« A political geography of the city: urban agriculture and public space » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
Aucun résumé des modifications
Aucun résumé des modifications
 
(5 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
{{Infobox Lecture
| image =
| image_caption =
| faculté =
| département =
| professeurs = [[Jörg Balsiger|Balsiger, Jörg]]<ref>[https://www.unige.ch/gedt/membres/balsiger-joerg/ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur le site de l'UNIGE]</ref><ref>[https://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/MaxWeberProgramme/People/MaxWeberFellows/Fellows2007-2008/Balsiger Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur le site de European Univeristy Institute]</ref><ref>[https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=iq6LOksAAAAJ&hl=en Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur Google Scholar]</ref><ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joerg_Balsiger Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur Researchgate.net]</ref><ref>[http://unige.academia.edu/JoergBalsiger Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://www.britannica.com/contributor/Jorg-Balsiger/9312315 Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur Britannica.com]</ref><ref>[http://caucasus-mt.net/resources/people/person/216 Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur le site de Scientific Network for the Caucasus Mountain Region ]</ref>
| assistants = 
| enregistrement =
| cours = [[Political Geography]]
| lectures =
*[[Introduction and origins of the (sub)discipline of political geography]]
*[[The origins and evolution of States]]
*[[Critical geopolitics]]
*[[Democracy, citizenship and elections]]
*[[Urban policy]]
*[[A political geography of the city: urban agriculture and public space]]
*[[Identity politics and social movements]]
*[[Nationalism and regionalism]]
*[[Imperialism and postcolonialism]]
*[[Regional environmental governance]]
}}
The city is part of the range of actors that is multiplying in the sub-discipline of political geography. We will talk about the city, namely urban agriculture and public spaces. NaVille is a project that focuses on social and political recompositions around the question of nature in cities. One entry is through urban gardening especially urban agriculture. We must take the city as a political space. It can be understood in many ways, because the city is political because it is produced by public policies, it is also produced by the practices of the inhabitants and the various actors within the framework of a societal project, the city is also the object of power relations. One of the issues at stake in these power relations is that of legitimacy and the production of modes of legitimacy concerning the development of urban spaces. Therefore, comparing legitimacy raises the question of the legitimacy of uses, namely who has the legitimacy to produce the city, is it politics as an elected representative for example, is it the inhabitant, who is legitimated to decide to grant legitimacy to someone.  
The city is part of the range of actors that is multiplying in the sub-discipline of political geography. We will talk about the city, namely urban agriculture and public spaces. NaVille is a project that focuses on social and political recompositions around the question of nature in cities. One entry is through urban gardening especially urban agriculture. We must take the city as a political space. It can be understood in many ways, because the city is political because it is produced by public policies, it is also produced by the practices of the inhabitants and the various actors within the framework of a societal project, the city is also the object of power relations. One of the issues at stake in these power relations is that of legitimacy and the production of modes of legitimacy concerning the development of urban spaces. Therefore, comparing legitimacy raises the question of the legitimacy of uses, namely who has the legitimacy to produce the city, is it politics as an elected representative for example, is it the inhabitant, who is legitimated to decide to grant legitimacy to someone.  


Ligne 7 : Ligne 29 :
}}
}}


= Espace public : l’espace et son public =
= Public space: space and its public =


[[File:géopolitique espace public 1.png|thumb|légende]]
[[File:géopolitique espace public 1.png|thumb|légende]]


Il y a différentes manières en géographie dans les sciences sociales de parler d'espace public. Une manière très simple et très restrictive est la définition juridique, c’est-à-dire que l'espace public est l’espace qui n'est pas privé. Autrement dit, ce sont des régimes de propriété. Une définition qui peut-être intéresse davantage une géographie qui s'intéresse la société, aux pratiques, aux actions des acteurs sociaux est la question de l'accessibilité. C’est la question de l’espace public en fonction des usages, c'est-à-dire que l'espace public est un espace qui se rend accessible à la plus grande partie de la société. Un espace juridiquement privé pourrait tout à fait être public en termes d'accès.
There are different ways in geography in the social sciences to speak of public space. A very simple and restrictive way is the legal definition, that is, public space is space that is not private. In other words, they are property regimes. One definition that may be of more interest to a geography that is interested in society, practices and actions of social actors is the question of accessibility. This is the question of public space according to usage, that is, public space is a space that becomes accessible to most of society. A legally private area could well be public in terms of access.


Une troisième définition est celle de la publicité et de la visibilité. C’est la qualité publique de quelque chose, c'est donc l'espace où se donne à voir la société, à savoir un espace où les relations sociales se rendent visibles, se donnent à voir et se mettent en scène. La notion de sphère publique a notamment été théorisée par Jürgen Habermas renvoyant jusqu'à l'agora grecque, c’est une vision de l'espace public comme l'espace politique par excellence, l'espace de la chose publique, l’espace du débat public et l’espace où la société prend forme et se construit. L’espace public va être une notion intéressante pour explorer l'espace urbain parce qu’il va renvoyer à des questions foncières, à des questions d'usage et d'accessibilité, mais aussi à des questions de visibilité et va poser des questions politiques un avec la notion sphère publique.
A third definition is that of advertising and visibility. It is the public quality of something, it is therefore the space where society is seen, namely a space where social relations are made visible, seen and staged. The notion of the public sphere was theorized by Jürgen Habermas, referring to the Greek agora, as a vision of the public space as the political space par excellence, the space of the public thing, the space of public debate and the space where society takes shape and is built. Public space will be an interesting notion to explore urban space because it will refer to questions of land, use and accessibility, but also to questions of visibility and will ask political questions one with the notion public sphere.


Les trois premières définitions prennent l’espace comme une réalité matérielle à savoir un espace qui est privé ou public, accessible et où on se donne à voir, la dernière définition conçoit l'espace public plutôt comme une abstraction.  
The first three definitions take space as a material reality, i.e. a space that is private or public, accessible and where one can see oneself, the last definition conceives public space rather as an abstraction.[[File:géopolitique espace public 2.png|thumb|légende]]


[[File:géopolitique espace public 2.png|thumb|légende]]
The term "public" tends to often be opposed to "community". It is in French where the term "public" and "community" are most often opposed with a negative connotation referring to "communautarisme" whereas in the English language, it is different, because "communities" are not necessarily negatively connoted. What is the philosophical notion that we seek to put behind the term "public space"? Eric Tassin thinks the "public" in the term "public space" as a mutual property, that is to say, when I am in the public space, I belong only to myself and I am there in as a member of society, but in the end I am not divested myself by my presence in this space, I can instead express my political ideas and live my social existence within my peers, while for Ticino the community would be rather, an ultimate form of divestment of oneself is in fact the fear of communitarianism which is ultimately that the person is self-denial for the benefit of something more encompassing than the community. It is also possible to think of the community in a more specialized way as communities of practice, epistemic communities or a community of interests. The difference is ultimately not as explicit as it seems between "public" and "community" because at some point, doing "community" can be a first step before making "public". Don Mitchell is one of the great American authors on public space issues who in an analysis of collective gardens in New York shows how some New Yorkers who were in this case Puerto Rican immigrants and on the margins of society, gathering together in their community in the public space, making gardens collectively were a first step to access the public space to make themselves visible in urban society and finally to participate in the "police" in the sense of the life of the city.  


We must be attentive to the way in which these references are used explicitly or implicitly by the actors, how in a relationship, in a controversy between two actors, by presenting a project as being "public" or as being rather "community", it will there is a goal behind to credit or discredit some actors. It is interesting to see how for a given public space and delimit the space that must be public, how the very notion of "public" is defined as either exclusive or rather inclusive.


