Abstract
Two important themes in the understanding of urban progressive development are discussed. The first is the discussion of a grassroots form of neighborhood collective action as an important element of the progressive city. Second is an evaluation of the relationship between protest and progress. These two themes are brought together in discussing the contrasting neighborhood cases of Tangbu in Taipei and Mahakan in Bangkok. These cases show how a national context of the democratization of politics is important in making city governments responsive to local demands. This local government responsiveness in turn creates mechanisms and policy tools which enable aspirations to be met at neighborhoods and local areas. In summary, the progressive city can be established with strong democracy movements at the national level, with the movement of reformist/progressive individuals entering into local government through the popular vote, the creation of institutional features which allow for local community participation, and the creation of alternative discourses of social value which challenge a market-driven and big business approach to urban development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
30 January 2015 interview with Professor Tai Po Fen, a planner by training who teaches at Furen University sociology department and who also stays in the Tangpu.
- 2.
Interviewed 16 November 2010.
- 3.
Interviewed 12 March 2015.
- 4.
See, http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/bangkok/2017/03/15/harvard-anthropologist-defends-pom-mahakan-community/. Accessed 25 May 2017.
- 5.
Interview conducted on 19 March 2014.
References
Abers, R. (1998). From clientelism to cooperation: Local government, participatory policy, and civic organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Politics and Society, 26(4), 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329298026004004.
Aruninta, A. (2009, September 1–4). Rehabilitative landscape in the old communities in Bangkok, Thailand. Paper presented at the 2009 Incheon IFLA APR Congress, Incheon Korea. http://www.academia.edu/221468/Rehabilitative_Landscape_in_the_Old_Communities_in_Bangkok_Thailand. Accessed 20 Nov 2016.
Bowornwathana, B. (2006). Autonomisation of the Thai state: Some observations. Public Administration and Development, 26(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.368.
Bristol, G. (2010). Rendered Invisible: urban planning, cultural heritage and human rights. In M. Langfield, W. Logan, & M. N. Craith (Eds.), Cultural diversity, heritage and human rights: Intersections in theory and practice (pp. 117–134). London: Routledge.
Castells, M. (1983). The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chaplin, S. E. (2011). Indian cities, sanitation and the state: The politics of the failure to provide. Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247810396277.
Chaskin, R. J., & Garg, S. (1997). The issue of governance in neighbourhood-based initiatives. Urban Affairs Review, 32(5), 631–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808749703200502.
Chew, H. H. (1985). Some observations on coalition politics in Penang. Modern Asian Studies, 19(1), 125–146 http://www.jstor.org/stable/312323.
Cho, M, & Douglass, M. (2014). Toward a research framework for Progressive Cities- The Seoul experience. Symposium Paper. http://kicsd.re.kr/bbs/data/eng_data11/Seoul_Paris_MD_MC_final2.pdf
Chuang, Y. C. (2005). Place, identity and social movements: Shequ and neighborhood organizing in Taipei city. Positions, 13(2), 379–410 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/186806.
Clavel, P., Pitt, J., & Yin, J. (1997). The community option in Urban Policy. Urban Affairs Review, 32(4), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808749703200401.
Croissant, A., & Chambers, P. (2010). Unravelling Intra-Party democracy in Thailand. Asian Journal of Political Science, 18(2), 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2010.492990.
Eckstein, S. (1990). Poor people versus the state and capital: Anatomy of a successful community mobilization for housing in Mexico City. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 14(2), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1990.tb00672.x.
Fée, D. (2018, this volume). Housing policy in London: The making of a progressive city? Symposium Paper on the rise of progressive cities East and West, Paris Sorbonne University, May 11–12.
Friedmann, J. (2000). The good city: In defense of utopian thinking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00258.
Gilbert, J. (2010). Custodians of the land: Indigeneous people, human rights and cultural integrity. In M. Langfield, W. Logan, & M. N. Craith (Eds.), Cultural diversity, heritage and human rights: Intersections in theory and practice (pp. 31–44). London: Routledge.
Herzfeld, M. (2006). Spatial cleansing monumental vacuity and the Idea of the West. Journal of Material Culture, 11(1-2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183506063016.
Huang, L. L. (2005). Urban politics and spatial development: The emergence of participatory planning in Taipei. In R. Y. W. Kwok (Ed.), Globalizing Taipei: Political economy of spatial development (pp. 78–98). London: Routledge.
Hutchinson, F. E. (2008). Developmental states and economic growth at the sub-national level: The case of Penang. Southeast Asian Affairs, 223–244 http://www.jstor.org/stable/27913361.
Lu, H. Y. (2002). The politics of locality: Making a nation of communities in Taiwan. New York: Routledge.
Mayer, M. (2006). Manuel Castells’ the city and the grassroots. International Journal of Urban and Research, 30(1), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00652.x.
McFarlane, C. (2011). The city as a machine for learning. Transactions of British Geographers, 36(3), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00430.x.
Ng, M. K. (2015). Knowledge and power in regenerating lived space in Treasure Hill Taipei: 1960s to 2010: From squatter settlement to co-living artist village. Planning Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2014.934711.
Padawangi, R. (2018, this volume). Constructing progressiveness: The complexity of progressive cities in Surakarta and Surabaya. Symposium Paper on the rise of progressive cities East and West, Paris Sorbonne University, May 11–12.
Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Poocharoen, O., & Bowornwathana, B. (2010). Bureaucratic politics and administrative reforms: Why politics matter. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 10(4), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0129-0.
Savitch, H. V., & Kantor, P. (1995). City business: An international perspective on marketplace politics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19(4), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1995.tb00525.x.
Sirisrisak, T. (2009). Conservation of Bangkok Old Town. Habitat International 33(4), 405–411.
Tan, H. J., & Waley, P. (2006). Planning through procrastination: The preservation of Taipei’s cultural heritage. Town Planning Review, 77(5), 531–555 http://www.jstor.org/stable/41229024.
Troy, P. (2000). Urban planning in the late twentieth century. In S. Watson & G. Bridge (Eds.), A Companion to the City (pp. 543–552). London: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ho, K.C. (2019). Cities of Protest and Cities of Progress. In: Douglass, M., Garbaye, R., Ho, K. (eds) The Rise of Progressive Cities East and West. ARI - Springer Asia Series, vol 6. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0209-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0209-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0208-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0209-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)