Explorations into the urbanization of neoliberalism reveal what may be referred to collectively as the "new" fragmentations of the post-Fordist, entrepreneurial city. Here, patterns and processes of political devolution, the rescaling of social relations of power, and the "retreat of the state" are reflected within, inter alia, the emergence and structures of urban regimes and public-private structures of governance, and the expanding influences of and emphases on place, community, and "the local" to urban political economies (Swyngedouw 1989; Harvey 1996; Amin 1994; Zukin 1995; Lauria 1997; Brenner and Theodore 2002). As Brenner and Theodore (2002b) argue, however, how (and if) these new fragmentations emerge and develop in any given city is contingent and context-specific, conditioned as much by inherited geographies, institutions, structural and physical conditions of "past" (i.e., Fordist, industrial) urban development regimes as they are by any sort of top-down ideological project of neoliberal change (see also Peck and Tickell 2002). The articulation between the past and the present is commonly one of creative destruction, whereby inherited structures, institutions, and geographies are physically reclaimed and refurbished and discursively reshaped and repackaged under locally specific and historically contingent circumstances to satisfy the ever-changing, ever-expanding political and economic demands of global, mobile capital (Harvey 1989; Brenner and Theodore 2002b).

Environmentally translated, recent developments in urban environmental geography and a nascent urban political ecology have been instrumental in characterizing and revealing the transition of urban environments and environmental governance to new, neoliberal forms. For instance, studies exploring the neoliberalization of urban environments have critiqued the imposition of new environmental narratives insofar as they accompany and expedite the exclusive, entrepreneurial agendas of gentrification and urban renewal (Keil and Graham 1998; Cowell and Thomas 2002; Whitehead 2003); others reveal the emergence and the significance of new structures and coalitions of urban environmental governance and regulation (Feldman and Jonas 2000; Gibbs and Jonas 2000; Jonas and Gibbs 2003; Pincetl 2003), including (the capacity for) the production or reproduction of social marginalizations and inequities (e.g., Pincetl 2003). A growing body of research on the reclamation and repackaging of once-industrial urban brownfields and waterfronts in the interests of capital accumulation and the production of place (best illustrated by Baltimore's Inner Harbor) succeed in demonstrating the environments of creative destruction (DeFilippis 1997; Eade 1997; Cowell and Thomas 2002). Meanwhile, similar (if less critical and more normative) work by Thompson (2002), Freestone and Nichols (2004), and Karasov and Waryan (1993) illustrate efforts to redefine and reconfigure the meaning of urban parks in the face of global urban restructuring (cf. McInoy 2000). Finally, Smith's (2004; Smith and Hanson 2003) work on water privatization in post-apartheid Cape Town is an excellent example of the significance of inherited social geographies and institutional structures to the regulation and provision of urban environmental resources in cities making the neoliberal turn.

However, despite the unquestionable and profound changes to their structure, form and function over the past century of industrial urbanization (Mumford 1955; Antrop 2004), and the rapid and widespread (re-) awakening among urban decision makers, boosters, and elites of their significance to urban competitiveness and renewal (Platt et al 1994; Harding 1999; Harnik 2000), material urban ecologies have received little attention in the neoliberal literature (cf. McCarthy and Prudham 2004). Specifically, there has been little discussion about how or where the new fragmentations and narratives of neoliberal urbanism—be they "new" discourses of nature and eco-modernization or regimes of urban ecological governance—articulate themselves with the inherited ecologies and social geographies of the industrial city. As I discuss below, in the post-industrial, postFordist cities of the north, the success of new, entrepreneurial environmental discourses are by no means assured; rather, following Brenner and Theodore (2002b), their relative success is (in part) contingent and context-specific, conditioned by their relative ability to articulate themselves with inherited, in situ ecological and social conditions, discourses, and geographies.

This chapter explores the articulation of "old" and "new" urban ecologies in Philadelphia. Specifically, I explore the articulation of contemporary, entrepreneurial narratives of restored nature with (a) the inherited ecologies and social geographies of the industrial city; and (b) the inherited, concomitant environmental narratives of adjacent, marginalized communities. As I demonstrate, both narratives orient themselves around discourses of control, albeit in distinctly different forms. On the one hand, ecological control is central to a rapidly growing and widespread urban ecological restoration discourse whose agenda of the reclamation and restoration of urban ecologies to some vision or version of normative (i.e., native, aesthetic, marketable) ecological structure and form puts it squarely in the realm of ecomodernization, as that term is described by Keil and Desfor (2003). On the other hand, among long-marginalized adjacent black communities, the decay of their local ecologies over the past several decades is widely perceived as indicative of a more widespread and historical crisis of social control, whereby histories of racism, isolation, poverty, and political neglect are implicated in uneven patterns of ecological blight and a pervasive fear of nature. The normative visions (or imaginaries (see Watts and Peet 1996:263-268)) of nature that these two narratives subsequently promulgate suggest the capacities for both opportunity and struggle in the creative destruction of Philadelphia's urban ecologies.

The chapter is structured as follows: first, I discuss the fragmenting tendencies of industrial urbanization and explore the social and environmental legacies that are the inheritance of the post-industrial neoliberal city. Next, I discuss the parallel legacies of social and ecological fragmentation in Philadelphia and introduce the competing narratives of controlled nature—both entrepreneurial and inherited—that appear to currently be in the process of articulation. I argue that both narratives of control stem from and are responses to the fragmented legacies of urban industrialism in Philadelphia. Next, I discuss their contradictions and the capacities they appear to offer for both opportunity and contestation. In particular, I emphasize the potential for apolitical, ahistorical narratives of entrepreneurial nature to demean and reproduce the social inequalities of earlier (and contemporary) fragmenting processes.



If you're wanting to learn how to set goals now for tomorrow's benefit. Then this may be the most important letter you'll ever read. You're About To Learn All About Growth Potential Without Potential Waste And How To Manage Your Money Principles, No Matter How Much Time You Have Had To Prepare. It doesn't matter if you've never experienced entrepreneurship up close and personal, This guide will tell you everything you need to know, without spending too much brainpower!

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment