This article was downloaded by: [Ondokuz Mayis Universitesine]On: 02 November 2014, At: 11:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Urban GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20

Borderland urbanism: seeing betweenenclavesDeljana Iossifovaa

a School of Environment, Education and Development, Universityof Manchester, Humanities Bridgeford Street, Oxford Road, M149PL Manchester, UKPublished online: 30 Oct 2014.

To cite this article: Deljana Iossifova (2014): Borderland urbanism: seeing between enclaves, UrbanGeography, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2014.961365

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.961365

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Borderland urbanism: seeing between enclaves

Deljana Iossifova*

School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, HumanitiesBridgeford Street, Oxford Road, M14 9PL Manchester, UK

(Received 2 April 2013; accepted 18 June 2014)

Recent scholarship on the characteristics of Chinese urbanism engages with thepractices and possible consequences of so-called enclave urbanism, said to generatecities as agglomerations of patchworked enclaves. Acknowledging that inequalitybecomes explicit in supposedly self-contained enclaves, in this paper, I seek to advancethe initial debate by shifting the focus onto the spaces and processes in-between theenclaves. I draw on fieldwork in Shanghai to argue that perceptions of inequality,individual and group identities, everyday cultures and, ultimately, new ways of beingin and making the city are shaped amidst the in-between spaces that essentiateemerging cities in China and elsewhere: urban borderlands. I outline a research agendaaround the current and future urban condition and propose the exploration of border-land urbanism as a timely new direction in urban geography.

Keywords: Shanghai; urban borderlands; enclave urbanism; place-related identity;urban inequality

IntroductionPhysical barriers have been constructed everywhere—around houses, apartment buildings,parks, squares, office complexes, and schools. Apartment buildings and houses which used tobe connected to the street by gardens are now everywhere separated by high fences and walls,and guarded by electronic devices and armed security men. [. . .] A new aesthetics of securityshapes all types of constructions and imposes its new logic of surveillance and distances as ameans for displaying status, and is changing the character of public life and public interac-tions (Caldeira, 1996, pp. 307–308).

Describing the “fortified enclaves” of Brazil’s Sao Paolo in the early 1990s, Caldeira(1996) identifies their main characteristics as being physically isolated, turned inwards,socially homogenous and controlled with enforced rules of inclusion and exclusion.Sixteen years on, Wissink, van Kempen, Fang, and Li (2012), among others, describeChina’s growing and emerging cities as agglomerations of disconnected “patchworked,unifunctional, and monocultural enclaves”: commodity-housing compounds, work-unitcompounds and traditional neighbourhoods from before 1949 when the communists tookover. The editors of a recent special issue of this journal have diagnosed the ongoingpractices as Enclave Urbanism, sparking a lively academic discourse around Chineseurban form (Breitung, 2012; Douglass, Wissink, & van Kempen, 2012; He, 2013; Hogan,Bunnell, Pow, Permanasari, & Morshidi, 2012; Jie Shen & Wu, 2012; Z. Li & Wu, 2013;Li, Zhu, & Li, 2012; Wang, Li, & Chai, 2012; Wissink et al., 2012; Wu, Zhang, &

*Email: deljana.iossifova@manchester.ac.uk

Urban Geography, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.961365

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Webster, 2013a; Zhu, Breitung, & Li, 2012). But is this an accurate understanding of theemerging urban condition in China, or are alternative readings possible?

With this essay, I aim to expand the current debate around the fragmented city inbringing the attention to one particular phenomenon which is easily overlooked whenexamining cities and urbanisms from a remote bird’s-eye perspective; that is, outwardlydisjointed urban enclaves are surrounded by borders and boundaries which not onlydivide, but also join them together. These borders and boundaries around and betweenthem are not rigid lines or walls, but three-dimensional sociomaterial spaces which I callurban borderlands; they are the claimed, appropriated, inhabited, shared, continuouslynegotiated, maintained and often even nurtured spaces of co-presence and coexistence.

The article is based upon material gathered between 2006 and 2011 during extendedperiods of ethnographic work on one such urban borderland in Shanghai—the space in-between two sociospatially dissimilar but physically adjacent neighbourhoods (I purpose-fully avoid calling these entities “enclaves”): one traditional neighbourhood inhabited bylow-income urban residents and rural-to-urban migrants, and one gated commodity-hous-ing estate inhabited by better-off urban professionals. I draw on structured, open-endedand photo-elicitation interviews with selected participants. Building on an understandingof the larger-scale trajectories that led to the current condition of sociospatial differentia-tion, I use a transdisciplinary analytical framework to provide an agency-focused per-spective on bordering practices and everyday life and on the sociopsychological identityprocesses involved in the negotiation of this urban borderland condition.

The paper is structured in seven sections. Following this introduction, I present anoverview of the literature on urban enclaves and enclave urbanism in China and else-where, before presenting a conceptual framework around inequality, identity and place.Then, I provide a brief history of recent sociospatial transitions in Shanghai andintroduce the case study area, turning to examine some of the most important socio-psychological identity processes under conditions of coexistence in distinct but adjacenturban neighbourhoods. I close with a detailed account of vibrant everyday life on theborderland. In closing, I argue that the emerging Chinese city is interesting not becauseof its supposedly segregated enclaves, but rather because of the wealth of activities,interactions and possibilities that mark the contact zones and spaces in-between urbanborderlands.

Enclave urbanism

In an age of globalisation and mobility, people of different backgrounds and socio-economic standing agglomerate in dense urban centres. Most human settlements havebeen made up of enclaves, initially simply serving the separation of functions (residences,commercial exchange, etc.); “with the emergence of private property”, however, “someenclaves were appropriated by powerful individuals [. . .] and consciously separated fromthe commons” in order to allow them to “protect their power and control over resourcesand people” (Angotti, 2013, p. 114). Enclave urbanism in the twenty-first century isdefined as

the pattern of metropolitan development produced by the globalized real estate and financialsectors, and codified in planning regulations, whereby metropolitan regions are becomingagglomerations of unequal urban districts, sharply divided by race, class and other socialdistinguishers, and often physically separated. Enclave urbanism is not random. It reflects theconscious adoption of policies that shape the physical and social life of the metropolis; it is

2 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

not the absence of planning but the presence of a particular kind of planning. (Angotti,2013, p. 113)

The West has reached a state where segregated areas are not usually visually apparent as“fortified enclaves”; rather, they “are presumed to be part of an open city where freedom,diversity and equality reign”; thus, the “contemporary enclave city is all the more difficultto challenge because of its semblance of openness” (Angotti, 2013, p. 115).

Angotti (2013, p. 10) argues further that enclave urbanism has led to the branding andpackaging of urban spaces as “separate commodities” that are defined, in essence, by theirboundaries. Hence, it is startling that scholarship has not yet turned to examine theseboundaries much more in detail. In my introduction to a recent special issue on urbanborderlands, I explore the notions of border, boundary and borderland across disciplines inthe natural and social sciences, noting that they have been notoriously neglected in thehistory of urban studies (Iossifova, 2013a). Only a small number of studies explicitlyexamine urban borderland conditions.

