UPP 583 Advanced Planning Theory (34099)
Office and Hours:
CUPPA 2234
Perry CUPPA 219
Wednesday 9:15-12:00
12:30-2:00 pm
Ph: 312-355-3926
dperry@uic.edu
COURSE DESCRIPTION
1. The first goal of the course is to study theoretical ideas and debates about planning.
Prerequisite(s): Consent of the instructor, for PhD. Students.
2. A prior course title was “Plan Theory” where one major object of study and/or a
professional product of the seminar was the PLAN. While this is a truly worthy and
clearly important outcome all of us in planning, a second title for the course and the
one I propose for you and I to consider this semester is Advanced Planning Theory
where the object of the seminar and/or our professional product is a bit less objectbased in the sense of a noun, like “plan,” and a bit more processal, even ‘gerundic’
(as in a gerund or a verb rather than a noun), as in the discursive-professional
making of urban space, place and/or institutions. We will be interested in a broad
range of spatial practices – from street level, ‘everyday,’ life to societal (i.e. largescale public and/or private) units of the urban—that comprise the objects of
directed social formation or change. One term describing the production of such
units of change is the deliberative directional activity of “planning.”
3. A second goal here is not to tell you what the theory of planning is, but have you
begin to evolve your own sense of planning. As a Ph.D student in urban planning
you will, most immediately, be writing a dissertation and, over the long run, most
likely you will be teaching and researching various topics of urban planning. This
course is meant to give you a purposive base and some of the information you will
need to accomplish both professional tasks.
A. On the one hand, in this course, you will be asked to develop an annotated
literature bibliography and a fifteen-eighteen page paper outlining your theory
of planning and how it sets the stage for your particular research into the
planning field. This is not unlike a literature chapter in your dissertation.
B. Second you will be asked to develop a ten-fifteen page syllabus, with annotated
lists of readings, for a course in planning theory which you would ultimately
want to teach.
4. In both cases, or assignments, this will need to be your own particular take on
theorizing the profession and the broader intellectual field of planning—whether
you are ultimately in community development, economic development, international
development, transportation, housing, physical design, or sustainable development
planning or some other urban planning/policy area.. Whatever your specialization, I
warrant that you will need, dare I say be required, to theorize your take on
planning. How will you do it? What are the issues you will address? How are these
issues realized? What approaches to public, private, institutional, or street-level
planning will you employ and why? These are simply some of the many questions
that should be at once theorized and, at a minimum, serve as the context for your
own particular planning “discourse,” activity and/or practice.
5. Each of the two assignments for the course will be informed by your
participation in the course. The assignments are due on the assignment date—no
late papers will be accepted and you will have to be in class in order to hand in the
assignment on the day it is due. I do not edit a paper for poor writing or bad
grammar. That is not my role—I am a urban planning instructor, not a
grammarian. However, I will grade down a poorly written work product. Each
paper grade will account for 40% of the final grade and class participation and
attendance will account for 20%.
4. Most seminar sessions will be broken into three parts:
5. a topical section directed by the instructor in essentially lecture format
B. a theoretical rejoinder and discussion by students, assessing the utility of the
readings and the theoretical approach of the session for their own
research and/or
C. the ways in which the readings and the theoretical approach could form the basis
of a teaching module later on in various students’ teaching careers.
5. All the required readings will be available electronically. You can buy books, as you find
them useful to your career development, at The Seminary Bookstore at the University of
Chicago or on Amazon. Several of the required readings are available via URLs, the Web,
or in the UIC Library.
COURSE OUTLINE
Weeks One and Two, January 16 and 23
(I) Introductions.
Discussion of your background and why you are here. What does your topic
area seem to be at the moment? Any thoughts on a research topic? Any
thoughts on areas of the literature in the syllabus that may seem to be
potential areas of interest to you. Why?
Are there areas of the syllabus that seem you would like to remove? That you
might like to add?
(II) The Urban -- North American and Global
!. George Martine. State of the World Population: Unleashing the Potential of
Urban Growth
Link to http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/presskit/pdf/sowp2007_eng.pdf Geo
Martine. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/presskit/pdf/sowp2007_eng.pdf
2. The World Watch Institute. State of the World: Our Urban Future (2007)
www.worldwatch.org/node/4752
3. Brookings Institution, (2009). Blueprint for American Prosperity:
Unleashing the Potential of a Metropolitan Nation.
