cuzproduces

Well, I've finally got an SSCI journal article accepted. "Urban regeneration and gentrification: Land use impacts of the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project on the Seoul's Central Business District" has been accepted by Habitat International. Here is the abstract:

The definition of gentrification has expanded significantly since its initial application in the US and UK nearly fifty years ago to cover any process by which urban space is produced for more affluent users. Some authors are now questioning the utility of such a broad concept, arguing that it is virtually indistinguishable from the process of urban regeneration. Through an exploration of land use changes in Seoul’s historical central business district in the wake of the widely touted Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project, this paper argues that urban regeneration and gentrification are irreducible views of the same process that concentrate on the interests of different stakeholders. Therefore, the paper concludes that the broad definition of gentrification is more useful since it focuses public debate on the ideological and ethical question of favoring some stakeholders’ interests over those of others.

This is, of course, great. Unfortunately for me, however, despite having written about half the paper I will only receive a third of the full credit because I was listed as the third author of four. C'est la vie. Time to get to work on the other articles.

Ending a course is always a bit awkward for me. What do you say at the end of a long intellectual journey you've shared with your students? Something inspirational? If so, what? "Good luck on your exams"? I've never figured it out, though I always want to say something meaningful. For my undergraduate course this semester, however, I stumbled across a delightfully poetic way of closing the semester. One of my goals in the class (as in all classes) was to teach students to engage in independent critical thinking and to rely on their own analyses of the various sources of information and input they have access to. So, after reviewing the material in the last class, we watched a film on Romer's Charter Cities idea. The plan was to break into groups for discussion and then reconvene as a class. Unfortunately(?) there was insufficient time at the end of class, so it struck me that I would just end the class by letting them discuss the issue amongst themselves, avoiding any final imprint I might put on their thoughts. It felt right. I don't know if they saw it that way, but for me it precisely reflected one of the principles underlying my pedagogical approach.

Ann Markusen has a new blog entry entitled "Fuzzy Concepts, Proxy Data: Why Indicators Won’t Track Creative Placemaking Success", a review that she suggests:

has applicabiliity to the demand for outcomes measures of many of the types of interventions we do in planning. The blog explores the need for evaluation, the challenge of defining outcomes, conceptual problems with indicators being considered by ArtPlace and the National Endowment for the Arts for their creative placemaking projects, the absence of arts and cultural outcome measures, data and statistical reliability challenges, poor fit between indicators and hoped-for changes from a particular project over time, and political pressures for and dangers of relying on indicators  generated from secondary data sources with little relationship to particular project locations and aspirations.

It should be valuable for all policy makers dealing with "dirty data".

For those interested in asian animation, there is a big conference coming up in Seoul, Nov. 29th to Dec. 2nd. For more information and the schedule, click here. My friend Christophe starts the program on the 29th. Look forward to seeing you all there.