For instance, Boano and Martén (2013) use Agamben’s spatial ontology to extractauthority, production, exclusion, iconicity and identity as the five “tensions” which allowthem to build an analytical framework for the study of borders in the case of Jerusalemand the West Bank. Karaman and Islam (2012) examine how borders between ethniccommunities in Istanbul are undone for the sake of redevelopment and suggest thatplanning practice should recognise “residents’ right to assimilation, but [. . .] not imposeit as an obligation”. Imai (2013) examines urban borderlands from the intimate perspec-tive of urban residents in Tokyo and argues that they can be defined as the “essentialspaces of temporary and informal use” that are critical for the evolution of cities. In thissense, the borders and boundaries in-between enclaves are by no means rigid, nonnegoti-able dividing lines.

Although typical for the Chinese city, our understanding of the meaning, function andstate of urban borderlands in this context remains very limited. However, the emergingdiscourse around the characteristics of urban enclaves in China is timely and useful inillustrating how inequalities become explicit in social, economic and spatial differentia-tion. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the literature.

Urban enclaves in China

With a view on processes in “developing” countries, Roy (2011a, p. 107) suggests thatcities “have always been splintered and fractured spaces”, but that “the current geographyof enclave urbanism is significant because it calls into question the anxieties that are oftenexpressed about Third World megacities”: the reality of a state that “can declare anexception to the law”. The production of new urban enclaves in China is largely facilitatedby the state in the context of state-sponsored gentrification through redevelopment oflarge patches of urban fabric and displacement of original residents (He, 2007). It followsa common pattern: first, a site is demarcated for redevelopment; resettlement conditionsare negotiated with potentially existing residents and occupiers; occasionally, emptybuildings are temporarily inhabited by rural-to-urban migrants and urban poor; onceconstruction begins, armies of workers occupy the construction site; eventually, thenew, often radically different, buildings become home to equally dissimilar groups ofnew residents (Iossifova, 2009a). Boundaries around new-built commodity compounds—and other types of enclaves—are therefore always human-made, socially constructed,

Urban Geography 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

“subsequent”; that is, they are “superimposed upon existing patterns of human settle-ments” (Newman & Paasi, 1998, p. 190).

Research on urban enclaves in China has been focused on studying and comparingthem to each other as self-contained entities, for instance, brand new commodity-housingcompounds, work-unit compounds and traditional neighbourhoods before 1949 (Wissinket al., 2012). Wu (2005, p. 235) distinguishes between the gated community undersocialism, where gates reinforce “political control and collective consumption organisedby the state”, and the gated community of the post-reform era, where gates are erected tosymbolise “emerging consumer clubs in response to the retreat of the State from theprovision of public goods”. Jie Shen and Wu (2012, p. 200) juxtapose the “standardized,monotonic landscape” of the Maoist period with new residential areas “designed topresent a setting for symbolic consumption”. Like Yip (2012), who interprets gatedcommunities as resident retreats from state control, S.-m. Li et al. (2012) speculate thatthe popularity of commodity compounds may be attributed to some liberation from statesurveillance.

Unsurprisingly, Breitung (2012, p. 291) finds that the walls and gates of commodityestates can be attributed to a market logic which “demands that territories are clearlydefined and that access is filtered”. In a study of gated communities in Shanghai, however,Yip (2012, p. 225) reveals that although the vast majority of neighbourhoods in the cityare gated, many are effectively open in that they “do not necessarily impose strict accesscontrol”. He finds that gates and walls bring about “a higher sense of perceived security”and a stronger sense of community—much in contrast to findings on gated communitiesin the West (Yip, 2012, p. 232). Comparing the degree of community attachment amongresidents of new commodity-housing estates and conventional neighbourhoods, Li et al.(2012) find greater community attachment among residents of the commodity-housingestates and argue that the higher quality of the living environment compensates for poorerneighbourly relations. Wang et al. (2012) call for a comparative study of residents’activity spaces in adjacent old and new forms of enclaves and for the consideration ofrural-to-urban migrants in such studies. Finally, focusing on urban villages (rural villagesenclosed by urban expansion) in three different cities, Li and Wu (2013) study residentialsatisfaction and find that it may be linked with individual background (urban villagers,rural-to-urban migrants or relocated urban residents) as well as differing urban policycontext.

In short, the emerging literature suggests that in order to assess the possible con-sequences of enclave urbanism, future research will need to take into account theimportant issues of historical genesis, place-related identity and community attachment.It is surprising, however, that the majority of studies concerned with urban enclaves inChina seem to neglect not only that enclaves are part of larger, complex urban systems,but also that they are interlinked and interconnected through spatial, social, ecological andeconomic networks and relationships on various scales, and that therefore, their adjacencyand co-presence in patchworked urban space must have important implications forperceptions of inequality among urban residents.

Inequality, identity and place

Enclave urbanism is the spatial manifestation of escalating inequality in China, which isof major concern to country’s leadership and the international community because of itspotential to disrupt social cohesion and continued economic growth (Knight & Ding,2012). It has now been acknowledged by the growing body of literature on subjective

4 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

well-being in a variety of fields that interpersonal comparison by individuals with theirreference persons determines how inequality is perceived (e.g. Boyce, Brown, & Moore,2010; van Praag, 2011). Individuals identify how satisfied they are in various domains oflife in relation to and in comparison with others—their reference groups, made up of“persons belonging to the same age bracket, education group, region, etc.” (van Praag,2011, p. 117). Therefore, inequality matters at the local level (Knight, 2013).

In a sociological study of attitudes towards inequality, Whyte (2010) found thatdespite being the poorest group, people in rural China were the least discontented aboutgrowing inequality. Rural-to-urban migrants “suffer both from their second-class status inthe cities and from the widening of their reference groups to include the more affluenturban [. . .] population” (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2011, p. 22). Urban households comparethemselves with a wider range of households in the same city which influence theiraspirations (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2011). Perceptions of inequality are therefore clearlyrelated to processes of identity and identification.

Identity is often the product of ideology and is imposed upon individuals, groups andthe places they inhabit. It emerges from the simultaneous processes of being identified andof identifying with—a province, a city, a class or a group, to name just a few (Graumann,1983). Individual identity is not restricted to people’s “spiritual self” or “inner character”;it “includes all things and places a person considers his or her own” (Graumann, 1988, p.61). Fried’s (1963) notion of “sense of spatial identity” includes the social constructionand mental appropriation of space. The sense of spatial identity

is fundamental to human functioning [in that it] represents a phenomenal or ideationalintegration of important experiences concerning environmental arrangements and contact inrelation to the individual’s conception of his own body in space; [spatial identity] is based onspatial memories, spatial imagery, the spatial framework of current activity and the implicitspatial components of ideas and aspirations. (Fried, 1963, p. 156)

Living conditions and the built environment play a role in that place-related identityand attachment to place depend on the assessment of how well the current place satisfies aset of needs in comparison to available alternatives (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981).

