The 4th East Asian Inclusive City Network Workshop

The 4th East Asian Inclusive City Network Workshop
第4屆 東亞包容城市網絡工作坊
第4回 東アジア包摂型都市ネットワークワークショップ
제4회 동아시아 포섭도시 네트워크 워크숍

2015 / 1 / 6-9
Hong Kong

Organised by:
Hong Kong Sub-center, Urban Research Plaza, Osaka City University

Co-sponsored by:
Department of Geography, HKBU
Hong Kong Research Grants Council (HKBU250012)
Dr. Lee Shau Kee Donation Scheme (P05)
Hong Kong Critical Geography Group

繼續閱讀

廣告

「利東街重建:論在「囍匯」二期發售時」公眾研討會

近日,當二手房地產市場仍然死寂、 乏人問津,一手市場卻火熱得「丁財兩旺」。當中的一個新樓盤「囍匯」二期,其呎價在發售後已節節攀升、其中的一個海景戶實呎價達近二萬八千元。價格之高,令人瞠目結舌;對一般平民百姓來說,只能望門興嘆!

「囍匯」二期所在地,前身就是我們耳熟能詳的利東街。如今利東街已被殺街,人物全非。回想昔日,市建局及發展局的花言巧語,到底是真是假?灣仔區是否因「囍匯」二期的出現而變得更美好?被迫遷的灣仔居民是否更加安居樂業?「囍匯」二期的發售價格,與清拆居民所獲得的賠償之間比例是否合理?如不合理,是否應償還給被迫遷的灣仔居民?若無償還,社會公義何在?種種問題,尚有待討論。

當年,利東街重建項目,灣仔居民群起抗爭,組成H15關注組,啟動了「人民規劃」,編製船街方案以及「啞鈴方案」,後者更上訴城市規劃委員會;這條以技術為主的抗爭道路有否創出成果?香港的城市規劃有否因這些抗爭而臻於至善?當年灣仔區議會在抗爭過程,起了推波助攔的作用。其後,區議會變天,而政府也提出一個區議會體制外的市區更新地區諮詢平台──這個在政府看來一石二鳥的政策,可否回應「人民規劃」及「區民當家作主」的要求?抗爭中亦提出「社區網絡」的「文化重建」構想,又強調「樓換樓」、「舖換舖」等解決辦法,對日後的抗爭運動有何影響?又有否成效?適逢「囍匯」二期開始發售,H15事件又踏入十年,亦是就這些問題作檢討之時。

為梳理以上種種問題,香港批判地理學會特意舉辦了名為「利東街重建:論在「囍匯」二期發售時」的公眾研討會,試圖從1) 規劃管理2) 地區政治3) 房屋問題4) 社會抗爭四大範疇,又從運動直接推動者社會大眾的兩個角度,切入討論利東街重建議題。主講者包括有H15關注組、黃英琦女士(灣仔區議會前主席)、杜立基先生(社區規劃師) 、葉蔭聰博士(嶺南大學文化研究學系)與郭恩慈博士(香港理工大學設計學院)(市建局沒有接受邀請,派代表出席)。藉著多角度對利東街重建的討論,從而深化公眾對當下香港的市區重建問題的認知。

活動詳情:

日期:二零一四年一月四日 (星期六)
時間:上午十時正至下午一時
地點:香港浸會大學善衡校園溫仁才大樓東翼10樓1017室 (OEE1017)

活動流程:

10:00 – 10:10                          開場白

第一節:運動直接推動者的回顧與反思

10:10 – 10:30                          H15關注組
10:30 – 10:50                          杜立基先生(社區規劃師)
10:50 – 11:10                          黃英琦女士(灣仔區議會前主席)

11:10 – 11:20                           小休

第二節:社會大眾的詰問 -學者的進言

11:20 – 11:40                           葉蔭聰博士(嶺南大學文化研究學系)
11:40 – 12:00                          郭恩慈博士(香港理工大學設計學院)

12:00 – 13:00                          公開討論

 

Image

Image

Workshop on Social Justice and the City

Image

The HKCGG is a co-sponsor to the workshop on Social Justice and the City, 2013.

本會贊助和參與的會議。
今年是David Harvey寫下《Social Justice and the City》這本開啟馬派地理學分析鉅著的40周年。歡迎有興趣參加者一同出席討論。
日期:2013年12月4-6日
地點:香港浸會大學AAB1312室

詳情可前往會議網站查詢 For Details, please check the official webpage of this workshop
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Social-justice-and-the-city/338464736293999

會議簡介如下 Here below is an introduction speech for this inspiring workshop.