Le terme « public » a tendance à souvent être opposé à « communauté ». C’est en langue française où le terme « public » et « communauté » sont le plus souvent opposés avec une connotation négative renvoyant au « communautarisme » alors qu’en langue anglaise, c'est différent, car des « communities » ne sont pas forcément connotés négativement. Quelle est la notion philosophique que l’on cherche à mettre derrière le terme d'« espace public » ? Éric Tassin pense le « public » dans le terme « espace public » comme une propriété mutuelle, c'est-à-dire quand je suis dans l’espace public, je n’appartiens qu'à moi-même et je suis là en tant que membre de la société, mais finalement je ne suis pas dessaisi moi-même par ma présence dans cet espace, je peux au contraire exprimer mes idées politiques et vivre mon existence sociale au sein de mes pairs, tandis que pour Tessin la communauté serait plutôt une forme ultime de dessaisissement de soi, c'est en fait la peur du communautarisme qui est finalement que la personne soit dessaisie d’elle-même au profit de quelque chose de plus englobant que serait la communauté. Il est aussi possible de penser la communauté de manière plus spécialisée comme des communautés de pratiques, des communautés épistémiques ou encore une communauté d'intérêts. la différence n’est finalement pas aussi explicite qu’elle ne parait entre « public » et « communauté » parce qu’à un moment, faire « communauté » cela peut être une première étape avant de faire « public ». Don Mitchell est un des grands auteurs américains sur les questions d'espace public qui dans une analyse de jardins collectifs à New York montre comment certains habitants de New York qui étaient en l'occurrence des immigrés portoricains et en marge de la société, en se réunissant au sein de leur communauté dans l'espace public, en y faisant des jardins collectivement étaient un premier pas pour accéder à l'espace public pour se rendre visibles dans la société urbaine et pour finalement participer à la « police » dans le sens de la vie de la cité.
= The emergence of urban agriculture and its challenges =
 
When we think of the term "agriculture", we think of the farmer or the peasant, but when we speak of "urban agriculture" we think of it as a citizen and a city dweller. This raises the question of what agriculture is today and who is a farmer today.  
Il faut être attentif à la manière dont ces références sont utilisées explicitement ou implicitement par les acteurs, comment dans une relation, dans une controverse entre deux acteurs, en présentant un projet comme étant « public » ou comme étant plutôt « communautaire », il va y avoir un objectif derrière pour créditer ou discréditer certains acteurs. Il est intéressant de voir comment pour un espace public donné et délimiter l'espace qui doit être public, comment la notion même de « public » est définie soit exclusive ou plutôt inclusive.
 
= L’émergence de l’agriculture urbaine et ses enjeux =
Lorsqu’on pense à propos du terme « agriculture », on pense à l'agriculteur ou au paysan, mais lorsqu’on parle d'« agriculture urbaine » cela se fait en tant que citoyen et citadin. Cela pose la question de ce qu’est l’agriculture aujourd’hui et qui est agriculteur aujourd’hui.  
   
   
[[File:Nahmias et le Caro 2012.jpg|thumb|Source: Nahmias et le Caro, 2012.]]
[[File:Nahmias et le Caro 2012.jpg|thumb|Source: Nahmias et le Caro, 2012.]]


Ce schéma à pour but de décentrer la question de l'agriculture urbaine de la ville-centre, c’est-à-dire se demander que l'agriculture est une activité de production animale ou végétale, quelle soit ou non professionnelle. En géographie urbaine, lorsqu’on pense à la ville, on a tendance à parler de l'urbain, c’est-à-dire la ville comme entité morphologique compacte et bien délimitée tant à perdre de l'importance au profite d'une culture qui serait généralisée.  
The aim of this scheme is to decentralize the question of urban agriculture from the city centre, i.e. to ask whether agriculture is an animal or plant production activity, whether or not it is professional. In urban geography, when we think of the city, we tend to speak of the urban, that is, the city as a compact and well delimited morphological entity that loses importance to the benefit of a culture that would be generalized.  
 
Avec ce schéma, Nahmias et Caro réfléchissent à tous les modes d'agriculture telle qu’ils entrent en relation avec les différentes manières de définir la ville. Ils proposent la ville-centre comme un endroit où il peut se passer de l'agriculture urbaine, les franges urbaines qui sont plutôt les périphéries, l’espace périurbain et l’espace rural. C’est une typologie arbitraire, mais qui permet de penser en termes de gradation des espaces, mais cela permet également de voir les différents types d'agricultures, l'agriculture en circuit long qui est l’agriculture conventionnelle, l’agriculture en circuit court comme l’agriculture contractuelle de proximité, l'agriculture interstitielle qui est l'agriculture qui existe encore dans des dents creuses en ville et puis les jardins privés et l'agriculture de loisirs. Les critères délimités ces différents types d'agriculture sont flous. Néanmoins, on voit que l'agriculture urbaine est une agriculture qui se pratique en ville et dans les périphéries, mais c’est une agriculture qui est à la fois professionnelle et amatrice puisqu'on a à la fois vraiment une agriculture au sens propre et des jardins. Cela se fait comme dans des espaces privés tout comme dans des espaces publics puisque nous parlons bien de jardins privés d’un côté et des interstices urbains. Ce qui est intéressant est qu’on est dans des circuits longs. Dans le cas de la Suisse, le pastoralisme dans les montagnes bernoises, le simple fait qu’ils dédicacent une certaine partie de la production à un marché urbain va en quelque sorte rendre son agriculture urbaine. L’agriculture va avoir différentes manières d’être urbaine, cela va être aussi tous les espaces agricoles qui vont être pratiqués par des urbains y amenant une manière d'être urbaine. C’est une définition qui est peut-être un peu trop extensive.


[[File:production agricole agglomération 1.jpg|thumb|Source : Direction générale de l’Agriculture, Canton de Genève, 2013.]]
With this scheme, Nahmias and Caro reflect on all modes of agriculture as they relate to the different ways of defining the city. They propose the city-centre as a place where urban agriculture, the urban fringes which are rather the outskirts, the peri-urban space and the rural space can be dispensed with. It is an arbitrary typology, but it makes it possible to think in terms of gradation of spaces, but it also makes it possible to see the different types of agriculture, agriculture in long circuit which is conventional agriculture, agriculture in short circuit like contractual agriculture of proximity, interstitial agriculture which is agriculture which still exists in hollow teeth in town and then private gardens and leisure agriculture. The criteria for these different types of agriculture are unclear. Nevertheless, we see that urban agriculture is agriculture that is practiced in the city and in the outskirts, but it is agriculture that is both professional and amateur because we really have both agriculture in the true sense and gardens. This is done as in private spaces as in public spaces since we are talking about private gardens on one side and urban interstices on the other. What is interesting is that we are in long circuits. In the case of Switzerland, pastoralism in the Bernese mountains, the simple fact that they dedicate a certain part of their production to an urban market will somehow make their agriculture urban. Agriculture will have different ways of being urban, it will also be all the agricultural spaces that will be practiced by urban people bringing an urban way of being there. It is a definition that is perhaps a little too broad.[[File:production agricole agglomération 1.jpg|thumb|Source : Direction générale de l’Agriculture, Canton de Genève, 2013.]]


Une autre définition est produite par le canton de Genève par la direction générale de l'agriculture. Ce graphique récapitule ce que pourrait être l’agriculture urbaine à Genève. Pour des raisons diverses et variées a été abandonné le terme d'« agriculture urbaine » au profit de « production agricole d'agglomération ». Les auteurs de ce graphique se focalisent sur quelque chose de plus précis qui est toute agriculture produite dans une agglomération. Cela restreint et rend compte des enjeux spécifiques de cette agriculture qui rendrait plus logique de la prendre comme tout. Peut-être que la localisation dans une agglomération à ses propres enjeux que n'a pas l'agriculture même si elle est à la destination de la ville lorsqu’elle est faite à la campagne.  
Another definition is produced by the Canton of Geneva by the General Directorate of Agriculture. This graph summarizes what urban agriculture could be in Geneva. For various and varied reasons, the term "urban agriculture" has been abandoned in favour of "urban agricultural production". The authors of this graph focus on something more specific which is any agriculture produced in an agglomeration. This restricts and takes into account the specific stakes of this agriculture which would make more logical to take it like everything else. Perhaps the location in an agglomeration has its own issues that agriculture does not have even if it is at the destination of the city when it is made in the countryside.  


Ce qui est intéressant est la question spatiale puisque l'agglomération, en l'occurrence à Genève cela est le périmètre d'agglomération franco-valdo-genevois qui est subdivisé en zones à bâtir. Une partie de l’agriculture urbaine se fait bien dans la zone agricole et une partie se fait en zone à bâtir. Certaines des catégories sont frontalières et vont davantage poser problème, comme ce qui se trouve entre la zone agricole et qui tendent à être développée en ville. Cela va être le cas de ce qui se passe dans le parc Baulieu pour montrer un exemple de cette friction dès lors qu’un acteur légitime dans l'espace agricole va s'approprier un espace en plein centre-ville.
What is interesting is the spatial question since the agglomeration, in this case in Geneva, is the Franco-Vaud-Geneva agglomeration perimeter which is subdivided into building zones. Part of urban agriculture is done well in the agricultural zone and part in the building zone. Some of the categories are border and will pose more problems, such as what lies between the agricultural zone and which tend to be developed in the city. This will be the case of what is happening in Baulieu Park to show an example of this friction as soon as a legitimate actor in the agricultural space will appropriate a space in the city centre.