Link to: Metropolicy report
(2008) http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/06_metropoli
cy/06_metropolicy_fullreport.pdf
Recommended:
4. David Clark (2003) Urban World/Global Cities. Routledge. Chapters 1-4.
5. Manuel Castells, “Space of Flows” 376-428. .
Assignment:
Literature Review—build your own reading list
Research – in class ______________________
Teaching – in class ______________________
Weeks Three and Four. January 30 and February 6
(I) Globalization and the City: Southern Theory, Informality and the Tin Shack
Connell, R. Southern Theory, Intro-68
Neuwirth, R. (2006). Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters , A New World. New
York
Davis, M. Planet of Slums, pp. 1-69
Smith, M., Transnational Urbanism, Locating Globalization , pp. 18-71
Wacquant, L. Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of
Advanced Marginality. Pp. 1-132
Negri, and Hardt, M Empire pp.84-121
(II) Space: A Physical and Social Product
Soja, E. Postmodern Geographies. Ch 1, 2, 3
LeFebvre, H.—The Production of Space, pp7-67
De Certeau, M---The Practice of Everyday Life, pp. 91-130
Castells, M. —Space of Flows in Legates and Stout, The City Reader
Bauman, Z. —Liquid Modernity, Chapters 1 and 3
Levinas, E.—Sean Hand—Levinas Reader, pp 1-75
Agamben G. Homo Sacer pp 1-25.
Mouffe, C. The Democratic Paradox, 1,2,4, and 5.
Assignment:
Each seminar attendee will provide the instructor with a paragraph-long (or more)
description of the research paper, including a thesis statement.
Literature Review—build your own reading list
Research – in class week(s) four and/or five
______________________ (3. 4. 5)
______________________
______________________
Teaching – in class week (s) four and/or five
______________________ (3. 4. 5.)
______________________
______________________
Weeks Five and Six. February 13 and February 20. Neo Liberalism, Urban Regimes and
Agonistic Cities
Harvey, D. A Brief History of Neo Liberalism, pp. 4-86.
Molotch, H. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy
of Place” Legates and Stout, The City Reader
Orfield, M. “Metropolitics” Legates and Stout, The City Reader
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. Cities: Reimagining the Urban pp. 105-159
Sandercock, L. Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities, Ch 1 and 4.
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing Space’, Antipode, 34(3): 380404
Stone, C. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, Chapters 1,2, and 3.
Judd, D. (2010). “Theorizing the City,” in Dennis Judd and Dick Simpson
(eds.) The City, Revisited: Critical Perspectives from Chicago, Los Angeles and
New York. University of Minnesota Press. Chapter 1.
Lauria ,M. ed Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban
Politics in a Global Economy, Ch 1, 2. and 6 and 12.
Mouffe, C. The Democratic Paradox, 1,2,4, and 5.
Assignment:
Literature Review—build your own reading list
Teaching – in class
______________________
______________________
Research – in class
______________________
______________________
Weeks Seven and Eight. February 27 and March 6 Neo Liberalism, Urban Regimes,
Agonistic Cities and Place
Assignment:
Literature Review—build your own reading list
Teaching -- in class week nine
Research – in class week nine
Assignment 1. (everyone) due session 7.
The course syllabus and discussion in a brief paper (10-15 pages) of your approach
and the content of your proposed course. Along with annotated lists of readings
Research 8.
______________________
Teaching 8.
______________________
Weeks Nine. March 13. Place-Based Urbanism, the Case of Urban Research Universities
and other Non-Market, “Anchor Institutions”
Perry, D and Wiewel, W. Universities as Urban Developers. Chapters 1,2,3,4, 13, 17
Perry, D and Wiewel, W Global Universities and Development. Chapters 1.2.5.6.10,
and 13
Rodin J. The University and Urban Revival. Prologue, 1,2.,3,4,9, and Conclusion
Mazany T. and Perry, D. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 and others as assigned.
Assignment:
Literature Review—build your own reading list
Research -- in class
______________________
Teaching -- in class
______________________
Week Ten. March 20. The Communicative Turn, Democratic Outcomes and Pragmatic
Planning.
Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the
Rationalization of Society, Chapters 1 and 2
.
