@phdthesis{ManzanoGomez,
  author    = {Manzano G{\´o}mez, Noel A.},
  title     = {The reverse of urban planning. Towards a 20th century history of informal urbanization in Europe and its origins in Madrid and Paris (1850-1940)},
  doi       = {10.25643/bauhaus-universitaet.4569},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:wim2-20220119-45693},
  school      = {Bauhaus-Universit{\"a}t Weimar},
  pages     = {350},
  abstract  = {The objective of this thesis was to understand the 20th-century history of informal urbanisation in Europe and its origins in Madrid and Paris. The concept of informal urbanisation was employed to refer to the process of developing shacks and precarious single-family housing areas that were not planned by the public powers and were considered to be substandard because of their below-average materials and social characteristics. Our main hypothesis was that despite being a phenomenon with ancient roots, informal urbanisation emerged as a public problem and was subsequently prohibited in connection with another historical process occurred: the birth of contemporary urban planning. Therefore, its transformation into a deviant and illegal urban growth mechanism would have been a pan-European process occurring at the same pace that urban planning developed during the first decades of the 20th century. Analysing the 20th-century history of informal urbanisation in Europe was an ambitious task that required using a large number of sources. To contend with this issue, this thesis combined two main methods: historiographical research about informal urbanisation in Europe and archival research of two case studies, Madrid and Paris, to make the account more precise by analysing primary sources of the subject. Our research of these informal areas, which were produced mainly through poor private allotments and housing developed on land squats, revealed two key moments of explosive growth across Europe: the 1920s and 1960s. The near disappearance of informal urbanisation throughout the continent seemed to be a consequence not of the historical development of urban planning—which was commonly transgressed and bypassed—but of the exacerbation of global economic inequalities, permitting the development of a geography of privilege in Europe. Concerning the cases of Paris and Madrid, the origins of informal urbanisation—that is, the moment the issue started to be problematised—seemed to occur in the second half of the 19th century, when a number of hygienic norms and surveillance devices began to control housing characteristics. From that moment onwards, informal urbanisation areas formed peripheral belts in both cities. This growth became the object of an illegalisation process of which we have identified three phases: (i) the unregulated development of the phenomenon during the second half of the 20th century, (ii) the institutional production of "exception regulations" to permit a controlled development of substandard housing in the peripheral fringes of both cities, and (iii) the synchronic prohibition of informal urbanisation in the 1920s and its illegal reproduction.},
  subject      = {Stadtplanung},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Camerin,
  author    = {Camerin, Federico},
  title     = {THE ROLE OF THE GREAT PROPERTY IN THE EUROPEAN CITY-MAKING PROCESS IN THE LAST THIRD OF THE 20th CENTURY. MILITARY PROPERTY AS REFERENCE},
  doi       = {10.25643/bauhaus-universitaet.4201},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:wim2-20200714-42018},
  school      = {Bauhaus-Universit{\"a}t Weimar},
  pages     = {453},
  abstract  = {The thesis concerns a work of urban history intended not to describe the city but rather to interpret it. By doing so, I have interpreted the city by means of the role played by the so-called 'great property' in the European city-making process during the last three decades of the 20th century, specifically focused on the concrete case of military properties in Italy. I have also considered the role played by other kinds of great properties, i.e. industries and railway, which previously acted in the production of the built environment in a different way respect to the military one. As all of them have as common denominator the fact of being 'capital in land', I analysed great industrial and railway properties in order to extrapolate a methodology which helped me to interpret the relationship between military properties and city-making process in Europe in the late 20th century. I have analysed the relationship between the capital in land and the city-making process on the ground of the understanding the interrelation between the great property, the urban development, and the agents involved in the urban and territorial planning. Here I have showed that urban planning is not the decisive factor influencing the citymaking process, but instead the power held by the capital in land. I have found that is the great property the trigger of the creation of new 'areas of centrality' intended as large areas for consumerism. As far as the role played by great property is concerned, I have also discovered that it has evolved over time. Originally, industrial and railway properties have been regenerated into a wide range of new profit-driven spaces; successively, I have found out that most of the regeneration of military premises aimed to materialise areas of centrality. The way of interpreting this factor has been based on focusing my attention on the military premises in Italy: I have classified their typology when they have been built and, most importantly, when they have been regenerated into new areas of centrality.},
  subject      = {Stadtplanung},
  language  = {en}
}