Cela va prendre des formes différentes et être fait par des acteurs différents comme des acteurs associatifs, acteurs individuels dans les jardins privés, acteurs professionnels comme les agriculteurs des institutions qu'elles soient municipales ou cantonale ou encore propriétaire fonciers. Sur cette thématique nouvelle, des tas d’acteurs sont concernés et se posent la question de que faire face à ces nouveaux visages de l’espace et du sol urbain. Cela pose la question de savoir que faire face à ces nouveaux usages de l'espace et du sol urbain. Cela pose la question de la gouvernance que Nahmias et Hellier dans ''La gouvernance urbaine en question: le cas des lieux de nature cultivée'' publié en 2012 définissent comme la coordination d'intérêts variés pour la poursuite d'un objet collectif. En d’autres termes, se poser la question de la gouvernance, cela est plus large que de se poser la question du gouvernement. En fait, les différents acteurs qui ont un intérêt participent chacun à leur manière à définir le traitement d'un sujet que ce soient des personnes élues représentants, des personnes nommées, mais aussi tous les groupes d'intérêts et tous les habitants qui se constituent en association, etc. chacun va essayer d'influencer le devenir des espaces. Cette gouvernementalité peut être implicite, mais également explicite. En ce qui concerne l'agriculture urbaine, elle pose explicitement la question de la gouvernance parce qu’elle est transversale et il n'existe pas à ce jour dans les municipalités des services en charge de l'agriculture urbaine.  
This will take different forms and be done by different actors such as associations, individual actors in private gardens, professional actors such as farmers in municipal or cantonal institutions or landowners. On this new theme, many actors are concerned and wonder what to do about these new faces of urban space and soil. This raises the question of what to do about these new uses of urban space and land. This raises the question of governance that Nahmias and Hellier in Urban Governance in Question: The Case of Places of Cultivated Nature published in 2012 define as the coordination of varied interests for the pursuit of a collective object. In other words, asking the question of governance is broader than asking the question of government. In fact, the different actors who have an interest each participate in their own way in defining the treatment of a subject, be they elected representatives, appointed persons, but also all interest groups and all inhabitants who form associations, etc. Each will try to influence the future of the spaces. This governmentality can be implicit, but also explicit. As far as urban agriculture is concerned, it explicitly raises the question of governance because it is transversal and there are currently no urban agriculture departments in municipalities.


La question de l'espace public consiste à se demander quel est le statut de chacun des espaces. Tous les « jardins » précédemment vus renvoient à différents statuts à la fois en termes juridiques et en termes d'accessibilité qui finalement dénotent différentes gradations entre le public et le privé. Il y a par exemple les jardins privés, les jardins familiaux, les jardins collectifs dont certains sont fermés avec une clé et d’autres qui sont ouverts, des fermes urbaines qui appartiennent à un fermier qui sont pour ainsi dire privé, des fermes urbaines plutôt collectivistes. Ces espaces et ces projets d'agriculture urbaine renvoient à des gradations très diverses entre le public et le privé. C’est une thématique qui traverse les types d'agriculture, qui traverse les types d'acteurs, qui traverse les types d'espaces et qui traversent les frontières du public et du privé. Cette thématique étant aussi transversale cela veut dire que indéniablement, il va y avoir des acteurs qui vont essayer de s'approprier cette thématique plus que d'autres. À Genève, récemment, cette thématique va exploser dans le sens où il y a de plus en plus d'acteurs institutionnels comme associatifs qui s’y intéressent et dont certains essayent vraiment de se positionner comme des acteurs centraux. Cette manière de se positionner va notamment passer par des références à l'espace public et à ce qui constitue aujourd'hui un espace public acceptable et un usage public acceptable de l'espace.
The question of public space consists in asking what is the status of each of the spaces. All the "gardens" previously seen refer to different statuses both in legal terms and in terms of accessibility which ultimately denote different gradations between public and private. For example, there are private gardens, allotments, community gardens, some of which are locked with a key and some of which are open, urban farms owned by a farmer that are almost private, urban farms that are rather collectivist. These spaces and projects of urban agriculture refer to very diverse gradations between the public and the private. It is a theme that crosses the types of agriculture, that crosses the types of actors, that crosses the types of spaces and that cross the public and private borders. As this theme is also transversal, it means that undeniably, there will be actors who will try to appropriate this theme more than others. In Geneva recently, this theme is going to explode in the sense that there are more and more institutional and associative players who are interested in it and some of whom are really trying to position themselves as central players. This way of positioning oneself will notably involve references to public space and to what today constitutes an acceptable public space and an acceptable public use of space.


À Genève, il y a de l'agriculture périurbaine, mais aussi la particularité des zones franches qui est l’agriculture sous serre, très tôt, le canton de Genève a mis en place une politique de relative autonomie par rapport aux marchés extérieurs. Il y a aussi eu le développement de formes plus contemporaines d'agricultures est d'agriculture intra-urbaine. Ces derniers temps, on a vu le développement dans de nombreuses communes du canton de potagers urbains et « plantage » décrivant l'émergence de jardin collectif intra-urbain qui se différencie des jardins ouvriers et jardins familiaux qui sont souvent situés plutôt à la frange urbaine, les jardins, les plantages urbains et les potagers urbains vont être mobilisés comme un nouveau modèle de jardinage urbain qui vont être généralement fait au pied des immeubles. On demande quasiment toujours aux habitants d’habiter à moins de cinq minutes à pied du plantage ou du potager urbain qui change radicalement par rapport au jardin familial. Ce développement est notamment porté par des acteurs municipaux comme à Genève et à Vernier où on a eu ce développement depuis 2006 de cette politique des plantages et des potagers urbains. Un acteur associatif qui est devenu incontournable sur cette question est Équitaire qui détient quasiment un monopole sur les potagers urbains dans le canton de Genève. Il y a eu aussi la création de deux fermes urbaines, des jardins sur les toits ont également émergé et aussi le développement des poulaillers et des ruches en ville.  
In Geneva, there is peri-urban agriculture, but also the particularity of the free zones which is agriculture under glass, very early, the canton of Geneva set up a policy of relative autonomy with regard to foreign markets. There has also been the development of more contemporary forms of agriculture and intra-urban agriculture. In recent times, we have seen the development in many communes of the canton of urban vegetable gardens and "planting" describing the emergence of intra-urban collective gardens which differs from allotment and allotment gardens which are often located rather at the urban fringe, gardens, urban plantings and urban vegetable gardens will be mobilized as a new model of urban gardening which will generally be done at the foot of buildings. The inhabitants are almost always asked to live less than five minutes' walk from the plantation or urban vegetable garden, which is radically different from the family garden. This development is particularly supported by municipal actors such as in Geneva and Vernier where we have had this development since 2006 of this policy of plantations and urban vegetable gardens. An associative actor who has become a key player on this issue is Equitaire, which has a virtual monopoly on urban vegetable gardens in the Canton of Geneva. There were also the creation of two urban farms, roof gardens also emerged and also the development of hen houses and hives in town.


En ville de Genève, un groupe de travail a été mis en place qui est transversale à plusieurs services au service social, au service des espaces verts, au service des écoles et à l’Agenda 21. Ce groupe de travail essaie d'apporter une réponse aux nombreuses demandes qu'ils reçoivent des projets d'agriculture et de développer une politique spatiale à son sujet. La politique qui est actuellement développée et celle de favoriser les potagers en pied d’immeuble.
In the city of Geneva, a working group has been set up that cuts across several social services, green spaces, schools and Agenda 21. This working group tries to respond to the many requests they receive from agricultural projects and to develop a space policy about it. The policy currently being developed is to favour vegetable gardens at the foot of buildings.


= Étude de cas : le Collectif Beaulieu, Genève =
= Case study: Collectif Beaulieu, Geneva =
Le parc Beaulieu est un parc qui situe juste derrière la gare Cornavin datant du XVIIIème siècle qui était au départ un domaine de maître. Dans les années 1930, ce domaine a été racheté par la ville de Genève. Pendant 10 ans, cela a appartenu à la vile de Genève sans être transformé en espace public et c’est dans les années 1940 que le parc a été véritablement transformé en parc public. C’est aussi à cette période que le service des espaces verts a construit son centre de production horticole. Le service des espaces verts de Genève produit une bonne partie de ces plantes lui-même dans ce qu'on appelle un centre de production horticole de 1940 jusqu'en 2008. En 2008, le service des espaces verts commence à trouver que ça fait unpeu petit et va déménager son centre de production horticole à côté de Carouge. En 2009, un collectif va se monter qui est le collectif Beaulieu et qui va se réapproprier cette espace. Plusieurs acteurs étaient intéressés par les questions d'agriculture urbaine est cherchaient un lieu pour en faire. Plusieurs associations notamment l'association des artichauts qui produit des jeunes plantons qui sont ensuite revendus à l’agriculture contractuelle de proximité. En 2010, le collectif obtient un financement de la ville de Genève pour occuper cet espace. L'autre changement qui va avoir lieu est la mise en place juste à côté de ce centre de production horticole par le service social d’un potager urbain.  
Beaulieu Park is a park located just behind the Cornavin station dating from the 18th century which was originally a master estate. In the 1930s, this estate was bought by the city of Geneva. For 10 years, this belonged to the city of Geneva without being transformed into a public space and it was in the 1940s that the park was truly transformed into a public park. It was also during this period that the green spaces department built its horticultural production centre. Geneva's green spaces department produces a good part of these plants itself in what is called a horticultural production centre from 1940 until 2008. In 2008, the green spaces department started to find that it was a bit small and was going to move its horticultural production centre near Carouge. In 2009, a collective, the Beaulieu collective, will be created and will re-appropriate this space. Several actors were interested in urban agriculture issues and were looking for a place to do it. Several associations, in particular the artichoke association, which produces young seedlings which are then sold to local contract farming. In 2010, the collective obtained funding from the city of Geneva to occupy this space. The other change that will take place is the setting up just next to this horticultural production centre by the social service of an urban vegetable garden.  


