The social capital of urban activism

References

• Andres, L. 2013. “Differential Spaces, Power Hierarchy and Collaborative Planning: A Critique of the Role of Temporary Uses in Shaping and Making Places.” Urban Studies 50 (4): 759–775.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. 2000. “The Hidden Costs of Gentrification: Displacement in Central London.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 15 (4): 307–326. doi: 10.1023/A:1010128901782
   Google Scholar
• Baeten, G. 2009. “Regenerating the South Bank. Reworking the Community and the Emergence of Post-political Regeneration.” In Regenerating London— Governance, Sustainability, and Community in a Global City, edited by R. Imrie, L. Lees and M. Raco, 237–253, 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Balaban, U. 2011. “The Enclosure of Urban Space and Consolidation of the Capitalist Land Regime in Turkish Cities.” Urban Studies 48: 2162–2179. doi: 10.1177/0042098010380958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booher, D. E., and J. E. Innes. 2002. “Network Power in Collaborative Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 221–236. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0202100301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boonstra, B., and L. Boelens. 2011. “Self-organization in Urban Development: Towards a new Perspective on Spatial Planning.” Urban Research and Practice 4 (2): 99–122. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2011.579767
   Google Scholar
• Brenner, N. 2015. “Is ‘Tactical Urbanism’an Alternative to Neoliberal Urbanism?” Post: Notes on Modern & Contemporary Art Around the Globe.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. 2014. “Skaters Will Stay at the Undercroft as London’s Southbank Centre Gives In.” The Guardian, September 18, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Buchholz, T. 2016. “Struggling for Recognition and Affordable Housing in Amsterdam and Hamburg: Resignation, Resistance, Relocation.” PhD diss., University of Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, W. K., and R. A. Hackett. 2006. “Democratic Media Activism Through the Lens of Social Movement Theory.” Media, Culture & Society 28 (1): 83–104. doi: 10.1177/0163443706059289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Lange, M., and M. de Waal. 2016. Owning the City: New Media and Citizen Engagement in Urban Design. Piekarski, Karol ed. Data-Driven Methods for City Research and Exploration. Katowcie: Institution of Culture Katowice.
   Google Scholar
• Deslandes, A. 2013. “Exemplary Amateurism: Thoughts on DIY Urbanism.” Cultural Studies Review 19 (1): 216–227. doi: 10.5130/csr.v19i1.2481
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, G. C. 2014. “Do-It-Yourself Urban Design: The Social Practice of Informal ‘Improvement’ Through Unauthorized Alteration.” City & Community 13 (1): 5–25. doi: 10.1111/cico.12029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draaisma, J., and P. van Hoogstraten. 1983. “The Squatter Movement in Amsterdam.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 7 (3): 406–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.1983.tb00602.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duyvendak, J.W., and M. Hurenkamp, ed. 2004. Kiezen voor de kudde: Lichte gemeenschappen en de nieuwe meerderheid [Choosing the Herd: Light Community and the New Majority]. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
   Google Scholar
• Finn, D. 2014. “DIY Urbanism: Implications for Cities.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 7 (4): 381–398.
   Google Scholar
• Gallent, N. 2013. “Re-connecting ‘People and Planning’: Parish Plans and the English Localism Agenda.” Town Planning Review 84 (3): 371–396. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2013.20
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–1380. doi: 10.1086/225469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halfacree, K. 1999. “‘Anarchy Doesn’t Work Unless you Think About it’:1 Intellectual Interpretation and DlY Culture.” Area 31 (3): 209–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.1999.tb00085.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haydn, F., and R. Temel. 2006. Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. Basel: Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, K. A., and J. E. Hughes. 1999. Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hou, J., ed. 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hurenkamp, M., E. Tonkens, and J. W. Duyvendak. 2012. Crafting Citizenship: Negotiating Tensions in Modern Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J., and D. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Iveson, K. 2013. “Cities Within the City: Do-It-Yourself Urbanism and the Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (3): 941–956. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jabareen, Y. 2014. ““Do it Yourself” as An Informal Mode of Space Production: Conceptualizing Informality.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 7 (4): 414–428.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, K. 2016. DIY Detroit: Making Due in a City Without Services. Minneapolis, MN: Univ Of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kisby, B. 2010. “The Big Society: Power to the People?” The Political Quarterly 81 (4): 484–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2010.02133.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, J. 2012. “Street Makeovers Put New Spin on the Block: How Community Activists Are Taking City Planning into Their Own Hands and Creating Pedestrian-Friendly Blocks via Pop-up Urbanism.” Miller-McCune/Pacific Standard (Online). January 16, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Long Live Southbank. 2015. About. Accepted January 2, 2015. http://www.llsb.org.
   Google Scholar
• Lowe, S. 1986. Urban Social Movements: The City After Castells. New York: St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lydon, M., and A. Garcia. 2011. Tactical Urbanism 2: Short-term Action, Long-term Change. Issuu. (Online).
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, P. 2013. “The Longue Durée of Community Engagement: New Applications of Critical Theory in Planning Research.” Planning Theory 12 (2): 139–157. doi: 10.1177/1473095212455212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D., and L. A. Staeheli. 2005. “Permitting Protest: Parsing the Fine Geography of Dissent in America.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 796–813. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00622.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullins, D., and G. van Bortel. 2010. “Neighbourhood Regeneration and Place Leadership: Lessons From Groningen and Birmingham.” Policy Studies 31 (4): 413–428. doi: 10.1080/01442871003723325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, P., and I. Smith. 2000. “Cultural Production, Place and Politics on the South Bank of the Thames.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24: 9–24. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.00233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. 2000. “Social Capital: a Fad or a Fundamental Concept.” Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective 172 (173): 195–198.
   Google Scholar
• Pagano, C. 2013. “DIY Urbanism: Property and Process in Grassroots City Building.” Marquette Law Review 97 (2): 335–389.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, M., and Y. Rydin. 2000. “Researching Social Capital in Local Environmental Policy Contexts.” Policy and Politics 28 (2): 233–249. doi: 10.1332/0305573002500947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruijt, H. 2003. “Is the Institutionalization of Urban Movements Inevitable? A Comparison of the Opportunities for Sustained Squatting in New York City and Amsterdam.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 (1): 133–157. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.00436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y. 2014. “Communities, Networks and Social Capital.” In Community Action and Planning: Contexts, Drivers and Outcomes, edited by N. Gallent and D. Ciaffi, 21–39, 1st ed. London: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y., and N. Holman. 2007. “Re-evaluating the Contribution of Social Capital in Achieving Sustainable Development, Local Environment.” The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 9 (2): 117–133.
   Google Scholar
• Schijnheilig. 2015. Steun de Vondelbunker! [Support the Vondelbunker!]. Accepted May 12, 2015. http://schijnheilig.org.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R., M. Rosa, and U. Weiland. 2015. Handmade Urbanism. Berlin: JOVIS Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Uitermark, J. 2004. “The Co-optation of Squatters in Amsterdam and the Emergence of a Movement Meritocracy: a Critical Reply to Pruijt.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 (1): 687–698. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00543.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Pennen, T., and H. Schreuders. 2014. “Communities, Networks and Social Capital.” In Community Action and Planning: Contexts, Drivers and Outcomes, edited by N. Gallent & D. Ciaffi, 135–155, 1st ed. London: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vasudevan, A. 2015a. “The Autonomous City: Towards a Critical Geography of Occupation.” Progress in Human Geography 39 (3): 316–337. doi: 10.1177/0309132514531470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasudevan, A. 2015b. “The Makeshift City: Towards a Global Geography of Squatting.” Progress in Human Geography 39 (3): 338–359. doi: 10.1177/0309132514531471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viglucci, A. 2012. “A Green Park Sprouts, for Now, Atop Old Miami Arena’s Rubble.” The Miami Herald (Online). January 20, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, P. A. 1997. “Building Social Capital: A Learning Agenda for the Twenty-First Century.” Urban Studies 34 (5-6): 745–760. doi: 10.1080/0042098975808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar