Urban Studies 每年投稿量为1000多篇，每年发表16期，共180篇论文左右。由于稿件量大，文章从接收到正式出版周期较长，因此编辑部会在稿件接收排版后的第一时间在网上发布论文全文 (Online First) 。“论文快递”栏目将同步推出网上刊登的最新论文，方便读者了解Urban Studies的最新动态，敬请关注！
本期为“论文快递”栏目的第二百六十九期，将介绍Urban Studies Online First中最新发表的三篇文章以及Current Issue中的两篇文章。主题包括长租公寓与住房危机，邻里效应，“广谱”政策与区域增长，学术话语、领土污名化和绅士化之间的联系，以及城市如何克服可持续发展的体制障碍。欢迎阅读。
Life for rent: Evolving residential infrastructure in London and the rise of Build-to-Rent
租赁生活：伦敦不断发展的住宅基础设施与长租公寓的兴起
Boyana Buyuklieva（英国伦敦大学学院）Ivana Bevilacqua（英国伦敦大学学院）Adam Dennett（英国伦敦大学学院）Jonathan Reades（英国伦敦大学学院）Phil Hubbard（英国伦敦国王学院）Build-to-Rent (BTR) developments have expanded rapidly in the UK since 2013, often advertised as providing better quality rented accommodation for university-educated Millennials than available elsewhere in the private rental sector. However, the implications of this type of housing development, and especially its affordability, are poorly understood at the city scale, partly due to a lack of evidence of where these developments cluster and what they add to the housing stock in terms of property type, amenities and cost. This article draws on data relating to 373 BTR developments in London (representing over 40,000 housing units) to show that developments are clustered where transport-related infrastructural investments have opened ‘rent gaps’ that can be exploited by developers. Exploring how these BTR schemes are marketed, the article shows that this accommodation is typically provided through new short-term ‘subscription services’ which allow developers to rent property at a premium. Questioning whether BTRs really add affordable ‘local’ homes to the city, the article concludes that BTR provides ‘quick-fix’ rental accommodation which is doing little to solve London’s housing crisis. We focus on the London BTR market and how the expansion of this housing type is reshaping the sociospatial geographies of the city.
自 2013 年以来，长租公寓（BTR） 开发项目在英国迅速扩张，这类项目通常宣传为受过大学教育的千禧一代提供质量更好的私人租赁住房。然而，人们对这种住房开发项目的影响，特别是其可负担性，在城市层面的理解还不够，部分原因是关于这些开发项目聚集在何处，以及它们在房产类型、便利设施和成本方面为住房存量增加了什么，缺乏相关的证据。本文利用伦敦 373 个 BTR 开发项目（超过 40,000 个住房单元）的相关数据来表明，这些开发项目聚集在交通相关基础设施投资已拉开“租金差距”的区域，并且开发商可以利用这些“租金差距”。通过探讨这些 BTR 计划的营销方式，本文表明，这种住房通常是通过新的短期“订购服务”提供的，这些服务使开发商得以高价出租房产。本文对 BTR 是否真的为城市提供了更多人们负担得起的“本地”住房提出了质疑，并得出结论，BTR 提供的租赁住房“快速解决方案”对解决伦敦的“住房危机”作用不大。本文重点关注伦敦 BTR 市场，以及这种住房类型的扩张如何影响城市社会空间地理。
Build-to-Rent, built environment, displacement, finance/financialisation, gentrification, housing, London, planning
长租公寓、建成环境、流离失所、金融/金融化、绅士化、住房、伦敦、规划https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241277684Neighbourhoods as resource hubs and resource nodes: Civic organisations and political recruitment of first- and second-generation immigrants in Berlin, Germany
作为资源枢纽和资源节点的街区：德国柏林第一代和第二代移民的公民组织和政治招募
Neighbourhood effects are commonly understood as an effect of a characteristic of the residential location on social outcomes – although people are also linked to other places in their everyday lives. Based on a mixed-methods study on the significance of neighbourhoods for political recruitment of first- and second-generation Turkish immigrants in Berlin, this article shows that neighbourhoods with a strong migrant civic infrastructure are important places for political recruitment – not only for their residents, but also for visitors and people linked to them through social networks. The article identifies three mechanisms by which people can be linked to neighbourhoods and the resources embedded in them. The first is residency. Second, neighbourhoods can work as a hub when people visit them to shop, meet friends, or engage in other activities. Visitors can then profit from a neighbourhood’s infrastructure, such as civic organisations. Third, neighbourhoods work as a node when social networks transmit information and resources originating in one neighbourhood context – for example, political information – to others located outside of it. The article contributes to an understanding of neighbourhoods not as closed-off containers but as being interconnected to other places, non-residents, and resources, an understanding that comprehends the spatial production of social inequalities in terms of residency, everyday mobility, and social network connections.邻里效应通常被理解为居住地特征对社会结果的影响—尽管人们在日常生活中也与其他地方有联系。本文基于混合方法，研究了街区对于柏林第一代和第二代土耳其移民政治招募的重要性，结果表明，拥有强大出行市政基础设施的街区是进行政治招募的重要场所—不仅对其居民如此，对于游客和通过社交网络与他们有联系的人来说也是如此。本文确定了人们与街区及其所包含的资源相联系的三种机制。第一种机制是居住权。其次，街区可以作为人们购物、会友或从事其他活动的枢纽。于是游客可以从街区的基础设施（例如民间组织）中获益。第三，当社交网络将源自某个街区环境的信息和资源（例如政治信息）传输到其他街区环境时，街区就充当着一个节点。本文有助于人们认识到街区并非是封闭的容器，而是与其他地方、街区居民之外的人和各种资源相互连接的，从而从居住权、日常出行和社交网络连接等方面来理解社会不平等空间的产生。