Le Service des espaces verts a proposé de creuser et de préparer un jardin collectif pour les habitants du quartier juste à côté du centre horticole. Maintenant, il n'existe plus. En 2009, d'un côté, un jardin collectif fait par le service social de la ville de Genève et de l’autre côté le collectif Baulieu qui s'était approprié le centre de production horticole pour faire l'agriculture urbaine, mais plutôt de façon professionnelle. Dans ce même parc, deux modèles différents d'agriculture urbaine ont été voisins à un moment donné ces acteurs sont entrés en relation. Le plantage du service social était de 20 parcelles de 6m2 qui servaient à 20 personnes du quartier qui ont été sélectionnées sur la base d'un tout ménage qui avait été distribué à la population du quartier leur proposant d'acquérir une parcelle sur laquelle chaque participant a un bail de deux ans non renouvelable. Ainsi, il y a des petites parcelles non clôturées qui constituent une sorte de jardin collectif. Par contre, les outils pouvaient être partagés et l'arrivée d’eau était commune. Pour le projet du collectif Beaulieu, des Artichauts et des premières associations se greffe de nouvelles associations. Chacun des deux projets à prendre forme l’un à côté de l’autre. Depuis 2001, le parc est soumis à un projet de restructuration que l’on appelle le projet Beaulieu réunissant différents acteurs et en particulier mené par le service des espaces verts, mais il fait aussi participer l'Agenda 21, le service social et aussi le collectif Beaulieu qui peut y participé en tant que parties prenantes essentielles. C’est autour de ce projet qu’à commencé à se cristalliser une controverse et des prises positions antagonistes entre le service social qui va plutôt s'occuper du potager urbain et développer un modèle d'agriculture urbaine amatrice pour les habitants et de l'autre côté le collectif Beaulieu qui va plutôt proposer un modèle d'agriculture urbaine professionnelle.  
The Green Spaces Department proposed to dig and prepare a collective garden for the inhabitants of the neighbourhood right next to the horticultural centre. Now he doesn't exist. In 2009, on the one hand, a collective garden made by the social service of the city of Geneva and on the other hand the collective Baulieu which had appropriated the horticultural production centre to make urban agriculture, but rather in a professional way. In this same park, two different models of urban agriculture were neighbours at one time these actors entered into a relationship. The plantation of the social service was 20 plots of 6m2 which served 20 people of the district which were selected on the basis of a whole household which had been distributed to the population of the district proposing to them to acquire a plot on which each participant has a lease of two years non-renewable. Thus, there are small unfenced plots that constitute a kind of collective garden. However, the tools could be shared and the water supply was common. For the project of the Beaulieu collective, Artichokes and the first associations new associations are grafted. Each of the two projects to take shape one next to the other. Since 2001, the park has been undergoing a restructuring project called the Beaulieu project, which brings together different stakeholders, in particular the green spaces department, but it also involves Agenda 21, the social service and also the Beaulieu collective, which can participate as key stakeholders. It was around this project that a controversy and antagonistic positions began to crystallize between the social service, which would rather take care of the urban vegetable garden and develop an amateur urban agriculture model for the inhabitants, and on the other hand the Beaulieu collective, which would rather propose a professional urban agriculture model.


À partir de là, nous allons voir comment, dans les manières des acteurs, de chacun des projets, de se positionner l'un vis-à-vis de l'autre apparaît la question des usages espaces publics, c'est-à-dire en quoi chacun des acteurs estime que son projet est légitime dans un espace public et celui de l’autre acteur moins et en quoi cela est intrinsèquement lié à une certaine définition de ce qu'est la spatialité de chacun des projets et de ce qu’est chacun des publics de chaque projet. En d’autres termes, dans la notion d'espace public, il faut différencier la question de la spatialité du projet et de sa socialiatié.  
From there, we will see how, in the ways of the actors, of each of the projects, to position themselves vis-à-vis each other, the question of the uses of public spaces appears, i.e. in what way each of the actors considers that his project is legitimate in a public space and that of the other actor less so and in what way this is intrinsically linked to a certain definition of what is the spatiality of each of the projects and of what is each of the publics of each project. In other words, in the notion of public space, a distinction must be made between the spatial and social aspects of the project.


L’UAC va définir la spatialité de son projet potager urbain comme étant le quartier, c’est-à-dire que le potager urbain, non seulement s'inscrit dans un parc, mais est inscrit surtout dans le quartier. Le mode d'existence de l’UAC est de s'occuper de la vie sociale du quartier : {{citation|ce lieu doit être avant tout un lieu de quartier pour les citoyens du quartier, surtout du haut du quartier, Beaulieu, Vermont, Grand Pré, Vidollet, qui n’ont pas d’infrastructure de quartier}}. Cela est vraiment défini comme un lieu qui doit s’inscrire dans le quartier plus que dans le parc. Pour ce qui est du collectif Beaulieu, la spécialité va être définie différemment. Le collectif se définit des espaces d'actions et des spatialités tout à fait différentes qui sont en fait multiscalaire. D'une part et d’une manière très englobante, le collectif se veut membre de la Via Campesina qui est mouvement paysan international qui défend l'agriculture à petite échelle ainsi que l’agriculture paysanne et qui s'oppose à la prise de pouvoir des grands semenciers se projetant dans une spatialité très large. La deuxième manière de réfléchir à la spécialité du collectif Beaulieu et le fait que les plantons qu’ils produisent vont être revendus à différentes projets d'agriculture contractuelle de proximité du canton. Un grand nombre de projets d'agriculture un peu partout dans le canton utilisent les plantons qui sont produits à Beaulieu. Une troisième manière de réfléchir à la spatialité du collectif Beaulieu est à travers le jardin de cueillette. La manière dont il a été défini est pour que n'importe quelle personne qui habite ou de passage en ville de Genève puisse venir en profiter. Les actions préambule est la maison de quartier mobile qui a vocation à travailler à l'échelle du quartier et à faire en sorte que l'espace de Beaulieu soit aussi un endroit pour ses propres activités.  
The UAC will define the spatiality of its urban vegetable garden project as being the neighbourhood, that is to say that the urban vegetable garden is not only part of a park, but is mainly part of the neighbourhood. The UAC's way of life is to take care of the social life of the neighbourhood: "this place must above all be a neighbourhood place for the citizens of the neighbourhood, especially from the top of the neighbourhood, Beaulieu, Vermont, Grand Pré, Vidollet, who have no neighbourhood infrastructure". It's really defined as a place that has to fit into the neighbourhood more than the park. As for the Beaulieu collective, the specialty will be defined differently. The collective defines itself in completely different action spaces and spatialities which are in fact multiscalar. On the one hand and in a very comprehensive way, the collective wants to be a member of the Via Campesina which is an international peasant movement that defends small-scale agriculture as well as peasant agriculture and that opposes the seizure of power by the large seed companies projecting themselves in a very broad spatiality. The second way of thinking about the speciality of the Beaulieu collective and the fact that the seedlings they produce will be sold to various local contract farming projects in the canton. A large number of agricultural projects throughout the township use the seedlings that are produced in Beaulieu. A third way to reflect on the spatiality of the Beaulieu collective is through the picking garden. The way it has been defined is so that anyone who lives in or passes through the city of Geneva can come and enjoy it. The preamble actions is the mobile neighbourhood house which has vocation to work on a neighbourhood scale and to ensure that Beaulieu's space is also a place for its own activities.  


