4.6 Article

Protest in the city: Urban spatial restructuring and dissent in New York, 1960-2006

Journal

URBAN STUDIES
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 244-260

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0042098016661464

Keywords

neoliberalism; New York; privately owned public space; protest; urban space

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [SES-0927875]
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [742-2006-2135]
  3. seed grant from the Murphy Institute's Center for Public Policy Research at Tulane University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accessible space is a necessary component of urban protest. Little research, however, has examined the spatial evolution of protest activity over time. Much of the existing research emphasises the legal right to protest, however, less effort has been made to examine how micro-contexts may facilitate or impede dissent. This research focuses on how the built environment of cities can serve as either attractors or detractors of protest using a unique geocoded sample of 6217 protest events taking place in New York City between 1960 and 2006. I use a spatial count model to examine the relationship between the built environment and protest intensity. The results point to significant shifts in where protests have occurred over time. Protests become increasingly spatially concentrated, with a disproportionate amount of activism taking place on or in close proximity to privately owned public spaces. Spaces in close proximity to powerful organisational or institutional targets also experience heightened protest activity. Overall, I show that the built environment, and the social relationships creating it, powerfully influence where dissent occurs. This is consistent with the advent of neoliberal policies directing urban spatial restructuring, which have brought about a process of structural funnelling for protest, ultimately making events more likely to occur in spaces that are hostile to mobilisation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available