Place-making and the bordering of urban space: Interpreting the emergence of new neigh-bourhoods in Berlin and Budapest

The article starts with a general reflection on borders and continues with urban borders in particular. Borders have a variety of functions: they organize social life, enable communities to sustain themselves and give identities to a collective as well individuals (p. 2). Scott and Sohn interpret bordering “in terms of creating, re-creating and contesting socio-spatial distinctions at the formal (e.g. political) as well as everyday level” (ibid.). Urban borders originate mainly out of two needs, first due to the emergence of new urban spaces and second from the need of a feeling of “rootedness”, a place of identification (p. 4).

The authors refer to Lefebvre´s conceptualizations of spatial politics, as they interpret “bordering as a practice of creating, confirming and re-creating socio-spatial distinctions” (p. 5). In relation to urban spaces, they define the following three mechanism that “communicate place ideas and give place borders” (ibid.): attribution, appropriation and representation. Appropriation is the cognitive association of qualities with a place that defines “what a place is or is not” (ibid.), e.g. function, lifestyles, milieu and social image. Appropriation is the everyday using and living in places which forms place identities, e.g. through the naming of places or performative practice (ibid.). The third mechanism, representation includes the previous two mechanism “it contributes to the coherence of place ideas based on socially communicated context, images, symbols, etc. that create socio-spatial distinction” (p. 6). These three mechanism are interconnected and mutually interdependent. Furthermore, bordering is a multiscalar process that involves internal and and external interactions (ibid.).

The authors illustrate the functioning of these three mechanisms by discussing examples of urban (re)bordering processes in the cities of Berlin and Budapest by referring to the cases of the districts of “Kreuzkön” and “Nyócker” (o.6ff). They analyzes place-making through bordering and focus on the social institutionalization of respective neighborhood ideas.

The Berlin district of Kreuzkölln is situated between the positively known Kreuzberg and the often negatively associated Neukölln (p.7). Kreuzkölln is a result of place-making and (re-)bordering in an inner-city area starting at the beginning of this millennium. On the one hand Kreuzkölln is a “typical story of gentrification driven by economic rational” (p. 7) and on the other hand it owns a “place making narrative of a self-defining and self-creating place” (p. 8). Due to the pressure of high rents in Berlin, northern Neukölln became an interesting area for new residents. The first step to change the image of an “area associated with crime and social dereliction [...] with a threatening cultural foreignness due to large migrant population” (p. 7) was made by urban development and social integration programs. The new residents, coming from different parts of Berlin, brought with them higher incomes and new businesses to Kreuzkölln. The residents changed the area through the lived space and active bordering practices. Appropriation was made through clubs, cafés, galleries and a new music scene (p.8). The district was composed by digital bohemians, poor working class and migrants from various cultures (p. 8). National and international media formed the external representation of Kreuzkölln, now “associated with urban change, renewal, multiculturalism, with hyped and gentrifying lifestyle of young international urbanites” (p. 7).

Nyócker, as a not defined area in eastern Budapest´s VIIIth District, differentiates itself from Kreuzkölln by its history and other external influences. Nyócker, isolated and stigmatized by the end of state socialism in 1989 as a “Roma ghetto” with “strong visual and perceptual boundaries” (p. 10) was neglected by the urban policies. Whereas the surrounding inner-city areas experienced renovation and gentrification processes, Nyócker was left behind and residents were victims of ethnic discrimination and urban poverty. Starting with locally based cultural institutions, non-governmental organizations, Roma community organizations, artists and alternative entrepreneurs , followed by activists and Roma youth, the district was changed successively and people created a positive image for themselves (p. 11f). Media stated to portray Nyócker as culturally rich and as symbol of an “alternative Budapest” (p. 11) which led to national as well as international attention by 2004/5. The District government started place-making projects regarding public safety, infrastructure, the redesigning of public space and a Roma music project (p. 12). As a result, Nyócker as a place for Roma-culture is re-building and re-imaging itself by place-making and re-bordering practices.