Par rapport au projet de l'UAC et du service social qui s’adresse véritablement au quartier, le collectif s'inscrit dans une multitude de spatialités qu'ils prennent aussi forme dans l’inscription de différents réseaux. La question des cadrages spatiaux est la manière dont les porteurs de chacun des projets définissent l’inscription spatiale de leur projet renvoyant à un premier aspect de la question de l’espace public. Reste la question du public. Cela est intrinsèquement lié à la question spatiale. Pour l’UAC cela est explicite : {{citation|Il faut en profiter pour le valoriser, mais le valoriser, que ce soit utilisé par les gens du quartier. C’est vrai qu’y a une très forte proximité avec les Grottes, on a tout de suite tendance à dire les gens du quartier c’est les Grottes [...] finalement ce qui nous intéresse nous c’est que ce soit aussi quelque chose pour les gens de Vermont, pour les gens qui habitent vers Chandieu, qui sont des endroits un peu dépenaillés}}. Le cadrage social est avant tout pour des gens du quartier. La possibilité de pouvoir venir jardiner est entièrement conditionnée à venir habiter au quartier, il n’y a pas de dérogation possible. Pour le collectif Beaulieu, cela dépend de quelle partie du projet on parle.  
In relation to the UAC project and the social service that really addresses the neighbourhood, the collective is part of a multitude of spatialities that they also take shape in the registration of different networks. The question of spatial framing is the way in which the promoters of each project define the spatial inscription of their project, referring to a first aspect of the question of public space. There remains the question of the public. This is intrinsically linked to the spatial issue. For the UAC this is explicit: "We must take advantage of it to enhance it, but enhance it, whether it is used by people in the neighbourhood. It is true that there is a very strong proximity with the Caves, we immediately have a tendency to say the people of the district it is the Caves [...] finally what interests us is that it is also something for the people of Vermont, for the people who live towards Chandieu, which are a little depenaillés places ". The social framework is above all for people from the neighbourhood. The possibility of being able to come to garden is entirely conditioned to come to live in the district, there is no possible exemption. For the Beaulieu collective, it depends on which part of the project we are talking about.


En résumé, un des acteurs qui est le Service social va porter son intérêt sur le lieu de résidence et c’est le lieu de résidence qui va définir le critère de participation avec un discours dichotomique entre ceux qui peuvent participer et ceux qui ne peuvent pas participer et entre les différents espaces du quartier. C’est un critère d’appartenance spatial qui définit le public. L’autre acteur qui est le collectif propose à des acteurs issus de n’importe où de participer, le critère n’est pas tant d’habiter à un endroit, mais de partager un certain type de projet. L’UAC et le Service social plus généralement va chercher à se légitimer notamment dans le cadre du projet Beaulieu en pointant les failles qu’il pense du collectif Beaulieu et notamment les failles en termes de définition d’une spatialité et d’un public. Dans le cadre du projet Beaulieu, il s’agit de réaménager le parc et de réfléchir au fait de savoir si les serres doivent être gardées, que faire des bâtiments, doit-on faire de ce quartier un lieu polyvalent ou est-ce que cela doit rester sur la thématique des fleurs et de l’agriculture. Le Service social émet un critique relativement rude du collectif Beaulieu. La première critique portant sur l’aspect social est la suivante : {{citation|Si on va trop dans la thématique, après que se passe-t-il ? On l’a déjà plusieurs fois prouvé, hein, on n’agit pas sans preuve, c’est qu’on se retrouve avec un public d’initiés, de personnes, qui, voilà, ont toutes un certain niveau socioculturel, et qui pratiquent leurs idéaux, du mieux qu’il peuvent, mais toute la Cour des Miracles, elle est loin}}. C’est un discours dichotomique entre un public qui serait un public d’initiés, de gens ayant un niveau socioculturel élevé si ce n’est un niveau socioéconomique élevé, et de l’autre côté, la population décrite comme la Cour des Miracles. Cela montre que l’idée est qu’un projet thématique spécialisé sur une question et qui prend part à travers un réseau d’actions multilocalisées apparait trop spécialisé pour le public du quartier. La deuxième critique est que {{citation|On est d’une certaine façon les garants que ce type d’espace et de prestation n’est pas réservé à un petit club de gens qui se connaissent entre eux, et vraiment au service de la population, et qu’on sache se remettre périodiquement en question, c’est le prix à payer, se dire est-ce qu’on est vraiment au service des habitants ?}}. En parallèle à la critique un peu fermée et élitiste du projet associatif, à l’inverse, l’administration va avoir tendance à se mettre en avant comme étant la garante de l’ouverture du projet. On commence à arriver à voir différentes notions pour savoir à qui est comment doit être ouvert un espace qui est que certains acteurs se portent comme garants de la publicité de l’espace en désignant les autres comme des acteurs de la privatisation de l’espace. Le volet spatial va être aussi critiqué par certains acteurs de l’administration en disant que {{citation|Ces trucs des plantons, ce n’est vraiment pas pour les gens du quartier, c’est une production indus’, enfin agricole, semi-industrielle, mais c’est un projet de niche}}. On est moins en train de dire que cela est élitiste, mais c’est de dire que cela ne concerne pas le quartier. Autrement dit, la production locale sort du quartier. Certains acteurs tendent à dire que ce projet n’a pas plus sa place ici qu’un autre. Est mobilisé l’argument de l’outsider et la rhétorique du local et de la proximité.  
In short, one of the actors who is the Social Service will focus on the place of residence and it is the place of residence that will define the criterion of participation with a dichotomous discourse between those who can participate and those who cannot participate and between the different spaces of the district. It is a criterion of spatial belonging that defines the public. The other actor who is the collective proposes to actors from anywhere to participate, the criterion is not so much to live in a place, but to share a certain type of project. The UAC and the Social Service more generally will seek to legitimize themselves in particular within the framework of the Beaulieu project by pointing out the faults which it thinks of the Beaulieu collective and in particular the faults in terms of definition of a spatiality and an audience. Within the framework of the Beaulieu project, it is a question of redeveloping the park and thinking about whether the greenhouses should be kept, what to do with the buildings, should this neighbourhood be made a multi-purpose place or should it remain on the theme of flowers and agriculture. The Social Service issued a relatively harsh criticism of the Beaulieu collective. The first criticism on the social aspect is the following: "If we go too much into the theme, after what happens? We have already proved it several times, eh, we do not act without proof, it is that we find ourselves with an audience of insiders, of people, who, here, all have a certain socio-cultural level, and who practice their ideals, as best they can, but the whole Court of Miracles, it is far away. It is a dichotomous discourse between an audience that would be an insider audience, people with a high socio-cultural level if not a high socio-economic level, and on the other hand, the population described as the Court of Miracles. This shows that the idea is that a thematic project specialized on an issue and which takes part through a network of multilocalized actions appears too specialized for the public of the district. The second criticism is that "We are in a way the guarantors that this type of space and service is not reserved for a small club of people who know each other, and really serve the population, and that we know how to periodically question ourselves, that's the price to pay, is that we really serve the inhabitants? ». In parallel to the somewhat closed and elitist criticism of the associative project, on the other hand, the administration will tend to put itself forward as being the guarantor of the project's openness. We are beginning to come to see different notions of who a space should be open to, which is for certain actors to act as guarantors of the publicity of space by designating others as actors in the privatization of space. The space aspect will also be criticized by certain actors of the administration by saying that "These things of the seedlings, it is really not for the people of the district, it is an industrial production', well agricultural, semi-industrial, but it is a project of niche". We are less saying that this is elitist, but it does not concern the neighbourhood. In other words, local production leaves the neighbourhood. Some actors tend to say that this project has no more place here than any other. The outsider's argument and the rhetoric of local and proximity are mobilized.  


Les réponses du collectif furent rapides. L’inscription dans l’espace social qui donne une assise locale au projet du fait que le préambule soit une « maison de quartier mobile », de plus, depuis ont été développé les « écoles à la ferme » qui ont beaucoup accueilli les écoles du quartier montrant que le collectif participe à l’éducation. De plus en plus, dans les différents documents officiels émerge la référence aux quartiers. Dans les permis documents, cela était un « espace ouvert à tous », un « espace collectif », un « espace ouvert commun », de plus en plus c’est un « espace prêt à accueillir les habitants du quartier ». On voit qu’il y a un discours qui s’adapte à la demande de s’adresser plus au quartier. Au niveau financier, la majorité du financement du collectif provient de la vente de planton aux ACP. Même si le discours et certaines de pratiques s’orientent vers le local et vers d’autres types d’acteurs, le collectif est largement dépendant de son insertion dans le réseau des ACP.  
The collective responded quickly. The inclusion in the social space that gives a local basis to the project because the preamble is a "mobile neighbourhood house", moreover, has since been developed the "farm schools" that have greatly welcomed schools in the neighborhood showing that the collective participates in education. More and more, in the various official documents, the reference to neighbourhoods is emerging. In the permits documents, this was an "open space for all", a "collective space", a "common open space", more and more it is a "space ready to welcome the inhabitants of the district". We see that there is a discourse that adapts to the demand to address the neighbourhood more. At the financial level, the majority of the collective's financing comes from the sale of seedlings to the ACP. Even if the discourse and some practices are oriented towards the local level and towards other types of actors, the collective is largely dependent on its integration into the ACP network.  


= Conclusion =
= Conclusion =
Le parc est l’une des incarnations contemporaines de l’espace public. À partir du XIXème siècle émerge vraiment le parc public comme un des symboles de l’espace public en ville. Des parcs sont devenus les symboles de l’ouverture de la ville au public. Les usages sont concurrent par rapport à l’espace public et par rapport à des symboles de l’espace public.  
The park is one of the contemporary incarnations of public space. From the 19th century onwards, the public park really emerged as one of the symbols of public space in the city. Parks have become symbols of the city's opening to the public. The uses are in competition with public space and with symbols of public space.  


