Experimenting with experimental urbanism: navigating between neoliberal fix and urban glitch

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model of a strategic process (Hay 2002, 131).

Figure 2. Map illustrating the extension of SMASH’s original project area (Illustration: Luca Braun).

Table 1. Summary of the project’s developments, including turning points and the role of glitches in the SMASH project.

Action by RCE	(1) Proposal writing	(2) Replacing “collaborative” with “solidarity economy”	(3) Struggle for noncommercial platform	(4) Enlargement of project area	(5) Key activities in new project area
Carrier of selectivities	ACEFl	ACEF	Software partner	socio-spatial relations	socio-spatial relations
Selectivities	discursive, agential	Discursive	Technological, agential	agential	agential
Cause for glitch	possibly administrative problems of original lead	Debate about “solidarity economies” within project team	Dual role of partner as software and project area developer	pandemic; delay in construction of new neighborhood	lack of coordination, regulation, political will
Glitch	original project lead retreated	Shifting project’s central terms	Confrontation of RCE with urban developer’s objectives	new/larger project area	lack of communal space in original project area
Strategy	reframing proposal	Integrating non-capitalist economies	Networking with local civil society organizations; stressing the call’s objective to exclude software form funding	integrating non-capitalist actors from existing neighborhood	finding alternatives (both in terms of space and partners)
Strategic outcome	scope for focus on non-capitalist economies	Focus on non-capitalist economies	RCE’s role strengthened; solidarity economy accepted as objective	less influence of urban developers	less influence of urban developers
Action by ACEF	positive evaluation of interim report, strengthening of RCE’s role and its approach, subsequent ACEF call for solidarity economy project submissions

Hay, C. 2002. Political Analysis. London: Red Globe Press.

 Google Scholar