Lalli (1992) introduced a framework for the conceptualisation of urban-related identityand identification and an instrument to measure it. His “Urban Identity Scale” measuresthe human perception, cognitions and experience of the urban environment using fivecategories: external evaluation, general attachment, continuity with personal past, percep-tion of familiarity and commitment. Several, if not all, of these categories are clearlyrelated to referencing. The measure of external evaluation, for instance, builds on theevaluative comparison between one’s own living conditions and those of others; con-tinuity with the personal past is related to the sense of temporal continuity which emergesfrom memories of interacting with others—strangers, family members, neighbours—incertain places; familiarity results from everyday encounter; and lastly, commitmentdevelops from expectations and aspirations and the desire to maintain current livingconditions. As part of the identity process, it is clearly related to the identification ofreference groups: Who do we identify with? How do we aspire to live?

The “development of identity in general is the result of differentiation between selfand others” (Lalli, 1992, p. 293). Concepts of identity and belonging and the complexsociospatial relations and relationships that they create or that create them are thereforelinked with territorial borders and boundaries as signifiers of real or imagined difference(Iossifova, 2010, 2012a; Newman, 2003). In Deleuze’s understanding, territories “are

Urban Geography 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

more than just spaces: they have a stake, a claim. [. . .] Territories are not fixed for all time,but are always being made and unmade, reterritorializing and deterritorializing” (Wise,2005). Soft, semi-permeable borders are expressions of negotiated appropriation, ofidentities made and unmade, of emerging hybridity. In contrast, rigid physical borderscan be read as expressions of territoriality, the demarcation and defence of space and itsdelimitation by boundaries.

Environmental elements (including objects and people) are “indicators of socialposition, ways of establishing group or social identity” within their respective culture;they result in expectations towards particular behaviour within environmental settings(Rapoport, 1982). Proshansky (1978) speaks of the “strategic co-present social interac-tions”, the techniques that individuals adopt to cope with the presence of others. Theseinteractions form part of the continuing process of appropriating and developing personalterritory. Territoriality is a behaviour of exaggerated attachment to place, whereby place isnot neutrally defined but rather fiercely defended in the face of menacing threats—including real or perceived discontinuities like the loss of social control or loomingdisplacement (Sommer, 1969).

It becomes apparent that the mere co-presence of others in shared urban space willinfluence individual behaviour and habits, and that the many micro-strategies that indivi-duals adopt in their day-to-day lives are of importance to the processes of shaping andmaintaining culture and identity. In this way, micro-interactions (be they positive ornegative) contribute to the emergence of new identities for individuals and groups thatcoexist in urban space. How do people negotiate their individual and group identitiesunder the current conditions of coexistence in quickly transforming sociospatial environ-ments in Shanghai? Before providing some initial answers to this question, I give a briefhistory of the most important place- and identity-related shifts that have occurred inShanghai over the past decades.

Sociospatial transitions in Shanghai

Native place identity plays an important role in Chinese culture, in that people tend toidentify with the place of origin of their ancestors rather than their own place of birth. Thisidentification principle is of particular importance to the emergence of sociospatialdifferentiation in pre-communist Shanghai. People from the southern part of neighbouringJiangsu Province (Jiangnan) had occupied well-paid jobs and the more expensive centralparts of the city and were aspiring towards modern life styles and sophistication, particu-larly in the eyes of foreigners. As migrants kept arriving from Jiangbei, roughly thenorthern part of Jiangsu Province, the Jiangnan Shanghainese were eager to portray theliving conditions and habits of newcomers as distinct from their own, inventing thecategory of Subei in the process. People from Subei were associated with poverty, strangecustoms, rural backwardness and downward mobility; consequently, they were confinedto the lower ranks of social order, to lower paid jobs and to Subei settlements on theoutskirts of Shanghai (Honig, 1989, 1990, 1992).

Albeit still important today, the traditionally predominant native place identity becamesecondary to socioeconomic class and political orientation as identity signifiers afterLiberation in 1949 (Honig, 1992). The introduction of the household registration system(hukou) in 1951 added a whole new dimension to the structure of China’s society,dividing it, effectively, in two classes (Cheng & Selden, 1994): households were regis-tered as rural (agricultural) or urban (nonagricultural). Those holding an urban hukou were

6 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

entitled to a number of vital services in the city which were out of reach for the holders ofa rural hukou.

Immigrants from Subei became urban hukou holders, true urban residents. They cameto live and work in danweis—socialist work units of varying sizes, home to factories,homes, canteens, schools and sometimes even hospitals. The dingti (replacement/substitu-tion) system contributed to the consolidation of urban working-class neighbourhoods overtime, in that children largely inherited their parents’ jobs after their retirement (Ho & Ng,2008; Wang, 2004). With time, street committees (jiedao) and neighbourhood committees(juweihui) were set up to facilitate the monitoring of residents and their politicaldevelopment.

When China entered the Opening Up and Reform era almost four decades ago, thedanwei began to lose importance with the emergence of commodity housing and gatedresidential communities (Bray, 2005). State-owned enterprises began to close and manyformer employees became part of a new stratum: the urban poor. Simultaneously, migra-tion restrictions were relaxed and “farmers”, initially welcomed as a cheap and exploitablelabour force, began to move to the city to find work in factories and at construction sites(e.g., Goodkind & West, 2002; Li, 2004; Solinger, 1995, 1999). To date, municipalgovernments have failed to provide a satisfactory form of urban housing for the massesof rural-to-urban migrants (Mobrand, 2006; Jianfa Shen & Huang, 2003; Wu, 2002, 2006,2008; Wu, Zhang, & Webster, 2013b; Zhang, 2001, 2002; Zhang, Zhao, & Tian, 2003;Zheng, Long, Fan, & Gu, 2009). Only a few accounts exist to document the livedexperience of migrants in the city and the ways in which they succeed in finding informalsolutions to their housing problem, for instance, in the basements or on the rooftops offormal housing blocks (Wu, 2007; Wu & Canham, 2008 provide insightful documentationon migrant living conditions in Beijing and Hong Kong).

Aiming to achieve “global-city” status, Shanghai—like many other Chinese cities—has undergone extensive urban renewal, “‘cleansing’ itself from the old and the poorthrough countless projects of gentrification” (Iossifova, 2009a, p. 66). The city’s sanitisa-tion efforts included banning street vendors, hawkers and service providers from publicspace (see Dong & Zha, 2009; Yang, 2008) and hiding poor urban areas away from theeyes of the public. The struggle to attract international investment in projecting an imageof impeccable law and order has led the municipality to adopt a number of aggressivepractices which have been dubbed the “Shanghai model” for development, enthusiasti-cally implemented elsewhere (Roy, 2011b).