Avec le collectif, l’espace qu’il s’est réapproprié n’était pas le cœur public du parc, mais le centre de production horticole qui appartenait en terme juridique à la collectivité publique, mais privée par l’accès. Le collectif qui est un groupe de personne issue de la société civile s’est réapproprié cet espace et en l’ouvrant à de nouveaux types d’activités qui font rentrer les membres de la société civile dans cet espace produisant une ouverture de ce site. Néanmoins, progressivement, on a vu qu’émerge la critique que cet espace du centre horticole n’est pas assez accessible non pas qu’il soit mal situé, mais parce que le projet même serait trop élitiste pour s’adresser à ces gens-là.
With the collective, the space it reclaimed was not the public heart of the park, but the horticultural production centre that belonged in legal terms to the public community, but private by access. The collective, which is a group of people from civil society, has re-appropriated this space and opened it up to new types of activities that bring members of civil society into this space, producing an opening of this site. Nevertheless, gradually, we have seen the criticism emerge that this space in the horticultural centre is not accessible enough, not because it is badly located, but because the project itself would be too elitist to address these people.


Cela pose la question que lorsqu’on parle d’un espace public, cela est aussi où mais à qui cela est accessible et qui a la légitimité. Pour l’UAC, le public est les gens du quartier, les initiés qui viennent dans le collectif Beaulieu sont les gens de la communauté qui est une communauté politique. Cela pose la question de savoir si les gens du quartier sont plus le public que les gens de la ville qui viennent aux cueillettes, cela pose aussi la question de savoir ce qu’on y fait, ce qui fait que l’agriculture peut avoir sa place dans un espace public et cela pose la question de la gouvernance à savoir qui doit gérer cet espace. Il faut voit l’enjeu d’un projet qui est plutôt municipal où l’acteur qui gouvernerait cet espace serait un acteur municipal qui représente, de l’autre côté cela est plutôt une association. Cela veut dire que le degré de publicité d’un lieu serait aussi lié au type d’acteur qui le gouverne. Cela pose la question de savoir si la municipalité est plus publique qu’une association.
This raises the question that when we speak of a public space, it is also where but to whom it is accessible and who has legitimacy. For the UAC, the public is the people of the neighbourhood, the initiates who come in the Beaulieu collective are the people of the community which is a political community. This raises the question of whether the people in the neighbourhood are more the public than the people in the city who come to pick, it also raises the question of what is done there, what makes agriculture fit into a public space and it raises the question of governance, that is, who should manage this space. We must see what is at stake in a project that is rather municipal where the actor who would govern this space would be a municipal actor who represents, on the other hand it is rather an association. This means that the degree of publicity of a place would also be linked to the type of actor who governs it. This raises the question of whether the municipality is more public than an association.


Ces différentes définitions du public et de sa spatialité, d’un côté, c’est l’origine spatiale qui doit être celle du quartier dénotant une vision spatiale du public et de l’autre côté on va plutôt avoir une vision réticulaire du public. Du côté de l’UCA, le public est ce qui appartient à un certain espace, du côté du collectif, le public est ce qui s’insère dans un certain réseau renvoyant deux figures géographiques différentes de ce qu’est un public et de ce qu’est la spatialité de ce public. Au final, cela pose des questions normatives de ce que doit être un espace public. Pour les uns, c’est l’espace sous l’égide de l’administration publique qui est notamment le point de vue de l’UAC pour qui l’espace doit être public déjà parce qu’il s’adresse aux gens du quartier et parce qu’il est animé par l’autorité publique renvoyant à une question quasi juridique de dire que c’est une question réglementaire avec le règlement qui définit que c’est l’administration publique qui a autorité sur cet espace alors que de l’autre côté du côté du collectif, l’espace se rend public parce que ce sont les habitants qui le produise et dans ce cas c’est la définition de l’espace public comme sphère publique, c’est-à-dire que cet espace devient public parce que les gens y produisent un projet collectif et un projet commun où ils réalisent une sorte de vision de la société. Il y a deux types de normativité auprès de ces acteurs avec une normativité réglementaire et une normativité ayant trait à la sphère publique. Ce qui est intéressant est que l’UAC se retrouve à faire partie de l’espace du collectif Beaulieu et in fine à faire partie du collectif Beaulieu.  
These different definitions of the public and its spatiality, on the one hand, it is the spatial origin that must be that of the neighbourhood denoting a spatial vision of the public and on the other hand one will rather have a reticular vision of the public. On the UCA side, the public is what belongs to a certain space, on the collective side, the public is what fits into a certain network reflecting two geographical figures different from what is an audience and what is the spatiality of that audience. In the end, this raises normative questions about what a public space should be. For some, it is the space under the aegis of the public administration which is in particular the point of view of the UAC for whom the space must be public already because it is addressed to the people of the district and because it is animated by the public authority referring to a quasi-legal question to say that it is a regulatory question with the regulation that defines that it is the public administration that has authority over this space while on the other side of the collective, space becomes public because it is the inhabitants who produce it and in this case it is the definition of public space as a public sphere, that is, this space becomes public because people produce a collective project and a common project where they realize a kind of vision of society. There are two types of normativity among these actors with a regulatory normativity and a normativity related to the public sphere. What is interesting is that the UAC finds itself part of the Beaulieu collective space and ultimately part of the Beaulieu collective.  


= Annexes =
= Annexes =

Version actuelle datée du 29 septembre 2020 à 08:08

A political geography of the city: urban agriculture and public space
Professeur(s) Balsiger, Jörg[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Cours Political Geography

Lectures


The city is part of the range of actors that is multiplying in the sub-discipline of political geography. We will talk about the city, namely urban agriculture and public spaces. NaVille is a project that focuses on social and political recompositions around the question of nature in cities. One entry is through urban gardening especially urban agriculture. We must take the city as a political space. It can be understood in many ways, because the city is political because it is produced by public policies, it is also produced by the practices of the inhabitants and the various actors within the framework of a societal project, the city is also the object of power relations. One of the issues at stake in these power relations is that of legitimacy and the production of modes of legitimacy concerning the development of urban spaces. Therefore, comparing legitimacy raises the question of the legitimacy of uses, namely who has the legitimacy to produce the city, is it politics as an elected representative for example, is it the inhabitant, who is legitimated to decide to grant legitimacy to someone.

The question of the production of legitimacy is going to be done around the question of urban agriculture. We will see how the emergence of urban agriculture questions the urban public space by the particular entry of the question of the modes of legitimation of the various actors. Namely, how relations X or Y between actors will mobilize different modes of legitimation that will refer to different ways of referring to the public space. It is through the mobilization of a definition of public space that they will legitimize their own actions. Several central terms will be defined, notably "public space", "urban public space", the notion of "urban agriculture" which may seem contradictory, there is a case study concerning Beaulieu Park and more particularly the space of the Beaulieu collective behind the Cornavin station.

Languages


English




Public space: space and its public[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

légende

There are different ways in geography in the social sciences to speak of public space. A very simple and restrictive way is the legal definition, that is, public space is space that is not private. In other words, they are property regimes. One definition that may be of more interest to a geography that is interested in society, practices and actions of social actors is the question of accessibility. This is the question of public space according to usage, that is, public space is a space that becomes accessible to most of society. A legally private area could well be public in terms of access.

A third definition is that of advertising and visibility. It is the public quality of something, it is therefore the space where society is seen, namely a space where social relations are made visible, seen and staged. The notion of the public sphere was theorized by Jürgen Habermas, referring to the Greek agora, as a vision of the public space as the political space par excellence, the space of the public thing, the space of public debate and the space where society takes shape and is built. Public space will be an interesting notion to explore urban space because it will refer to questions of land, use and accessibility, but also to questions of visibility and will ask political questions one with the notion public sphere.

The first three definitions take space as a material reality, i.e. a space that is private or public, accessible and where one can see oneself, the last definition conceives public space rather as an abstraction.

légende

The term "public" tends to often be opposed to "community". It is in French where the term "public" and "community" are most often opposed with a negative connotation referring to "communautarisme" whereas in the English language, it is different, because "communities" are not necessarily negatively connoted. What is the philosophical notion that we seek to put behind the term "public space"? Eric Tassin thinks the "public" in the term "public space" as a mutual property, that is to say, when I am in the public space, I belong only to myself and I am there in as a member of society, but in the end I am not divested myself by my presence in this space, I can instead express my political ideas and live my social existence within my peers, while for Ticino the community would be rather, an ultimate form of divestment of oneself is in fact the fear of communitarianism which is ultimately that the person is self-denial for the benefit of something more encompassing than the community. It is also possible to think of the community in a more specialized way as communities of practice, epistemic communities or a community of interests. The difference is ultimately not as explicit as it seems between "public" and "community" because at some point, doing "community" can be a first step before making "public". Don Mitchell is one of the great American authors on public space issues who in an analysis of collective gardens in New York shows how some New Yorkers who were in this case Puerto Rican immigrants and on the margins of society, gathering together in their community in the public space, making gardens collectively were a first step to access the public space to make themselves visible in urban society and finally to participate in the "police" in the sense of the life of the city.

