![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Crossovers seldom occur in academic research on social tolerance and post-war urban reconstruction. Social scientists often call for a deeper analysis of the impact of spatial context on intergroup tolerance thresholds, but repairing social relations alongside damaged buildings is rarely the focus of post-disaster resilience design. This article bridges these two areas of study by proposing a pioneering regeneration model, that is, a “symbiotic model” for choosing the most socially and environmentally sustainable approach for site-specific post-conflict city regeneration. More precisely, it demonstrates that the concepts of commensalism, mutualism and parasitism, taken from biology, clearly define the spectrum of the relationships between the existing city tissue and new intervention in post-conflict city regeneration. It is argued that this model (re)builds places of social and political tolerance through (1) the meaningful interaction between social groups; (2) sustainable environmental and economic development; and (3) stratification of symbolic readings in the spatial, collective memorialization of conflict.
ORCID
Notes
Notes
1 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Making Better Use of the Existing House Stock: A Literature Review (Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1982).
2 Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning (CEMAT), Glossary of Key Expressions Used in Spatial Development Policies in Europe (Lisbon: Council of Europe, 2006), 22.
3 Mose Ricci, “New Paradigms: Reducing Reusing Recycling the City (and the Landscapes),” in Re-Cycle: Strategies for Architecture, City and Planet, ed. Ciorra Pippo and Sara Marini (Milan: Electa, 2012), 64–77.
4 Milan Šijaković and Ana Perić, “Symbiotic Architecture: Redefinition of Recycling Design Principles,” Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7, no. 1 (2018): 166–173.
5 Andrea Colantonio and Tim Dixon, Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability: Best Practice (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).
6 Michael Stratton, Industrial Buildings: Conservation and Regeneration (London: E & FN Spon, 2000), 18.
7 Peter Roberts, “The Evolution, Definition and Purpose of Urban Regeneration,” in Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, ed. Peter Roberts and Hugh Skyes (London: Sage, 2000), 9–36; Catalina Turcu, “Local Experiences of Urban Sustainability: Researching Housing Market Renewal Intervention in Three English Neighbourhoods,” Progress in Planning, 78, no. 3 (2012): 101–150.
8 Darinka Czischke, Conor Moloney and Turcu Catalina, eds., Sustainable Regeneration in Urban Areas (St. Denis: URBACT, 2014).
9 Paola Viganò, “Recycling Cities,” in Re-cycle: Strategies for Architecture, City and Planet, ed. Ciorra Pippo and Sara Marini (Milan: Electa, 2012), 106.
10 Brian Edwards, Rough Guide to Sustainability (London: RIBA Enterprises, 2005).
11 Thomas Wilson, “Urbanism and Tolerance: A Test of Some Hypotheses Drawn from Wirth and Stouffer,” American Sociological Review, 50, no. 1 (1985): 117–123.
12 Jon Bannister and Ade Kearns, “The Function and Foundations of Urban Tolerance: Encountering and Engaging with Difference in the City,” Urban Studies, 50, no. 13 (2013): 2700.
13 Louis Wirth, “Urbanism as a Way of Life,” American Journal of Sociology, no. 1 (1938): 1–24.
14 Bogdan Bogdanović, Tri Ratne Knjige (Novi Sad: Mediterran, 2008); Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961).
15 Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, “Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence,” in On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport, ed. John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick and Laurie A. Rudman (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005): 262–277. Cited in Bannister and Kearns, “Function and Foundations of Urban Tolerance,” 2712.
16 Bannister and Kearns, “Function and Foundations of Urban Tolerance,” 2712.
17 Ibid., 2704.
18 Marc Hutchison and Douglas Gibler, “Political Tolerance and Territorial Threat: A Cross-National Study,” Journal of Politics, 69, no. 1 (2007): 128; Jon Dixon, “Contact and Boundaries: ‘Locating’ the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.” Theory & Psychology, 11, no. 5 (2001): 587–608.