The focus area

The case study area, located on the north banks of Suzhou Creek (see Figure 1), is part ofan old shantytown which was known as a typical Subei neighbourhood and negativelyassociated with the characteristics of Subei culture. Upon demolition of large parts of theformer Subei settlement and displacement of its residents elsewhere, away from the city,private developers erected the Commercial Compound1 in the early 2000s, surrounding itwith fences and securing its gates against unwanted intruders. Representing progress anddevelopment, the compound towers over the remainders of the past. It is home to affluenturban elites with incomes ten times the average in Shanghai—young, well-educatedprofessionals, their parents and grandparents, and a few fortunate former shantytowndwellers were wealthy enough to buy into on-site resettlement flats. Notably, the com-pound offers refurbished studio flats in more or less legal “hotels” located around itsedges, occasionally rented out to rural-to-urban migrant families and groups of friends.

Urban Geography 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

One side of the street dividing the Old Village and the Commercial Compound is linedby structures that had been added over the past years and are owned by the localgovernment. The “garage-shop” (a space of about 10 square meters in size providingshelter with the roller shutter down, and a retail/small business space with the rollershutter up) represents the most frequently found type of space along the street. The otherside is lined by a spacious sidewalk and a see-through fence, used by residents of theVillage to span clotheslines and hang their laundry to dry; their furniture creates outdoorliving rooms on the sidewalk.

“Enclaves” in context: co-presence and coexistence

The material presented in the following sections expands on work that has been pre-viously published and discussed in detail elsewhere (Iossifova, 2009a, 2009b, 2010,2012a, 2012b). Between 2006 and 2011, I spent extensive periods in the case studyarea gathering data through participant observation, open-ended and photo-elicitationinterviews with selected participants. I conducted a small-scale survey of rural-to-urbanmigrants, urban poor and middle-class residents in the area based on a questionnairedesigned to assess the physical and social aspects of participants’ living conditions (past,present and future aspirations); to elicit perceptions of spatial boundaries to their neigh-bourhood in an application of “bound graphic investigation” (Weichhart, 1999); toexamine how they perceive their own and adjacent neighbourhoods via 21 items on afive-point Likert scale; and to measure their place-related identification structured aroundLalli’s (1992) “Urban Identity Scale”. I draw on the analysis of in-depth interviews tosubstantiate findings. It should be noted that due to the very small size of the sample (50participants), results can only be regarded as indicative.

Spatial imaginations and perceptions of the other

Around 5,000 people had their hukou registered in the Old Village, but according to therepresentatives of the local juweihui, in 2009, only 3,000 Shanghainese still lived there at

Figure 1. Left: Aerial photograph of the case study area derived from Google Maps in April 2014.Photograph: © 2014 Google Imagery, © 2014 DigitalGlobe. Right: Schematic map of the case studyarea, encompassing the Old Village to the west and the Commercial Compound to the east.Drawing: Deljana Iossifova.

8 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

the time of this research. Many original residents had left as soon as they were able toafford it, hoping for better living standards in new-built residential areas elsewhere. Theremaining residents were mostly retired and laid-off workers who had become accustomedto performing everyday activities and chores together. Left-behind homes, meanwhile, hadbeen rented out to new arrivals from the countryside, contributing to feelings of decreas-ing social control and territoriality among long-term residents of the neighbourhood. Theyperceived migrants as contributing to the deterioration of the built environment and as achallenge to governance (Interview with juweihui representatives, May 2009). Parallelingthe Jiangnan-Subei-dichotomy in the creation of Subei identity in Shanghai before theLiberation, nowadays the label “migrant” serves to signify poverty, strange customs, ruralbackwardness, downward mobility and crime.

But the estimated 3,000 rural-to-urban migrants now, resident in Old Village were notthe only ones experienced as encroaching upon accustomed routines; the residents of theadjacent Commercial Compound were often experienced as equally alien and described asdistant and self-centred. In turn, despite initially exposing resentment and even disgusttowards the Old Village, many residents of the Commercial Compound admitted tofeelings of attachment, even nostalgia, which emerged from memories of their past inShanghai or elsewhere. The following statement is representative of many: “I grew up in atraditional neighbourhood, very clean and neat. Much like the Village, but the streets werewider; wooden houses, two floors each. I miss this type of intimacy around here”(Interview with Ms Long, May 2009).

The small size of the sample does not allow drawing robust conclusions; however, itcan be noted that different groups seem to perceive and evaluate inequality in the builtenvironment in dissimilar terms. Figure 2 shows the results of an inquiry using a semanticdifferential instrument to examine perceptions of the own and adjacent neighbourhoodsamong the different groups in the case study area. Residents of the CommercialCompound perceived their own neighbourhood in exclusively positive terms, whilstthey assigned negative attributes to the Old Village. Rural hukou residents of the OldVillage shared the positive perception of the Commercial Compound and assignednegative attributes to the Old Village. Interestingly, urban hukou residents were reluctantto assign positive attributes to the Commercial Compound and remained mostly neutral intheir evaluation.

External evaluation of the built environment builds on the evaluative comparisonbetween the own living conditions and those of others (the reference group). It plays animportant role in processes of personal and group identity and is included among fourother subdimensions (general attachment; continuity with personal past; perception offamiliarity and commitment) in Lalli’s (1992) Urban Identity Scale. To understand place-related identity under coexistence, residents in the case study area were asked to state theiragreement or disagreement with 18 statements, scoring, respectively, on a scale from1 (= disagree) to 3 (= agree). The average scores were calculated for each group (i.e.,residents of the Old Village with rural or urban hukou and residents of the GatedCompound with urban hukou) for each of the subdimensions as well as the overallplace-related identity (see Figure 3).

Overall place-related identity scores did not differ much between urban hukouholders in the case study area, regardless of their place of residence in the Old Villageor Commercial Compound; they were, however, lower for residents with rural hukou.This is not surprising as the relationship with the living environment is strengthenedwith increasing length of residence (Becker & Keim, 1975; Thum, 1981; Treinen,1965). The sense of continuity with the personal past emerges from memories of

Urban Geography 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

interacting with others—strangers, family members, neighbours—in certain places.This is especially true for neighbourhoods such as Old Village, where urban hukoulong-term residents scored highest on the subdimension “continuity”, followed by theircounterparts in the Gated Compound and the most recent arrivals in the case studyarea, rural-to-urban migrants.

Likewise, “familiarity” builds up gradually over time and is linked with the experienceof everyday encounter. It is therefore not surprising that the sense of familiarity was verysimilar among urban hukou holders in Old Village and the Commercial Compound andcomparatively low among rural-to-urban migrants.

Figure 2. Perceptions of the own versus perception of adjacent neighbourhoods among residents ofthe Commercial Compound (top); residents of Old Village holding and urban hukou (middle); andresidents of Old Village holding a rural hukou (bottom). The study used a seven-point Likert scale(±3 = very; +/−2 = quite; +/−1 = rather; 0 = neither).

