Abstract
AbstractHow did the complex relationship between working worlds and urban spaces change in Hamburg in times of de-industrialization? To answer this question, I focus on Hamburg's history from 1960 to 2008. Starting from the idea of a cumulative structural break, I develop a typology of Fordist and neo-liberal urban spaces and distinguish seven dimensions of change: from international division of labour to globalization, from industrial production to creativity, from rationalization to digitalization, from centralization to networks, from functional zoning to blurred boundaries, from social security to precarity and from suburbanization to the renaissance of the inner city. Finally, I consider whether this typology is valid for other European cities.
Highlights
In 1997, Hamburg’s social democratic mayor, Henning Voscherau, gave a widely publicized speech to local entrepreneurs, in which he presented the urban regeneration project HafenCity.1 He argued that if Hamburg wanted to survive the ‘international metropolitan competition’,2 it had to reframe its economic policy
How did the complex relationship between working worlds and urban spaces change in Hamburg in times of de-industrialization? To answer this question, I focus on Hamburg’s history from 1960 to 2008
Starting from the idea of a cumulative structural break, I develop a typology of Fordist and neo-liberal urban spaces and distinguish seven dimensions of change: from international division of labour to globalization, from industrial production to creativity, from rationalization to digitalization, from centralization to networks, from functional zoning to blurred boundaries, from social security to precarity and from suburbanization to the renaissance of the inner city
Summary
Anselm Doering-Manteuffel and Lutz Raphael’s analysis is the main starting point for this article. They make the case for adjusting the conception of contemporary history. Anselm Doering-Manteuffel and Lutz Raphael’s analysis is the main starting point for this article.6 They make the case for adjusting the conception of contemporary history. Instead of getting lost in individual research, contemporary historians should develop an overarching framework, with a distinct socio-economic focus They concentrate on the ‘cumulative structural break’,7 which transformed European societies from the 1970s. The concept of a cumulative structural break is crucial for two reasons It emphasizes the discontinuity rather than the stability of socio-economic structures and, second, it explains this transition not by one single development, such as the decline of certain industrial sectors, but through various intersecting shifts. The radical change of working worlds strongly affected urban spaces. Based on the changing relationship between industry and city, I distinguish two different types of urban space. The first category, which was most notable in the 1960s and early 1970s, I term Fordist urban space. A second type, which emerged after 1989, I categorize as neo-liberal urban space.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
