as an actual
historical experience, post-socialism appears to be a societal
condition only that is, furthermore, primarily restricted to a region
of former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The existence of different socialisms—such as Soviet, Czechoslovakian,
Yugoslavian, Chinese and Vietnamese— however, problematizes the
regional bias of the term post-socialism. Would it be possible to talk
about the common 'post-socialist' experience facing such different
historical and geographical contexts? Would China be comprehensible as
post-socialist similarly as Hungary or Estonia? Does it need
downplaying historical and cultural particularities of China (but of
course other contexts as well) that unquestionably are present? Would
property regimes or ‘urban villages’ in China be comprehensible from
the perspective of Eastern Europe?

In this context, we wish to initiate a fresh debate regarding the
future of (the concepts of) socialism and post-socialism through
engagements with different geographical contexts such as Eastern
Europe, Asia, South America, and elsewhere. We would like to engage
‘post-socialism’ with ongoing debates of comparative urbanism but also
seek ways to re-develop and conceptualise ‘socialism’ and
‘post-socialism’ themselves.

The conference aims to explore histories and geographies of socialism
and post-socialism in relation to three themes: 1) architecture and
urban planning, 2) land use and landscape, and 3) property rights.

1) ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING: Many seeds of today's
architectural and planning thinking have been planted in the socialist
period. Historically, modernism and socialism developed hand in hand.
Yet the roots of “post-socialist post-modernism”, to take one example,
can be traced back to 1980s, if not earlier. This raises the questions
about the relation between the architectural dissent under socialism
and post-socialist architecture mainstream. In some instances, the
value of buildings and urban plans from socialist period is being
rediscovered today. Which aspects of socialist urban planning and
architecture persist and what is to be learned from (which?) discarded
ideas of socialist urban planning?

2) LAND USE AND LANDSCAPE: Suburbanization and rediscovery of historic
city centres: these processes are portrayed as almost 'natural' to
East European post-socialist experience. Yet, is it so simple? A
similar enquiry about the socialist roots of these processes could be
made. Individual construction of family houses was allowed, if not
encouraged, in many countries during socialist periods. Similar
questions emerge in relation to historical cores whereby the notion of
heritage and the idea of international image-making clearly existed
during the socialist period. Could we draw parallels between socialism
and what happens today? What are the origins of today's prominence
that we assign to urban leisure function, of the idea that cities
should be beautiful and enjoyable, of our sense for 'landscaping' of
urban space? Furthermore, looking at landscapes raises questions of
different modes of production and ways of representations. What are
the relations between socialist ideas and landscapes? How
post-socialism manifests itself in various aspects of land use and
landscape?

3) PROPERTY RIGHTS: The transfer from state ownership to private
ownership (privatizations, special economic zones) is a well-known
account of the post-socialist transformation. However, can we observe
counter-tendencies (social, political, legal) at play: that is, from
private to state, public, or common? Can one note only neo-liberal
privatisation or also alternative forms of collective and public
property? Has state withdrawn from property market or found different
roles in regulating and practising it? Although new generation of
activism has appeared on the horizon, the privatism is challenged
predominantly at the level of use, access and life-style. The value of
community and public spaces is accepted by wide array of actors, but
the more controversial issue of ownership and property rights is often
left untouched. Perhaps the value of ‘private property’ is widely
accepted and the critique is not only difficult to make but also
counter-intuitive. We welcome critical empirical and theoretical
engagements that reflect on the different forms of property—ranging
from private to variously organised common, collective and public
ownership—and the notion of post-socialism.

We welcome theoretically informed presentations and case studies from
a variety of fields including urban studies, architecture, landscape
studies, art history, sociology, anthropology, organizational studies
and urban economics. Historically oriented presentations are welcome
and authors are encouraged to highlight historical connections between
the past, the present, and the future: unexpected genealogies,
continuities and rediscoveries of ideas, forms and practices. We
welcome oral and poster presentation of urban and architectural
projects, artistic research and research through design that work with
the questions above. We also encourage other non-standard forms of
presentation.

Please send your abstract (300 words) and short bio (60 words) by Dec
16, 2013 to uld at artun.ee.

The conference is organized by the Faculty of Architecture, Estonian
Academy of Arts. It is the eleventh installment of the now-traditional
Urban and Landscape Days.

Please find more info on www.artun.ee/uld or contact us at uld at artun.ee.