10 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

In stark contrast to the literature, which assumes that rural-to-urban migrants arereluctant to stay in the city (Fan, 2008a, 2008b; Fan & Wang, 2008; Zheng et al.,2009), the majority (57%) of interviewed rural-to-urban migrants in the Old Villagewanted to stay forever. This willingness is indicated in the subdimension “commit-ment” which reflects expectations and aspirations for the future and the desire tomaintain living in the current environment. Although residents of the CommercialCompound scored highest, they were followed by rural-to-urban migrants in the OldVillage who, on average, scored slightly higher than their urban hukou counterparts. Ininterviews, they often expressed feelings of attachment and the desire to stay. Rural-to-urban migrants also showed the lowest levels of “attachment”, in contrast to residentsholding an urban hukou in the Old Village and Commercial Compound.

Unsurprisingly, reflecting the relatively high quality of their living environment,residents of the Commercial Compound scored highest on the subdimension “externalevaluation”. Remarkably, however, rural hukou holders scored much higher than theirurban hukou holding neighbours in the Old Village. This might be attributed to theirrelatively recent arrival in the city and their (still) high expectations and aspirations forthe future. Conversely, the phenomenon could also be related to the actual spaces thatparticipants refer to when they evaluate their neighbourhoods: asked to draw the spatialboundaries around their neighbourhood on a map, rural-to-urban migrants who lived inthe Old Village often referred exclusively to the area containing the CommercialCompound (see Figure 4 for a comparison between the boundaries drawn by differentgroups on site). This might explain why they evaluate “their” neighbourhood higherthan others in the Old Village. The phenomenon draws attention to the importance ofspatial perceptions and how they contribute to the mental maps of residents and further,

2.8

3.0

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

1.6

1.8

Pla

ce

-R

ela

te

d I

de

ntit

y S

co

re

(P

IS)

external

evaluationfamiliarity commitment overall PIS

1.0

1.2

1.4

Old Village residents rural hukou

Old Village residents urban hukou

Gated Compound residents urban

hukou

2.0 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.1

1.6 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.3

2.5 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.4

attachment continuity

Figure 3. Scores on the Place-Related Identity Scale (PIS) and its subdimensions for residents ofthe Old Village holding a rural and urban hukou and residents of the Gated Compound.

Urban Geography 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

to their place-related identity and perceptions of inequality. Future research into percep-tions of inequality in the built environment should therefore aim to include spatialaspects in data collection and analysis.

These findings begin to show the complex relationships of social and spatial factorsthat shape how and why people identify with their own—or adjacent—neighbourhoodsunder conditions of coexistence. Ultimately, it appears that despite claims to the contrary,dissimilar neighbourhoods (the so-called enclaves) are not at all self-sufficient; they areshaped by, and shape, their immediate environment and should be studied as entitiesembedded within their sociospatial context. Understanding exchange and interactionbetween urban enclaves is only possible by reading the materiality of and processes onthe borders and boundaries between them. The following section first presents an instanceof attempted physical division between neighbourhoods—imposed from above—beforegiving a brief overview of the everyday activities and interactions in the sociospatial in-between spaces that contribute to the undoing of formal divides and the emergence ofurban borderlands in the case study area.

Undoing the formal divide

Borderland encounters are certainly not always free of conflict; they involve sharing spaceduring physical activities or practices of personal hygiene; contesting alternative uses inand of limited space; negotiating relationships around micro-economic exchanges (client–customer relations); articulating one’s own and acknowledging the presence of the otherin; and, often, they involve repeat and deliberate practices of conviviality as the founda-tion of long-term connections and even friendship.

Residents of the Commercial Compound had long complained about the traffic jams,pollution and noise resulting from the overspill of business and other activities onto thestreet dividing the Compound from the Old Village. In response, attempting to regulatethe everyday life practices of poor residents where they inconvenienced the “civilised”ways of life of Commercial Compound residents, the jiedao erected a two-meter-highconcrete fence in front of all shop and business spaces along the street in 2008 (seeIossifova, 2009b). The Chinese government had taken a nation-wide strategy of hidingaway poor urban enclaves, instantiated in the experimental walling of migrant villages inBeijing (Gao, 2010).

Naturally, tenants in the case study area had trouble adapting to the challenge ofcatering to customers under conditions of blocked public access, lack of light and other

Figure 4. How residents of the case study area perceive the boundaries of their neighbourhood.(a): residents of the Commercial Compound; (b): urban hukou residents of Old Village; (c): ruralhukou residents of the Old Village.

12 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

inconveniences (see Figure 5). Mixing uncertainty with fear of persecution, shopkeepersand business owners behind the fence remained hesitant at first. Some had to close forgood because of the difficult economic conditions, amplified by the onset of the globaleconomic crisis which diminished their client base even further (e.g., Window of China,2008). After approximately six months, however, the braver among shopkeepers began toexperiment: some simply installed card boards behind the fence and occupied the spacebetween their façade and the fence; others removed individual poles from the fence—keeping them stored nearby so as to be able to place them back immediately in the case ofcontrol; others again removed parts of the fence and replaced them with operable metalgates; some removed poles along the entire length of their shop’s façade, erasing theimpact of the fence on their business altogether (see Figure 5). Within less than a yearafter the first appearance of the fence, most of those supposed to be contained behind ithad perverted its purpose to serve their own.

The undoing of the fence shows clearly the persistence and resilience of unprivilegedurban residents left to make do within the narrow spaces in-between dissimilar fragmentsof the planned city (see Iossifova, 2013b). The following paragraphs offer a detailedaccount of the wealth and variety of day-to-day activities and interactions that take placebetween people of different background on urban borderlands—on everyday life in-between co-present “enclaves”.

Everyday life in-between “Enclaves”

In the early morning hours, around 5 o’clock, the janitor of the food market performs hisdaily exercises at the gates, and then opens them wide to receive meat, vegetables, eggsand other products stacked on large trucks that wait in the street. A woman delivers pigs,cut in half, on a bicycle. Young men and women—some dressed in professional sportsclothing, others wearing just shorts and flip-flops—run up and down the street. Streetsweepers in blue uniforms collect the garbage that has accumulated during night hours.Boys return on cargo bikes from a night of selling Beijing duck, store their equipment

Figure 5. The transformation of a restaurant and hair salon over time (from left to right, top tobottom): In early 2007; in 2008; in early 2009, after the fence, the restaurant had to remain closeddue to lack of access; in late 2009, after the removal of individual poles; in early 2010; in thesummer of 2011, after incorporating the space in-between the former facades and the fence asbusiness spaces. (Photographs: Deljana Iossifova).