infrastructure, mechanisms, migration, mixed methods, mobility, neighbourhood, political participation, recruitment, social inequality, space
基础设施、机制、迁移、混合方法、出行、街区、政治参与、招募、社会不平等、空间https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241270928Have City Deals delivered higher productivity in England? An empirical assessment of a broad-spectrum local growth policy
城市协议是否提高了英格兰的生产力？对广谱地方增长政策的实证评估
Johan P Larsson（英国剑桥大学；Ratio研究所）The issue of what constitutes effective regional growth policy has remained elusive, particularly for ‘broad-spectrum’ policy aimed at a large part of a country. We undertake one of the first quantitative studies looking at the City Deals in England, analysing effects on productivity. We employ a difference-in-differences model, an event study, and a synthetic control method to evaluate effects on productivity. The results are mixed and usually not statistically different from zero. While the difference-in-differences framework indicates some positive effects, possibly driven by places that were the most productive before the intervention, the event study and synthetic control methods point to, at best, small effects that diminish over time. Our findings, therefore, question the efficacy of such deals in terms of narrowing the UK’s longstanding regional inequalities, while opening up several avenues for further research to understand what worked and what did not within a ‘broad-spectrum’ local growth strategy.怎样的政策才是有效的区域增长政策一直是个难解的问题，特别是针对一个国家大部分地区的“广谱”政策。我们率先对英格兰城市协议进行了定量研究，分析其对生产力的影响。我们采用双重差分模型、事件研究和综合控制方法来评估其对生产力的影响。结果是矛盾的，并且通常在统计上与零没有差异。虽然双重差分框架表明了一些积极的影响，可能是由干预前生产力最高的地方推动的，但事件研究和综合控制方法表明，它们最多只是随着时间的推移而逐渐减弱的微小影响。因此，我们的研究结果对此类协议在缩小英国长期存在的地区不平等方面的有效性提出了质疑，同时为进一步研究开辟了若干途径，以了解在“广谱”本地增长战略中什么方法有效、什么方法无效。
economic processes, local government, infrastructure, policy, governance, regional policy, productivity经济过程、地方政府、基础设施、政策、治理、区域政策、生产力
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241270993Legitimising displacement: Academic discourse, territorial stigmatisation and gentrification
流离失所合法化：学术话语、领土污名化和绅士化
Richard Kirk（美国加州大学洛杉矶分校）
首次出版时间：2024/03/18｜研究论文
Abstract
This article explores the territorial stigmatisation–gentrification nexus and how it is advanced by an intellectual pipeline between academics and policymakers in the USA. Despite much research revealing the pathologising narratives latent within displacement-inducing urban policies, little work has explicitly sought to underscore the influence of academic discourses in promoting these policies. Centring a triad of discourses surrounding concentrated disadvantage, social mix and neighbourhood effects – emergent namely from the academic fields of urban sociology, criminology, urban planning and urban economics – I provide an evidential linkage between academic discourse and displacement-causing US policymaking by conducting a document analysis of official reports related to two major US government programmes: the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration programme and the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI programme. I suggest that these academic discourses operate to legitimise displacement via neighbourhood-centric framings which advance territorial stigmatisation and related gentrification. These discourses, I argue, reinforce the real estate state and the destructive capitalist force of uneven geographical development while working to facilitate the disregard of propositions that would effect structural change. I conclude with an explanation for the present configuration of the academy-to-policy pipeline and why it has failed to onboard critical, macro-structurally orientated scholarship, and issue a call for a direction forward.