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power . Chapters 1 and 2
Healey, P., 1995. ‘Discourses of Integration: Making Frameworks for Democratic
Urban Planning, “in Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S. and MadaniPour, A. (eds.), Managing Cities,The New Urban Context
Innes, Judith E. and Booher, David E. (2003) The Impact of Collaborative Planning on
Governance Capacity. Institute of Urban & Regional Development. IURD Working
Paper Series. Paper WP-2003-03. Available at
Link at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/iurd/wps/WP-2003-03
Or: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/98k72547
Assignment:
Literature Review—build your own reading list
Research – in class
______________________
Teaching – in class
______________________
Week Eleven, March 27, SPRING BREAK
Week Twelve. April 3. “The Just City:” Urban Political Economy, Equity Outcomes and
Social Planning
Fainstein, S. The Just City, Introduction and Chapter 1.
Marcuse, P. Searching for the Just City, Preface, Introduction, Chapter 1, 2, and 3,
Davidoff, P. . “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning” Legates and Stout, the City Reader.
Clavel, P. Activists in City Hall, Ch 1, 2, and 3.
Rast, J. Ch 1. 2. 5 and 6.
Lefebvre, H. Right to the City pp. 63-181
Assignment:
Literature Review—build your own reading list
Research – in class
______________________
Teaching – in class
______________________
Week Thirteen and Fourteen. April 10 and 17
Assignment:
Student Research Paper Reviews and Presentations will be set in a Panel Structure
with Panel Chair(s) and Discussant(s). Full Research papers expected the week
before to give other panelists, the panel chair and the formal discussant (s) an
opportunity to prepare introductions and discussion points.
Week Fifteen. April 24 Summary Theory: Research and Teaching
Instructor: Summary
Students: Discussion based of both essay assignments.
Assignment 2. (everyone):
A fifteen-eighteen page paper outlining your theory of planning and how it sets the
stage for your particular research into the planning field
SOURCES AND EXTRA READINGS: Advanced Planning Theory—A Research
Bibliography
Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford CA: Stanford
University Press.
Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Allen, J., Cars, G., and Ali, M. (eds.), 1998. Social Exclusion in European Cities: Processes,
Experiences and Responses, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Amin, A. and Thrift, N., 2002. Cities: Reimagining the Urban, Cambridge: Polity Press.
\.
Barnekov, T., Boyle, R., and Rich, D., 1989. Privatism and Urban Policy in Britain and the
United States, New York, Oxford University Press.
Bauman, Z. 1999. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z., 2001. Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Boal, F.W., 1996, Integration and Division: Sharing and Segregating in Belfast’, Planning
Practice and Research, 11 (2), pp 151-158
.
Bollens, S., 1998, ‘Urban Planning Amidst Ethnic Conflict: Jerusalem and Johannesburg’,
Urban Studies, April, V. 35, No 4, pp 729-50.
Bollens, S., 2000, On Narrow Ground: Urban Policy and Ethnic Conflict in Jerusalem and
Belfast, Albany. State University of New York Press.
Brand, R. and Gaffikin, F. 2007. Collaborative Planning in an Uncollaborative World,
Planning Theory, Vol. 6, No 3: 282-313.
Burdett, R. and Sudjic, D. (eds) (2008) The Endless City, London: Phaidon.
Caldeira, T. (2001) City of Walls: crime, segregation and citizenship in Sao Paulo, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Casey, E.S., 1993. Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place
World, Indianapolis. Indiana University Press.
Castells, M., 1997. The Power of Identity, Oxford, Blackwell.
Castles, S. and Miller, MJ., 1993. The Age of Migration: International Population
Movements in the Modern World, New York, The Guilford Press.
Chatterjee, P. (2002). “The Rights of the Governed,” Identity, Culture and Politics, Vol. 3,
Number 2, pp 51-72.
Cheshin, A., Hutman, B., and Melamed, A., 1999, Separate and Unequal, the Inside Story
of Israeli Rule in East Jerusalem, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
Clark, D. (2002). Urban World/Global City. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Connolly, W.E. (2002) Identity/Difference: democratic negotiations of political paradox,
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Craig, G., Derricourt, N. and Loney, M. (eds) (1982), Community Work and the State,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Davis, M. (2007). Planet of Slums. New York: Verso
Davis, M. (1991) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future of Los Angeles. New York: Verso.
Dear, M. and Flusty, S., 1999. ‘Postmodern Urbanism’, Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol.88, No.1, pp.50-72.
Dines,N. & Cattel, V. (2006) Public Spaces, Social Relations and Well Being in East London.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Dreier, P. (1996) Community Empowerment Strategies: the Limits and Potential of
Community Organizing in Urban Neighborhoods, Cityscape: a Journal of Policy
Development and Research, 2(2):121-159.