We must be attentive to the way in which these references are used explicitly or implicitly by the actors, how in a relationship, in a controversy between two actors, by presenting a project as being "public" or as being rather "community", it will there is a goal behind to credit or discredit some actors. It is interesting to see how for a given public space and delimit the space that must be public, how the very notion of "public" is defined as either exclusive or rather inclusive.

The emergence of urban agriculture and its challenges[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

When we think of the term "agriculture", we think of the farmer or the peasant, but when we speak of "urban agriculture" we think of it as a citizen and a city dweller. This raises the question of what agriculture is today and who is a farmer today.

Source: Nahmias et le Caro, 2012.

The aim of this scheme is to decentralize the question of urban agriculture from the city centre, i.e. to ask whether agriculture is an animal or plant production activity, whether or not it is professional. In urban geography, when we think of the city, we tend to speak of the urban, that is, the city as a compact and well delimited morphological entity that loses importance to the benefit of a culture that would be generalized.

With this scheme, Nahmias and Caro reflect on all modes of agriculture as they relate to the different ways of defining the city. They propose the city-centre as a place where urban agriculture, the urban fringes which are rather the outskirts, the peri-urban space and the rural space can be dispensed with. It is an arbitrary typology, but it makes it possible to think in terms of gradation of spaces, but it also makes it possible to see the different types of agriculture, agriculture in long circuit which is conventional agriculture, agriculture in short circuit like contractual agriculture of proximity, interstitial agriculture which is agriculture which still exists in hollow teeth in town and then private gardens and leisure agriculture. The criteria for these different types of agriculture are unclear. Nevertheless, we see that urban agriculture is agriculture that is practiced in the city and in the outskirts, but it is agriculture that is both professional and amateur because we really have both agriculture in the true sense and gardens. This is done as in private spaces as in public spaces since we are talking about private gardens on one side and urban interstices on the other. What is interesting is that we are in long circuits. In the case of Switzerland, pastoralism in the Bernese mountains, the simple fact that they dedicate a certain part of their production to an urban market will somehow make their agriculture urban. Agriculture will have different ways of being urban, it will also be all the agricultural spaces that will be practiced by urban people bringing an urban way of being there. It is a definition that is perhaps a little too broad.

Source : Direction générale de l’Agriculture, Canton de Genève, 2013.

Another definition is produced by the Canton of Geneva by the General Directorate of Agriculture. This graph summarizes what urban agriculture could be in Geneva. For various and varied reasons, the term "urban agriculture" has been abandoned in favour of "urban agricultural production". The authors of this graph focus on something more specific which is any agriculture produced in an agglomeration. This restricts and takes into account the specific stakes of this agriculture which would make more logical to take it like everything else. Perhaps the location in an agglomeration has its own issues that agriculture does not have even if it is at the destination of the city when it is made in the countryside.

What is interesting is the spatial question since the agglomeration, in this case in Geneva, is the Franco-Vaud-Geneva agglomeration perimeter which is subdivided into building zones. Part of urban agriculture is done well in the agricultural zone and part in the building zone. Some of the categories are border and will pose more problems, such as what lies between the agricultural zone and which tend to be developed in the city. This will be the case of what is happening in Baulieu Park to show an example of this friction as soon as a legitimate actor in the agricultural space will appropriate a space in the city centre.

This will take different forms and be done by different actors such as associations, individual actors in private gardens, professional actors such as farmers in municipal or cantonal institutions or landowners. On this new theme, many actors are concerned and wonder what to do about these new faces of urban space and soil. This raises the question of what to do about these new uses of urban space and land. This raises the question of governance that Nahmias and Hellier in Urban Governance in Question: The Case of Places of Cultivated Nature published in 2012 define as the coordination of varied interests for the pursuit of a collective object. In other words, asking the question of governance is broader than asking the question of government. In fact, the different actors who have an interest each participate in their own way in defining the treatment of a subject, be they elected representatives, appointed persons, but also all interest groups and all inhabitants who form associations, etc. Each will try to influence the future of the spaces. This governmentality can be implicit, but also explicit. As far as urban agriculture is concerned, it explicitly raises the question of governance because it is transversal and there are currently no urban agriculture departments in municipalities.

The question of public space consists in asking what is the status of each of the spaces. All the "gardens" previously seen refer to different statuses both in legal terms and in terms of accessibility which ultimately denote different gradations between public and private. For example, there are private gardens, allotments, community gardens, some of which are locked with a key and some of which are open, urban farms owned by a farmer that are almost private, urban farms that are rather collectivist. These spaces and projects of urban agriculture refer to very diverse gradations between the public and the private. It is a theme that crosses the types of agriculture, that crosses the types of actors, that crosses the types of spaces and that cross the public and private borders. As this theme is also transversal, it means that undeniably, there will be actors who will try to appropriate this theme more than others. In Geneva recently, this theme is going to explode in the sense that there are more and more institutional and associative players who are interested in it and some of whom are really trying to position themselves as central players. This way of positioning oneself will notably involve references to public space and to what today constitutes an acceptable public space and an acceptable public use of space.

In Geneva, there is peri-urban agriculture, but also the particularity of the free zones which is agriculture under glass, very early, the canton of Geneva set up a policy of relative autonomy with regard to foreign markets. There has also been the development of more contemporary forms of agriculture and intra-urban agriculture. In recent times, we have seen the development in many communes of the canton of urban vegetable gardens and "planting" describing the emergence of intra-urban collective gardens which differs from allotment and allotment gardens which are often located rather at the urban fringe, gardens, urban plantings and urban vegetable gardens will be mobilized as a new model of urban gardening which will generally be done at the foot of buildings. The inhabitants are almost always asked to live less than five minutes' walk from the plantation or urban vegetable garden, which is radically different from the family garden. This development is particularly supported by municipal actors such as in Geneva and Vernier where we have had this development since 2006 of this policy of plantations and urban vegetable gardens. An associative actor who has become a key player on this issue is Equitaire, which has a virtual monopoly on urban vegetable gardens in the Canton of Geneva. There were also the creation of two urban farms, roof gardens also emerged and also the development of hen houses and hives in town.

In the city of Geneva, a working group has been set up that cuts across several social services, green spaces, schools and Agenda 21. This working group tries to respond to the many requests they receive from agricultural projects and to develop a space policy about it. The policy currently being developed is to favour vegetable gardens at the foot of buildings.

Case study: Collectif Beaulieu, Geneva[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Beaulieu Park is a park located just behind the Cornavin station dating from the 18th century which was originally a master estate. In the 1930s, this estate was bought by the city of Geneva. For 10 years, this belonged to the city of Geneva without being transformed into a public space and it was in the 1940s that the park was truly transformed into a public park. It was also during this period that the green spaces department built its horticultural production centre. Geneva's green spaces department produces a good part of these plants itself in what is called a horticultural production centre from 1940 until 2008. In 2008, the green spaces department started to find that it was a bit small and was going to move its horticultural production centre near Carouge. In 2009, a collective, the Beaulieu collective, will be created and will re-appropriate this space. Several actors were interested in urban agriculture issues and were looking for a place to do it. Several associations, in particular the artichoke association, which produces young seedlings which are then sold to local contract farming. In 2010, the collective obtained funding from the city of Geneva to occupy this space. The other change that will take place is the setting up just next to this horticultural production centre by the social service of an urban vegetable garden.

The Green Spaces Department proposed to dig and prepare a collective garden for the inhabitants of the neighbourhood right next to the horticultural centre. Now he doesn't exist. In 2009, on the one hand, a collective garden made by the social service of the city of Geneva and on the other hand the collective Baulieu which had appropriated the horticultural production centre to make urban agriculture, but rather in a professional way. In this same park, two different models of urban agriculture were neighbours at one time these actors entered into a relationship. The plantation of the social service was 20 plots of 6m2 which served 20 people of the district which were selected on the basis of a whole household which had been distributed to the population of the district proposing to them to acquire a plot on which each participant has a lease of two years non-renewable. Thus, there are small unfenced plots that constitute a kind of collective garden. However, the tools could be shared and the water supply was common. For the project of the Beaulieu collective, Artichokes and the first associations new associations are grafted. Each of the two projects to take shape one next to the other. Since 2001, the park has been undergoing a restructuring project called the Beaulieu project, which brings together different stakeholders, in particular the green spaces department, but it also involves Agenda 21, the social service and also the Beaulieu collective, which can participate as key stakeholders. It was around this project that a controversy and antagonistic positions began to crystallize between the social service, which would rather take care of the urban vegetable garden and develop an amateur urban agriculture model for the inhabitants, and on the other hand the Beaulieu collective, which would rather propose a professional urban agriculture model.