Since the publication of David Harvey’s seminal work Social Justice and the City in 1973, discussion about social justice has grown into a burgeoning literature. There has been research to query procedural justice in various forms and for different classes. Research has also been carried out to operationalise the more philosophical debates about justice, with Henri Lefebvre’s concept of the right to the city being the prominent case in point. Finally, there is a growing literature addressing the interrogation of social justice from the spatial perspective such as Mustafa Dikeç’s spatial dialectics of injustice. All these discussions are so relevant to the society, as the recent “Occupying Movements” around the world have testified and as Harvey’s latest book Rebel Cities has elaborated. It is timely to encourage more serious debates about social justice. Why have the rich become richer and the poor poorer? How comes the city setting aggravate the already worse working and living conditions of the grassroots and deprive the old of the basic safety net? We would be interested in discussion that builds on the stock of the research and proposes possible avenues for improvement. In particular, we encourage scholars from the subaltern, post-colonial, de-colonial and cognate fields (including the China New Left) to contribute to this debate.

The latter intervention is especially worthwhile, given that cities in the non-West have been growing by leaps and bounces since the 1970s. Until recently, however, studies have been biased towards uni-directional, global restructuring. Many devoted themselves to discuss the extent to which, say, Shanghai and Seoul, have caught up with New York, London and Tokyo as a world city. If there was any discussion on social justice and inequality, attention was paid to the possible social exclusion under social polarisation. Though insightful they may be, these studies cannot tackle the root causes of social justice in cities in this region, as concepts and theories invoked are usually formulated from an alienated socio-historical setting.

Let us take as an example East Asia, which has adopted a distinguishable development path. To say the least, East Asia formulated an economic system before capitalism. Since then, there have been many twists and turns during the integration with capitalism. These developments have imprints on urban social justice. Besides, as seen from the rapid urbanisation process since the 1970s, East Asian cities, with the possible exception of some Japanese, have adopted an approach that favours higher-density development, something unheard of during the similar stage of urbanisation in the West. How does high-density development intertwine with the less capitalist market-type economy and society to produce and reproduce social injustice in everyday life is an imminent agenda for research.

In short, we strongly encourage papers from the world, including all developing and socialist countries. These papers would contribute to our better understanding of social justice and the city.

HKCGG Seminar: 新自由主義都市危機在香港-過時的策略選擇與危機管理的危機

CGG_藍逸之

本會邀請到國立臺北大學 不動產與城鄉環境學系的藍逸之博士來港演講,講題為《新自由主義 都市危機在香港 -過時的策略選擇 與危機管理的危機》,詳情如下:

日期:2013年11月2日
時間:15:00-17:00
地點:香港浸會大學 AAB 504室

如有查詢,請電郵至 mail@hkcgg.net 或致電 6232-2580 (李子立)

講題簡介:

對於回歸後香港特區政府的都市治理失靈,近年已有許多文獻作出討論。然而,相對既有文獻立場,空間策略選擇機制也可提供一個替選視角,探討1997回歸後香港都市治理受社會各界批評的治理亂象–尤其是新自由化都市危機,及港府充作危機管理 模式的城市規劃體制及鉅型計畫項目。重新回顧殖民時期的「積極不干預主義」, 可發現此一政府態度並非自由經濟學者讚揚的自由放任措施,而是權衡戰後特殊 情勢,為了平衡英系金融、商貿及華系工業積累體制,港府選擇性干預的社會調節 模式。特殊的經濟治理手段得以在政府的選擇性政略下取得正當性,鞏固1990年代 的全球城市位置,在一國兩制原則下各界視為穩固昔日成就的城邦空間策略。

然而,回歸後香港版新自由主義遭遇內、外部空間尺度上多變的地緣政經動態,昔日的調節途徑已無法充分回應新興多重尺度的地理現狀。觀察近年香港空間發展爭議 可發現,一國兩制原則謹守的積極不干預主義雖已日漸轉型,但是並未鬆動企業型 治理下的親商姿態。規劃體制及鉅型計畫項目持續既有空間策略選擇途徑,造成港府在新自由化都市危機中無法充分發揮危機管理效能,惡化成「危機管理的危機」。

*是次講座以國語進行