Urban Geography 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

away, urinate against the fence of the Commercial Compound, and then hide in one of thegarage-type rentals lining the street for a few hours of sleep behind a roller shutter. Peopleare up and busy on the sidewalks, gurgling and spitting whilst brushing their teeth. Atseven fifteen, the seamstress arrives, pushing the cart containing her sewing machine andcarrying bags full of cloth, zippers and yarn. Residents of the Old Village empty theirchamber pots at the public toilet and wash them. The cook of the soup restaurant crossesthe street to collect dishes from the guards at the gate to the Gated Community, wherehired taxis and cars begin to line up around 7 o’clock. Eating freshly fried bread sticksfrom the shop across the street, drivers polish the outsides of their employers’ automo-biles. Residents of the Commercial Compound cross the street to buy breakfast. Boys andgirls, carrying school bags and musical instruments, board hired taxis. Pedestrians strollup and down the street, drivers honking and shouting in protest.

As lunchtime approaches, the market is buzzing with customers. An elegantly dressedelderly woman emerges from behind the gates to sit on the seamstress’s bench. Themarket janitor sweeps the side walk and takes garbage to the collection point further downthe street. Residents of the Old Village are frequently dropped off at the gates to theCompound, where they wait for their taxis to take off before crossing the street anddisappearing in the alleys that take them home. Residents of the Commercial Compoundare frequently dropped off at the small shops along the Old Village, where they buy fruits,drinks or cigarettes before disappearing behind the Gates of the Compound. Around 2o’clock, the sound of men and women calling for used goods, old paper and bottles fromtheir cargo bicycles prevails. Hawkers appear and disappear, setting up stalls on either sideof the street, looking for rare spots in the shadow. Around 4 o’clock, migrant mothersfrom the construction workers’ dormitory next to the market take their children and babiesfor walks. The guards waive them through the gate to the Compound as they make theirway to the small polished park. Market vendors carry shopping bags for their Compoundcustomers. Around 5 o’clock, construction workers begin to return to their dormitory,stopping at the soup restaurant for a bowl of food. The drivers of big black cars honk andflash their lights angrily at pedestrians as they crawl into the driveway which leads themto the underground parking garage of the Compound.

Rushing to their homes in the Old Village, street vendors abandon their wheelbarrowsand carts on the sidewalks along the street. Young women gather along the fence along theCompound to knit and chat. At nightfall, grandparents with their grandchildren, allwearing pyjamas, leave the Commercial Compound for a late walk along the nearbySuzhou Creek. Residents of the Old Village empty and wash chamber pots, again.Shopkeepers gather behind roller shutters to watch TV with their families. Groups ofteenagers meet in the street to smoke cigarettes; workers sit together on small stools, chatand nibble on freshly roasted sunflower seeds. Men and women on bicycles turn into thealleys of the Old Village, sometimes singing loudly. Gradually, the street becomes quiet,until only the clatter of mah-jongg stones can be heard.

Towards borderland urbanism

Work on enclave urbanism has provided us with an initial understanding of the genesis ofgated commodity-housing compounds in Chinese cities, the varying nature of fences andgates, the extent of social networks and activity spaces of residents in gated traditional andcommodity-housing compounds. Sure enough, taking on what Amin (2013) calls the“telescopic” approach to the study of cities, it may appear as if these neighbourhoods areindeed disconnected, “autistic” entities, as Kaika (2011) would put it. We may find,

14 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

however, that albeit being patchworked—or rather, precisely because of being patch-worked—“enclaves” are not at all as “unifunctional” and “monocultural” as they areusually portrayed (e.g., Wissink et al., 2012).

Instead, these neighbourhoods are part of the multidimensional social and materialreality of cities, firmly embedded within the multi-layered urban fabric through continu-ously changing and evolving physical and relational linkages. The initial debate aroundenclave urbanism can be pushed further to see between enclaves—between the boundedspaces of a formal urban geography—to acknowledge the forces, dynamics and emergingpossibilities for alternative urbanities and urbanisms on the borders, boundaries andborderlands between adjacent, sociospatially differentiated urban “enclaves”.

Borders are expressions of power and intent; they are the physical manifestations ofpolitical will and its accumulation and layering through time. They can be read as theimagined lines on the equally imagined perimeter of imagined communities; of the spacesthat some call enclaves, because it is easy to think them as such based on a removedbird’s-eye view. In contrast, borderlands are spaces of contestation and dismantlement, thespaces where imposed political will is contested and where need and want emerge—because of the juxtaposition of difference, the co-presence of the other, and the emergingawareness that there are other ways of being in this world. They are not just the fixedborders or boundaries around homogeneous territories—they are the negotiated, main-tained and, occasionally, celebrated spaces in-between the different. These are spaces thatallow for the emergence of alternatives.

Urban borderlands can be the moments of encounter between the past, the present andthe future—the historical and the envisioned, enmeshed with the continuous negotiationsof power and control. Borderlands “appear and disappear with shifting social boundaries;just as symbolically as they are sometimes erected by the powerful, they are oftenpatiently and persistently undone by those who live them in their everyday” (Iossifova,2013a). They can be the shared spaces of informal, unplanned and spontaneous encounterbetween two or more worldviews, lifestyles, mind sets, individuals or groups. Theyfacilitate the co-presence of that which has been “calculated, quantified, and programmed”(Lefebvre, 2003, p. 119)—which has been brought into life intentionally and withpurpose—and the accidental other. In the context of the rapidly transforming Chinesecity, rural-to-urban migrants, urban poor and a generation of middle-class professionalscoexist in space and time, potentially giving rise to a new and surprising urbanity with“Chinese characteristics” (Iossifova, 2012b). This new urbanity can only emerge becauseof the implied possibilities inherent in urban borderlands. Thus, borderlands succeed insuspending existing spatial and temporal disconnections (Iossifova, 2010). They are“essential for the people who are present within and along them and for the formationof hybrid (or multiple) identities within the urban context; they are multidimensional andtranscalar entities that have the potential to contribute to the amplification or obliterationof sociomaterial difference in the city” (Iossifova, 2013a).

Borderlands make obvious the triggers, conditions and effects of global systems ofresource accumulation, distribution and depletion. They are not at all marginal. In fact,they are the central spaces of our cities; they amplify difference. Accepting that escalatinginequality in China becomes explicit in its splintered urban fabric, we must nonethelessacknowledge the state of adjacency and co-presence of its distinct urban neighbourhoodsand find answers to urgent emerging questions. Inequality matters at the local level andhow people perceive—and negotiate—this condition is linked to processes of identity andidentification, to the evaluation of current needs and future aspirations, and to comparisonwith co-present reference groups. These are just some of the emerging issues, important

Urban Geography 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

within and outside the context of urban China. How do co-present groups in the citydelimit their real or imagined territories? How do they negotiate these boundaries throughspatial tactics and strategies of co-present social interactions? How do they form andmaintain individual and group identities under conditions of coexistence in continuouslytransforming urban environments? Finding answers to these questions will inform urbanpolicy, design and planning. Future research should therefore seek to understand the roleof urban borderlands not just in the perception of inequality, but also in processesexacerbating or soothing the condition itself.