Dumper, M., 1997. The Politics of Jerusalem Since 1967, New York. Columbia University
Press.
Farr, Marcia (2006). Rancheros in Chicagoacán: Language and Identity in a Transnational
Community. Austin: University of Texas Press
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley & LA, California: University of
California Press.
Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning
Processes, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Gaffikin, F. and Morrissey, M. (eds.), 1999. City Visions, Imagining Place, Enfranchising
People, London, Pluto Press.
Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the
Rationalization of Society, Cambridge Mass, MIT Press.
Hackworth, J. (2007) The Neoliberal City: governance, ideology and development in American
urbanism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hague, C. & Jenkins, P. (2005) Place Identity, Participation and Planning. London:
Routledge
Harvey, D. 2003 The Right to the City in Divided Cities: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2003,
Scholar, R. (Ed), Oxford University Press, USA
Healey, P., 1995. Discourses of Integration: Making Frameworks for Democratic Urban
Planning, in Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S. and Madani-Pour, A. (eds.),
Managing Cities, The New Urban Context, Chichester, Wiley.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J., 1999. Global Transformations:
Politics, Economics and Culture, Cambridge, Polity.
Hillier, J., 1995. Deconstructing the Discourse of Planning, in Mandelbaum, S. and Mazza,
L. (eds.), Planning Theory in the 1990s, New Brunswick, New Jersey, CUPR Press.
Hoggett, P., 1992. A Place for Experience: a Psychoanalytical Perspective on Boundary,
Identity and Culture, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10, pp. 345-356.
Innes, Judith E. and Booher, David E. (2003) The Impact of Collaborative Planning on
Governance Capacity. Institute of Urban & Regional Development. IURD Working Paper
Series. Paper WP-2003-03. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/iurd/wps/WP-2003-03,
last access: April 20 2006.
Isin, E. (ed) (2000) Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City, London, Routledge.
Iveson, K. (2007) Publics and the City. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Judd, D. (2010). “Theorizing the City,” in Dennis Judd and Dick Simpson (eds.) The City,
Revisited: Critical Perspectives from Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. University of
Minnesota Press.
Judd, D. and D. Simpson (forthcoming). (eds.) The City, Revisited: Critical Perspectives from
Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. University of Minnesota Press.
Keating, D. (1997) The CDC Model of Urban Development, a Reply to Randy Stoecker,
Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1): 29-33.
Knox, P. and Agnew, J., 1998. The Geography of the World Economy, London, Arnold.
Krumholz, N. and Forester, J. (1990) Making Equity Planning Work: Leadership in the Public
Sector, Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Lefebvre, H.(translated by E. Kofman and E. Lebas) (1996). Writings on the City. New
York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lietner, H., J. Peck, E.S. Sheppard (eds) (2007). Contesting NeoLiberalism: Urban
Frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
.
Liggett, H. and Perry, D.C., (eds) 1995. Spatial Practices: Critical Explorations in
Social/Spatial Theory, London, Sage.
Lipsky, M .(1983). Street Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Publications.
Longworth R. Caught in the Middle
Maalouf, A., 2000. On Identity, London, Harvill Press
.
Marcuse, P., 1997. ‘The Enclave, the Citadel and the Ghetto: What Has Changed in the
Post-Fordist City?’ Urban Affairs Review, Vol., 33, No. 2, November, pp. 228-64.
Martine, G. (2008). Preparing for Massive Urban Growth: A Win/Win Approach
Massey, D. (2005) For Space. London: Sage Publications
Massey, D. and Zoltan, L., 1995. ‘The Changing Geographic Structures of Black-White
Segregation in the United States’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp 527-42.
Morrissey, M. and Gaffikin, F., 2003, The Engaged University, Unpublished Paper, Belfast,
University of Ulster, Queen’s University Belfast.
Ohmae, K., 1990. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy,
London, Collins.
Oldfield S. and K. Stokke (2007) “Political Polemics and Local Practices of Community
Organizing and NeoLiberal Polictics in South Africa,” in Lietner, H., J. Peck, E.S.
Sheppard (eds) Contesting NeoLiberalism: Urban Frontiers.. New York: Guilford Press.
Olds. K. (2001) Globalization and Urban Change. Capital, Culture and Pacific Rim
Megaprojects, Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
.Pattillo, M. (2007) Black on the Block. The Politics of Race and Class in the City, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing Space’, Antipode, 34(3): 380-404.