本文探讨了领土污名化与绅士化之间的联系，以及美国学者和政策制定者之间的知识管道如何促进这一联系。尽管许多研究揭示了导致流离失所的城市政策中潜藏的病态叙事，但很少有研究明确强调学术话语对促进这些政策的影响。围绕关于集中劣势、社会混合和邻里效应三个方面的话语（从城市社会学、犯罪学、城市规划和城市经济学的角度），本文对与美国政府两项主要计划相关的官方报告进行了文件分析，提供了学术话语与造成流离失所的美国政策制定之间联系的证据。这两项计划为：搬向机会（MTO）公平住房示范计划和“希望六”计划。本文认为这些学术话语通过可促进领土污名化和相关的绅士化的以街区为中心的框架来使流离失所合法化。本文认为，这些话语强调了房地产状态以及资本主义破坏力造成的地理发展不平衡，但又使人们忽视会影响结构变革的主张。最后，本文解释了从学术到政策管道当前的情况，以及其未能开展批判性的、宏观结构导向的学术研究的原因，并指出一个以后可以进一步研究的方向。
academic discourse, class, displacement/gentrification, diversity/cohesion/segregation, poverty/exclusion, race/ethnicity, uneven development学术话语，阶级，流离失所/绅士化，多样性/凝聚力/隔离，贫困/排斥，种族/民族，发展不平衡
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241235015Green in their own way: Pragmatic and progressive means for cities to overcome institutional barriers to sustainability
以自己的方式实现绿色：城市克服可持续发展体制障碍的务实和渐进手段
Christof Brandtner（法国里昂商学院；美国斯坦福大学慈善与公民社会中心）To realise their potential to lead in sustainability development, cities require both symbolic resources such as social capital and legitimacy and material resources such as financial and technical support. Recent research in urban studies has shown that cities overcome institutional barriers to urban sustainability by drawing on support from their wider environment. However, we argue that resource needs vary depending on whether cities spotlight or sideline sustainability. Drawing on in-depth interviews with sustainability managers in cities with variable seriousness about sustainability, and representatives of city networks and support organisations, we show that cities express different symbolic and material resource needs as well as means to acquire them. When cities express pragmatic needs, they seek to demonstrate political feasibility and look to peer cities for legitimation; when cities express progressive needs, they aim to push the boundaries of technical possibility and broadcast their achievements to the world. Since cities require dissimilar external support, skewed attention towards ‘leading’ cities in extant research limits our understanding of how cities can overcome institutional barriers to climate action, especially when these barriers are high. Our findings offer contributions to the literature on city strategies for climate change on the institutional drivers of urban sustainability.摘要
为了发挥城市引领可持续发展的潜力，城市既需要社会资本和合法性等象征资源，也需要资金和技术支持等物质资源。城市研究的最新研究表明，城市通过利用更广泛环境的支持来克服城市可持续发展所遇到的体制障碍。然而，我们认为，对资源的需求因城市而异，取决于城市是否重视可持续发展。各个城市对可持续发展重视程度不一。通过对这些城市可持续发展管理者以及城市网络和支持组织的代表进行深入访谈，我们发现城市对象征资源和物质资源的需求以及获取这些资源的手段各不相同。当城市表达务实需求时，它们力图展示政治可行性，并依靠同类城市来寻求合法性；当城市表达进步需求时，它们旨在突破技术可能性的界限，并向世界传播自己的成就。由于城市需要不同的外部支持，现有研究偏向于“领先的”城市，这限制了我们对于城市如何克服气候行动所面临的体制障碍的理解，尤其是当这些障碍很高时。我们的研究结果为城市应对气候变化战略以及城市可持续发展的制度驱动因素方面的研究做出了贡献。
cities and climate change, institutional barriers, organisational legitimacy, sustainability managers, symbolic and material resources城市与气候变化、体制障碍、组织合法性、可持续发展管理者、象征和物质资源
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241239788微信号｜USJ_online
Urban Studies期刊官方微信公众号