With this paper, I call for a re-engagement of scholarship with the realities of ourcities—in China and elsewhere. We need to move beyond superficial inquiries andtheories that seem written in stone. I argue that rather than looking explicitly at stratifyingand segregating effects of urban “enclaves”—and conceiving of cities along the lines ofprevious notions of post-modern urbanism and “patchwork city” (Dear & Flusty, 1998) or“splintering urbanism” (Graham & Marvin, 2001)—we should broaden our scope toinclude the ways in which livelihoods, identities and coexistence are negotiated in-between supposed enclaves. Such scholarship, studying the very joint lines, the breaksand folds where top-down planning and bottom-up agency converge and where alternativefutures become possible, will contribute to a more holistic understanding of emergingcities in China and beyond. This borderland urbanism reads and protects the spaces in-between as moments of assemblage—of actors, actions and activities across social,temporal, cultural, economic or plain spatial divisions; it includes the possibility of thealternative, the otherwise.

Note1. In the interest of the privacy of participants in this research, the real names of the areas in

question as well as of research participants, where applicable, have been replaced.

ReferencesAmin, Ash (2013). Telescopic urbanism and the poor. City, 17(4), 476–492.Angotti, Tom (2013). The new century of the metropolis: Urban enclaves and orientalism. New

York, NY: Routledge.Becker, Heidede, & Keim, Dieter K. (1975). Wahrnehmung in der städtischen Umwelt, möglicher

Impuls für kollektives Handeln. Berlin: Kiepert.Boano, Camillo, & Martén, Ricardo (2013). Agamben’s urbanism of exception: Jerusalem’s border

mechanics and biopolitical strongholds. Cities, 34, 6–17.Boyce, Christopher J., Brown, Gordon D. A., & Moore, Simon C. (2010). Money and happiness:

Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21(4), 471–475.Bray, David (2005). Social space and governance in urban China: The Danwei system from origins

to reform. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Breitung, Werner (2012). Enclave urbanism in China: Attitudes towards gated communities in

Guangzhou. Urban Geography, 33(2), 278–294.Caldeira, Teresa P. R. (1996). Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation. Public Culture, 8(2),

303–328.Cheng, Tienjun, & Selden, Mark (1994). The origins and social consequences of China’s hukou

system. The China Quarterly, 644–668. doi:10.1017/S0305741000043083Dear, Michael, & Flusty, Steven (1998). Postmodern urbanism. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, 88(1), 50–72.Dong, Hui, & Zha, Minjie (2009, July 24). Beaten vendor in intensive care. Shanghai Daily Online

Edition. Retrieved from http://www.shanghaidaily.com/Metro/health-and-science/Beaten-vendor-in-intensive-care/shdaily.shtml

16 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Douglass, Mike, Wissink, Bart, & van Kempen, Ronald (2012). Enclave urbanism in China:Consequences and interpretations. Urban Geography, 33(2), 167–182.

Fan, C. Cindy (2008a). China on the move: Migration, the state, and the household. London:Routledge.

Fan, C. Cindy (2008b). Migration, hukou, and the city. In S. Yusuf & T. Saich (Eds.), Chinaurbanizes: Consequences, strategies, and policies (pp. 65–89). Washington, DC: The WorldBank.

Fan, C. Cindy, & Wang, Wenfei Winnie (2008). The household as security: Strategies of rural–urbanmigrants in China. In I. L. Nielsen & R. Smyth (Eds.), Migration and social protection in China(pp. 205–243). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.

Fried, Marc (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl & J. Powell (Eds.), The urban condition:People and policy in the metropolis (pp. 151–171). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gao, Helen (2010, October 3). Migrant “villages” within a city ignite debate. The New York Times.Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/asia/04beijing.html?_r=2

Goodkind, Daniel, & West, Loraine A. (2002). China’s floating population: Definitions, data andrecent findings. Urban Studies, 39(12), 2237–2250.

Graham, Stephen, & Marvin, Simon (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures,technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.

Graumann, Carl Friedrich (1983). On multiple identities. International Social Science Journal,35(96), 309–321.

Graumann, Carl Friedrich (1988). Towards a phenomenology of being at home. Paper presented atthe 10th International Conference of the IAPS: Looking Back to the Future, Delft, Netherlands.

He, Shenjing (2007). State-sponsored gentrification under market transition: The case of Shanghai.Urban Affairs Review, 43(2), 171–198.

He, Shenjing (2013). Evolving enclave urbanism in China and its socio-spatial implications: Thecase of Guangzhou. Social & Cultural Geography, 14(3), 243–275.

Ho, Wing Chung, & Ng, Petrus (2008). Public amnesia and multiple modernities in Shanghai:Narrating the postsocialist future in a former socialist “Model Community”. Journal ofContemporary Ethnography, 37(4), 383–416.

Hogan, Trevor, Bunnell, Tim, Pow, Choon-Piew, Permanasari, Eka, & Morshidi, Sirat (2012). Asianurbanisms and the privatization of cities. Cities, 29(1), 59–63.

Honig, Emily (1989). The politics of prejudice: Subei people in republican-era Shanghai. ModernChina, 15(3), 243–274.

Honig, Emily (1990). Invisible inequalities: The status of Subei people in contemporary Shanghai.The China Quarterly, 122, 273–292.

Honig, Emily (1992). Creating Chinese ethnicity: Subei people in Shanghai, 1850–1980. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Imai, Heide (2013). The liminal nature of alleyways: Understanding the alleyway roji as a“Boundary” between past and present. Cities, 34, 58–66.

Iossifova, Deljana (2009a). Blurring the joint line? Urban life on the edge between old and newin Shanghai. URBAN DESIGN International, 14(2), 65–83.

Iossifova, Deljana (2009b). Negotiating livelihoods in a city of difference: Narratives of gentrifica-tion in Shanghai. Critical Planning, 16, 98–116.

Iossifova, Deljana (2010). WP/39 identity and space on the borderland between old and new inShanghai: A case study. In UNU-WIDER (Ed.), UNU-WIDER Working Paper Series (Vol.2010). Helsinki: UNU-WIDER.

Iossifova, Deljana (2012a). Place and identity on the borderland between old and new inShanghai: A case study. In J. Beall, B. Guha-Khasnobis, & R. Kanbur (Eds.),Urbanization and development in Asia: Multidimensional perspectives (pp. 73–94). NewDelhi: Oxford University Press.

Iossifova, Deljana (2012b). Shanghai borderlands: The rise of a new urbanity? In T. Edensor & M.Jayne (Eds.), Urban theory beyond the west: A world of cities (pp. 193–206). London:Routledge.

Iossifova, Deljana (2013a). Searching for common ground: Urban borderlands in a world of bordersand boundaries. Cities, 34, 1–5.

Iossifova, Deljana (2013b). Beyond scarcity: Making space in the city. CityCity Magazine, 1, 20–23.Kaika, Maria (2011). Autistic architecture: The fall of the icon and the rise of the serial object of

architecture. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(6), 968–992.