19 Andrew Herscher, “Warchitectural Theory,” Journal of Architectural Education, 62, no. 1 (2008): 35–43.
20 Bannister and Kearns, “Function and Foundations of Urban Tolerance,” 2701.
21 Pnina Werbner, “The Dialectics of Urban Cosmopolitanism: between Tolerance and Intolerance in Cities of Strangers,” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 22, no. 5 (2015): 584.
22 Ibid., 583. One positive example from history that immediately comes to mind are “Youth Labor Actions” in Yugoslavia after the second world war. See, Srećko Mihailović, Omladinske radne akcije: rezultati socioloških istraživanja (Beograd: Istraživačko-izdavački centar SSO Srbije, 1985).
23 William N. Adger, “Social and Ecological Resilience: Are they Related?,” Progress in Human Geography, 24, no. 3 (2000): 347.
24 Lorenzo Chelleri, “From the ‘Resilient City’ to Urban Resilience. A Review Essay on Understanding and Integrating the Resilience Perspective for Urban Systems,” Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 58, no. 2 (2012): at 299; Crawford S. Holling, “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, no. 4 (1973): 1–23.
25 Maria T. Zuber, E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics at MIT, “Closing Remarks,” MIT Conference on the Resilient Reconstruction of the Caribbean, December 12–13, 2017.
26 Chelleri, “From the “Resilient City” to Urban Resilience,” 298.
27 Martin Coward, Urbicide – The Politics of Urban Destruction (London: Routledge, 2008).
28 Francesco Mazzucchelli, Urbicidio: Il senso dei luoghi tra distruzioni e ricostruzioni nella ex Jugoslavia (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2010).
29 Ada L. Huxtable, Kicked a Building Lately? (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988); also Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities.
30 Lebbeus Woods, War and Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993); Lebbeus Woods, Radical Reconstruction (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997).
31 An earlier reconstruction project for the Elektroprivreda building failed to attract local support; Aleksandar Staničić, “Between the Hammer and the Anvil: Transition Architecture of Postwar Ex-Yugoslavia.” Paper presented at the AKPIA@MIT Spring 2018 Lecture Series, May 7, 2018.
32 Vernon Ahmadjian and Surindar Paracer, Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
33 Aleksandar Staničić, “Architecture Born in Violence: Creative Dilemma in Post-Urbicidal Reconstructions. Experiences of Belgrade in the Aftermath of 1999 War.” Ph.D. thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2014.
34 Ahmadjian and Paracer, Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations, 6.
35 Nancy A. Moran “Accelerated Evolution and Muller’s Ratchet in Endosymbiotic Bacteria,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93, no. 7, (1996): 2873–2878.
36 Claude Combes, Parasitism: The Ecology and Evolution of Intimate Interactions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 6.
37 Bannister and Kearns, “Function and Foundations of Urban Tolerance,” 2710.
38 Ibid., 2715.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Aleksandar Staničić
Aleksandar Staničić is an architect and postdoctoral fellow at the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, MIT Department of Architecture. Previously, he was an associate research scholar at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, Columbia University. He received his Ph.D. in Architectural Composition from the Polytechnic University of Milan; and an M.Arch. from the Faculty of Architecture, University in Belgrade. His research stems from two book projects: Transition Urbicide: Post-War Reconstruction in Post-Socialist Belgrade (2020) and War Diaries: Responding to the Destruction of Art and Architecture (co-edited with Elisa Dainese, 2019). The research project he is conducting at MIT seeks to systemize and criticize broader socio-political, cultural and ethical contexts in which ongoing academic discourse on the reconstruction of cities in the Middle East occurs.
Milan Šijaković
Milan Šijaković received his M.Arch. degree at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade. Furthermore, he obtained a master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Architectural Design and a Ph.D. Cum Laude from BarcelonaTech, UPC. His research interests are directed towards the fields of sustainable design and architectural recycling, with a particular focus on industrial heritage and the possibility of its sustainable revitalization. Besides his academic achievements, he has considerable experience in architectural and urban design practice obtained when working within the City of Barcelona’s Department of Infrastructure and Urban Planning.