From there, we will see how, in the ways of the actors, of each of the projects, to position themselves vis-à-vis each other, the question of the uses of public spaces appears, i.e. in what way each of the actors considers that his project is legitimate in a public space and that of the other actor less so and in what way this is intrinsically linked to a certain definition of what is the spatiality of each of the projects and of what is each of the publics of each project. In other words, in the notion of public space, a distinction must be made between the spatial and social aspects of the project.

The UAC will define the spatiality of its urban vegetable garden project as being the neighbourhood, that is to say that the urban vegetable garden is not only part of a park, but is mainly part of the neighbourhood. The UAC's way of life is to take care of the social life of the neighbourhood: "this place must above all be a neighbourhood place for the citizens of the neighbourhood, especially from the top of the neighbourhood, Beaulieu, Vermont, Grand Pré, Vidollet, who have no neighbourhood infrastructure". It's really defined as a place that has to fit into the neighbourhood more than the park. As for the Beaulieu collective, the specialty will be defined differently. The collective defines itself in completely different action spaces and spatialities which are in fact multiscalar. On the one hand and in a very comprehensive way, the collective wants to be a member of the Via Campesina which is an international peasant movement that defends small-scale agriculture as well as peasant agriculture and that opposes the seizure of power by the large seed companies projecting themselves in a very broad spatiality. The second way of thinking about the speciality of the Beaulieu collective and the fact that the seedlings they produce will be sold to various local contract farming projects in the canton. A large number of agricultural projects throughout the township use the seedlings that are produced in Beaulieu. A third way to reflect on the spatiality of the Beaulieu collective is through the picking garden. The way it has been defined is so that anyone who lives in or passes through the city of Geneva can come and enjoy it. The preamble actions is the mobile neighbourhood house which has vocation to work on a neighbourhood scale and to ensure that Beaulieu's space is also a place for its own activities.

In relation to the UAC project and the social service that really addresses the neighbourhood, the collective is part of a multitude of spatialities that they also take shape in the registration of different networks. The question of spatial framing is the way in which the promoters of each project define the spatial inscription of their project, referring to a first aspect of the question of public space. There remains the question of the public. This is intrinsically linked to the spatial issue. For the UAC this is explicit: "We must take advantage of it to enhance it, but enhance it, whether it is used by people in the neighbourhood. It is true that there is a very strong proximity with the Caves, we immediately have a tendency to say the people of the district it is the Caves [...] finally what interests us is that it is also something for the people of Vermont, for the people who live towards Chandieu, which are a little depenaillés places ". The social framework is above all for people from the neighbourhood. The possibility of being able to come to garden is entirely conditioned to come to live in the district, there is no possible exemption. For the Beaulieu collective, it depends on which part of the project we are talking about.

In short, one of the actors who is the Social Service will focus on the place of residence and it is the place of residence that will define the criterion of participation with a dichotomous discourse between those who can participate and those who cannot participate and between the different spaces of the district. It is a criterion of spatial belonging that defines the public. The other actor who is the collective proposes to actors from anywhere to participate, the criterion is not so much to live in a place, but to share a certain type of project. The UAC and the Social Service more generally will seek to legitimize themselves in particular within the framework of the Beaulieu project by pointing out the faults which it thinks of the Beaulieu collective and in particular the faults in terms of definition of a spatiality and an audience. Within the framework of the Beaulieu project, it is a question of redeveloping the park and thinking about whether the greenhouses should be kept, what to do with the buildings, should this neighbourhood be made a multi-purpose place or should it remain on the theme of flowers and agriculture. The Social Service issued a relatively harsh criticism of the Beaulieu collective. The first criticism on the social aspect is the following: "If we go too much into the theme, after what happens? We have already proved it several times, eh, we do not act without proof, it is that we find ourselves with an audience of insiders, of people, who, here, all have a certain socio-cultural level, and who practice their ideals, as best they can, but the whole Court of Miracles, it is far away. It is a dichotomous discourse between an audience that would be an insider audience, people with a high socio-cultural level if not a high socio-economic level, and on the other hand, the population described as the Court of Miracles. This shows that the idea is that a thematic project specialized on an issue and which takes part through a network of multilocalized actions appears too specialized for the public of the district. The second criticism is that "We are in a way the guarantors that this type of space and service is not reserved for a small club of people who know each other, and really serve the population, and that we know how to periodically question ourselves, that's the price to pay, is that we really serve the inhabitants? ». In parallel to the somewhat closed and elitist criticism of the associative project, on the other hand, the administration will tend to put itself forward as being the guarantor of the project's openness. We are beginning to come to see different notions of who a space should be open to, which is for certain actors to act as guarantors of the publicity of space by designating others as actors in the privatization of space. The space aspect will also be criticized by certain actors of the administration by saying that "These things of the seedlings, it is really not for the people of the district, it is an industrial production', well agricultural, semi-industrial, but it is a project of niche". We are less saying that this is elitist, but it does not concern the neighbourhood. In other words, local production leaves the neighbourhood. Some actors tend to say that this project has no more place here than any other. The outsider's argument and the rhetoric of local and proximity are mobilized.

The collective responded quickly. The inclusion in the social space that gives a local basis to the project because the preamble is a "mobile neighbourhood house", moreover, has since been developed the "farm schools" that have greatly welcomed schools in the neighborhood showing that the collective participates in education. More and more, in the various official documents, the reference to neighbourhoods is emerging. In the permits documents, this was an "open space for all", a "collective space", a "common open space", more and more it is a "space ready to welcome the inhabitants of the district". We see that there is a discourse that adapts to the demand to address the neighbourhood more. At the financial level, the majority of the collective's financing comes from the sale of seedlings to the ACP. Even if the discourse and some practices are oriented towards the local level and towards other types of actors, the collective is largely dependent on its integration into the ACP network.

Conclusion[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The park is one of the contemporary incarnations of public space. From the 19th century onwards, the public park really emerged as one of the symbols of public space in the city. Parks have become symbols of the city's opening to the public. The uses are in competition with public space and with symbols of public space.

With the collective, the space it reclaimed was not the public heart of the park, but the horticultural production centre that belonged in legal terms to the public community, but private by access. The collective, which is a group of people from civil society, has re-appropriated this space and opened it up to new types of activities that bring members of civil society into this space, producing an opening of this site. Nevertheless, gradually, we have seen the criticism emerge that this space in the horticultural centre is not accessible enough, not because it is badly located, but because the project itself would be too elitist to address these people.

This raises the question that when we speak of a public space, it is also where but to whom it is accessible and who has legitimacy. For the UAC, the public is the people of the neighbourhood, the initiates who come in the Beaulieu collective are the people of the community which is a political community. This raises the question of whether the people in the neighbourhood are more the public than the people in the city who come to pick, it also raises the question of what is done there, what makes agriculture fit into a public space and it raises the question of governance, that is, who should manage this space. We must see what is at stake in a project that is rather municipal where the actor who would govern this space would be a municipal actor who represents, on the other hand it is rather an association. This means that the degree of publicity of a place would also be linked to the type of actor who governs it. This raises the question of whether the municipality is more public than an association.

These different definitions of the public and its spatiality, on the one hand, it is the spatial origin that must be that of the neighbourhood denoting a spatial vision of the public and on the other hand one will rather have a reticular vision of the public. On the UCA side, the public is what belongs to a certain space, on the collective side, the public is what fits into a certain network reflecting two geographical figures different from what is an audience and what is the spatiality of that audience. In the end, this raises normative questions about what a public space should be. For some, it is the space under the aegis of the public administration which is in particular the point of view of the UAC for whom the space must be public already because it is addressed to the people of the district and because it is animated by the public authority referring to a quasi-legal question to say that it is a regulatory question with the regulation that defines that it is the public administration that has authority over this space while on the other side of the collective, space becomes public because it is the inhabitants who produce it and in this case it is the definition of public space as a public sphere, that is, this space becomes public because people produce a collective project and a common project where they realize a kind of vision of society. There are two types of normativity among these actors with a regulatory normativity and a normativity related to the public sphere. What is interesting is that the UAC finds itself part of the Beaulieu collective space and ultimately part of the Beaulieu collective.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  1. ↑ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur le site de l'UNIGE
  2. ↑ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur le site de European Univeristy Institute
  3. ↑ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur Google Scholar
  4. ↑ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur Researchgate.net
  5. ↑ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur academia.edu
  6. ↑ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur Britannica.com
  7. ↑ Profile de Jörg Balsiger sur le site de Scientific Network for the Caucasus Mountain Region
Récupérée de « https://baripedia.org/index.php?title=A_political_geography_of_the_city:_urban_agriculture_and_public_space&oldid=49240 »