Urban Geography 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Karaman, Ozan, & Islam, Tolga (2012). On the dual nature of intra-urban borders: The case of aRomani neighborhood in Istanbul. Cities, 29(4), 234–243.

Knight, John (2013). Inequality in China: An overview (C. B. U. Partnerships, DevelopmentEconomics Vice Presidency, Trans.) In Policy research working paper (Vol. 6482).Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Knight, John, & Ding, Sai (2012). China’s remarkable economic growth. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Knight, John, & Gunatilaka, Ramani (2011). Does economic growth raise happiness in China?Oxford Development Studies, 39(1), 1–24.

Lalli, Marco (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 285–303.

Lefebvre, Henri (2003). The urban revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Li, Bingqi (2004). Urban social exclusion in transitional China. CASEpaper 82. Retrieved from

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/casepaper82.pdfLi, Si-ming, Zhu, Yushu, & Li, Limei (2012). Neighborhood type, gatedness, and residential

experiences in Chinese cities: A study of Guangzhou. Urban Geography, 33(2), 237–255.Li, Zhigang, & Wu, Fulong (2013). Residential satisfaction in China’s informal settlements: A case

study of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Urban Geography, 34(7), 923–949.Mobrand, Erik (2006). Politics of cityward migration: An overview of China in comparative

perspective. Habitat International, 30(2), 261–274.Newman, David (2003). On borders and power: A theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands

Studies, 18(1), 13–25.Newman, David, & Paasi, Anssi (1998). Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: Boundary

narratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 186–207.Proshansky, Harold M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2),

147–169.Rapoport, Amos (1982). The meaning of the built environment. A nonverbal communication

approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Roy, Ananya (2011a). Re-forming the megacity: Calcutta and the rural–urban interface. In A.

Sorensen & J. Okata (Eds.), Megacities (Vol. 10, pp. 93–109). Berlin: Springer.Roy, Ananya (2011b). Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning. Planning Theory,

10(1), 6–15.Shen, Jianfa, & Huang, Yefang (2003). The working and living space of the “floating population” in

China. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 44(1), 51–62.Shen, Jie, & Wu, Fulong (2012). The development of master-planned communities in Chinese

suburbs: A case study of Shanghai’s thames town. Urban Geography, 33(2), 183–203.Solinger, Dorothy J. (1995). The floating population in the Cities: Chances for assimilation. In D. S.

Davis, R. Kraus, B. Naughton, & E. J. Perry (Eds.), Urban spaces in contemporary China: Thepotential for autonomy and community in post-mao China (pp. 113–139). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Solinger, Dorothy J. (1999). Contesting citizenship in urban China: Peasant migrants, the state, andthe logic of the market. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sommer, Robert (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Stokols, Daniel, & Shumaker, Sally A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. InJ. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 441–488). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thum, Karl (1981). Soziale Bindungen an das Wohnviertel. In E. Bodzenta, I. Speiser, & K. Thum(Eds.), Wo sind Grossstädter daheim?: Studien über Bindungen an das Wohnviertel (pp.33–108). Wien: Böhlau.

Treinen, Heiner (1965). Symbolische Ortsbezogenheit. Eine soziologische Untersuchung zumHeimatproblem. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 17, 73–97.

van Praag, Bernard (2011). Well-being inequality and reference groups: An agenda for new research.The Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(1), 111–127.

Wang, Donggen, Li, Fei, & Chai, Yanwei (2012). Activity spaces and sociospatial segregation inBeijing. Urban Geography, 33(2), 256–277.

Wang, Ya Ping (2004). Urban poverty, housing and social change in China. London: Routledge.

18 D. Iossifova

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Weichhart, Peter (1999). Spatial identity (two-day intensive course). Alexander von HumboldtLectures in Human Geography. Retrieved from http://www.ru.nl/gpm/@800980/pagina/

Whyte, Martin (2010). Myth of the social volcano: Perceptions of inequality and distributiveinjustice in contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Window of China (2008, December 9). Financial crisis forces China’s migrants back home for work.Special Report: Global Financial Crisis. Retrieved from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/09/content_10478975.htm

Wise, J. Mcgregor (2005). Assemblage. In C. J. Stivale (Ed.), Gilles Deleuze: Key concepts (pp.77–87). Montreal: McGill Queens University Press.

Wissink, Bart, van Kempen, Ronald, Fang, Yiping, & Li, Si-ming (2012). Introduction—Living inChinese enclave cities. Urban Geography, 33(2), 161–166.

Wu, Fulong (2005). Rediscovering the “Gate” under market transition: From work-unit compoundsto commodity housing enclaves. Housing Studies, 20(2), 235–254.

Wu, Fulong, Zhang, Fangzhu, & Webster, Chris (2013a). Rural migrants in urban China: Enclavesand transient urbanism. London: Routledge.

Wu, Fulong, Zhang, Fangzhu, & Webster, Chris (2013b). Informality and the development anddemolition of urban villages in the Chinese peri-urban area. Urban Studies, 50(10), 1919–1934.

Wu, Rufina. (2007). Beijing, underground (Master of Architecture Master thesis). University ofWaterloo, Cambridge.

Wu, Rufina, & Canham, Stefan (2008). Portraits from above: Hong Kong’s informal rooftopcommunities. Berlin: Peperoni Books.

Wu, Weiping (2002). Migrant housing in urban China: Choices and constraints. Urban AffairsReview, 38(1), 90–119.

Wu, Weiping (2006). Migrant intra-urban residential mobility in urban China. Housing Studies,21(5), 745–765.

Wu, Weiping (2008). Migrant settlement and spatial distribution in metropolitan Shanghai. TheProfessional Geographer, 60(1), 101–120.

Yang, Lifei (2008, October 13). Snack vendors get booted off city streets. Shanghai Daily OnlineEdition. Retrieved from http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=376658&type=Metro

Yip, Ngai (2012). Walled without gates: Gated communities in Shanghai. Urban Geography, 33(2),221–236.

Zhang, Li (2001). Strangers in the city: Reconfigurations of space, power, and social networkswithin China’s floating population. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Zhang, Li (2002). Spatiality and urban citizenship in late socialist China. Public Culture, 14(2),311–334.

Zhang, Li, Zhao, Simon X. B., & Tian, J. P. (2003). Self-help in housing and chengzhongcun inChina’s urbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 912–937.

Zheng, Siqi, Long, Fenjie, Fan, C. Cindy, & Gu, Yizhen (2009). Urban villages in China: A 2008survey of migrant settlements in Beijing. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 50(4), 425–446.

Zhu, Yushu, Breitung, Werner, & Li, Si-ming (2012). The changing meaning of neighbourhoodattachment in Chinese commodity housing estates: Evidence from Guangzhou. Urban Studies,49(11), 2439–2457.

Urban Geography 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

11:

12 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014