Platform Urbanism: Technocapitalist Production of Private and Public Spaces

Abstract

Digital technologies and services are increasingly used to meet a wide range of urban challenges. These developments bear the risk that the urban digital transformation will exacerbate already existing socio-spatial inequalities. Graham’s assumption from nearly 20 years ago (2002)—that European cities are characterised by various forms of socio-spatial segregation, which will not be overcome by digital infrastructures—thus needs to be seriously acknowledged. This contribution critically scrutinizes the dominant narratives and materializations of standardised smart urbanism in Europe. We investigate how the prospects of improved efficiency, availability, accessibility and quality of life through digital technologies and networks take the demands and effects of the gendered division of labour into account. By zooming in on platform urbanism and examples related to mobility and care infrastructures, we discuss whether and to what extent digital technologies and services address the everyday needs of all people and in the same way or whether there are exclusionary lines. Our objective is to bring digital and feminist geographies into dialogue, to stress the mutual construction of society and space by platform economies and to ask how gendered geographies in cities are produced through and by digitalisation.

Workspaces of Mediation: How Digital Platforms Shape Practices, Spaces and Places of Creative Work

“…This mobile and instant online engagement is not restricted to the office but connects home and workplace (Schwanen & Kwan 2008; Brydges & Sjöholm 2019), intertwines perceptions of leisure and work (Parry & Hracs 2020), and blurs the lines between professional and private networks (Brydges & Sjöholm 2019). Answering to the expanding use of online platforms in daily life and the ‘need to remain mindful of these diverse registers of everyday, embodied socio‐spatial experience implicated by platform intermediation’ (Barns 2019, p. 7), social and economic geographers increasingly rely on everyday perspectives of platform mediation to examine everyday practices and provide an alternative, fine‐grained approach to researching place (Barns 2019; Bauriedl & Strüver 2020; Leszczynski 2020).…”

“…2018; Gong & Xin 2019) resonates with the concern of studies in digital geographies to uncover the role of online platforms as mediators of space (Ash et al . 2018; Barns 2019; Bauriedl & Strüver 2020; Leszczynski 2020). However, the relationship between these two fields of research has yet to be established.…”

“…I introduce workspaces of mediation to further understand the digitalisation of spaces of creative work and to connect existing empirical studies on creative work and digitalisation to theoretical considerations from research in digital geographies. The concern in research on geographies of creative work to understand online and offline relations in actors' working lives (Bathelt & Turi 2011;Grabher et al 2018;Gong & Xin 2019) resonates with the concern of studies in digital geographies to uncover the role of online platforms as mediators of space (Ash et al 2018;Barns 2019;Bauriedl & Strüver 2020;Leszczynski 2020). However, the relationship between these two fields of research has yet to be established.…”

Untitled

“…Una última diferencia que señalan Söderström y Mermet (2020) se da a nivel tecnológico, ya que la artefactualidad de las smart cities funciona de modo extractivo haciendo seguimiento y medición de personas y cosas, mientras que las plataformas son además interactivas y constructivas (exponemos en ellas, por ejemplo, nuestras preferencias, gustos, emociones, etc.). Con ello, la idea de plataformas hace hincapié en el carácter interaccional situado y material en las ciudades que les permite producir efectos encarnados, cuerpos datificados, dimensiones afectivas y marcos normativos que deben ser abordados para comprender las vías micropolíticas de producción de subjetividades (Bauriedl y Strüver, 2020).…”

Recht auf die digitale Stadt

“…Smart Urbanism als Konzept basiert auf dem Anspruch, dass sich durch technologische Innovation in Form von digitalen Dienstleistungen und Infrastrukturen die Lebensqualität für alle Stadtbewohner*innen gleichermaßen verbessert. Dieser Urbanismus lässt die sozialen wie räumlichen Ungerechtigkeiten durch die Unterschiede in der Verteilung sowie in den Aneignungsmöglichkeiten von digitalen Infrastrukturen allerdings unberücksichtigt (Bauriedl und Strüver 2020). Er ist in seinen Infrastrukturangeboten vor allem unternehmens-und tauschwert-und weniger bewohner*innen-und gebrauchswertorientiert -und in seiner Umsetzung nicht kohäsions-, sondern profitorientiert, so dass er bereits existierende sozialräumliche Ungerechtigkeiten bzw.…”