Perry D and P. Sornoff (1973). Politics at the Street Level: The Select. Case of Police
Administration and the Community. Beverly Hills Ca.: Sage Publications
Perry D. and W. Wiewel (2005). The University as Urban Developer: Case
Studies and Analysis. Armonk New York: M.D. Sharpe.
Petersen, R.D. (2002) Understanding ethnic violence: fear, hatred, and resentment in
twentieth century Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Popkin S. and M. K. Cunningham. (2005) “Beyond the Projects: Lessons form Public
Housing Transformation in Chicago,” X. de Souza Briggs (ed.) The Geography of
Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America. Washington
D.C.: Brookings Institution. pp. 176-196.
Popkin S.J., M.K. Cunningham and W.T. Woodley. (2003). “Residents at Risk: A Profile of
Ida B. Wells and Madden Park.” Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Purbrick, L. (2007). Introduction: sites, representations, histories in L. Pubrick,., J.
Aulich,. and G. Dawson, (eds) Contested Spaces: sites, representations and
histories of conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Romann, M. and Weingrod, A., 1991. Living Together Separately: Arabs and Jews in
Contemporary Jerusalem, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
Rouse, R. (1991). “Mexican Migration and the Social Space of
Postmodernism,” Diaspora, Vol. 1, No. 1, 8-23.
Roy, A. (2005). “Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning,” Journal
of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 2, Spring, 147-156.
Sampson, R. (1999) What ‘Community’ Supplies, in Ferguson, R. and Dickens, W. (eds)
Urban Problems and Community Development, Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Sack, J. (1986) Human Territoriality: its theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Sassen, S. (2007). Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages
Sassen, S., 1998. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: New Press.
Sassen, S. (ed) (2002) Global Networks: Linked Cities, London: Routledge.
Scott, A. (ed.), 1997. The Limits of Globalization. London and New York: Routledge.
Scott, J. C. Seeing Like a State
Smith, M.P., 2001. Transnational Urbanism, Locating Globalization, Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Seitz, V. (Fall 2000) A New Model: Participatory Planning for Sustainable Community
Development, Race, Poverty and the Environment, San Francisco: UN Habitat and UT
Community Participation Center, Knoxville: University of Tennessee, vii, (3), 8-11, and 38.
Simpson, D. and T. Kelly(forthcoming). “Studying 21st Century Cities Revisited,” in Dennis
Judd and Dick Simpson (eds.) The City, Revisited: Critical Perspectives from Chicago, Los
Angeles and New York. University of Minnesota Press.
Skrbis, Z. and Woodward, I. (2007) ‘The Ambivalence of Ordinary Cosmospolitanism:
investigating the limits of cosmopolitan openness’, The Sociological Review, 55 (4), 730-47.
Soja, E. (1971) The Political Organization of Space. Washington, DC: Association of
American
Geographers.
Soja, E. (2000) Postmetropolis, Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell
Soja, E., 1989. Postmodern Geographies, London and New York: Verso
Stoecker, R. (1997) The CDC Model of Urban Redevelopment: a Critique and an
Alternative, Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1):1-22.
Stone, C.N., 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Squires, G.D., (eds.). 1989. Unequal Partnerships: The Political Economy of Urban
Redevelopment in Post-war America, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press
Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger P. (2002) Conclusion in: Allmendinger, P. and
Tewdwr-Jones, M. (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions in Planning Theory. London:
Routledge, pp. 206-216.
UN-Habitat (2008 (a)) UN-Habitat Report 2007: United Nations Human Settlements
Programme: For a Better Future, Nairoba: UN-Habitat.
UN-Habitat (2008 (b)) State of the World’s Cities 2008/09: Harmonious Cities, Nairoba:
UN-Habitat.
Varshney, A., 2003. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India, Yale
University Press.
Vertovec, S. (1996) Multiculturalism, culturalism and public incorporation. Ethnic and
Racial Studies 19(1):49–69.
Watson, S. (2006) City Publics: The (dis)enchantments of urban encounters. London and New
York:Routledge.
Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of
Advanced Marginality. Malden MA: Polity Press.
Woodward, K. (ed.) 2000. Questioning Identity: Gender, Class, Nation: London,
Routledge/The Open University.
Yiftachel, O. (2006) Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Zukin, S. (1982). Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press,
Zukin, S., (1991). Landscapes of Power, Berkeley: University of California Press.