Search

This article investigates whether residents have been able to regain their sense of belonging and neighbourliness after being resettled in urban China and what factors have prevented or enabled them to do so. There is a growing body of work examining the post-resettlement community relations of residents. However, this process of community rebuilding is mostly understood as resident-led and little is known about the role and influence of state actions such as state-led community building and changing resettlement policies. Our study addresses this gap by drawing on the case of Hesha Hangcheng which is one of Shanghai's major relocation settlements. Our findings, from analysing a household survey and interviews, show that the sense of belonging and neighbourly relations of residents are poorer compared to before they were resettled. The analysis further reveals that residents who are more satisfied with their new housing and neighbourhood tend to have better neighbourly relations and sense of belonging compared to those who are not satisfied and feel they have lost out from the resettlement. Additionally, the state's efforts in rebuilding communities by providing more community organisations and activities have given residents a platform to encounter each other and help facilitate neighbourliness and a sense of belonging. Theoretically, our study contributes by revealing the interplay between residents and state-led community rebuilding efforts and how they have affected post-resettlement community relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What kind of neighbouring might enhance participation in community activities? Using a 1420-sized household survey collected in Shanghai, this paper examines the relationship between different types of neighbouring and community participation. Our results show that in-group neighbouring between residents belonging to the same social group does not have a direct effect on community participation. Instead intergroup neighbouring between migrant and local neighbours can lead to more willingness to take part in community activities. Owing to the unequal power configuration between minority and majority groups living in the same locality, intergroup neighbouring can help break down existing barriers between migrant residents and local residents who are mostly in charge of organising community activities. Our findings contribute to a better conceptualisation of neighbouring and community participation, which so far has focused on the quantity of neighbouring but largely ignored the types of neighbouring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale urban development projects are a significant format of urban expansion and renewal across the globe. As generators of governance innovation and indicators of the future city in each urban context, large-scale development projects have been interpreted within frameworks of 'variegations' of wider circulating processes, such as neoliberalisation or financialisation. However, such projects often entail significant state support and investment, are strongly linked to a wide variety of transnational investors and developers and are frequently highly contested in their local environments. Thus, each project comes to fruition in a distinctive regulatory context, often as an exception to the norm, and each emerges through complex interactions over a long period of time amongst an array of actors. We therefore seek to broaden the discussion from an analytical focus on variegated globalised processes to consider three large-scale urban development projects (in Shanghai, Johannesburg and London) as distinctive (transcalar) territorialisations. Using an innovative comparative approach, we outline the grounds for a systematic analytical conversation across mega-urban development projects in very different contexts. Initially, comparability rests on the shared features of large-scale developments – that they are multi-jurisdictional, involve long time scales and bring significant financing challenges. Comparing three development projects, we are able to interrogate, rather than take for granted, how a range of wider processes, circulating practices, transcalar actors and territorial regulatory formations composed specific urban outcomes in each case. Thinking across these diverse cases provides grounds for rebuilding understandings of urban development politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]