





































 

27 

 

 

 
 

 

 
https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 

 

ISSN 2184-6995 

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 

International License. 

 

  

 

 
 

Place-making alternative social innovations in a rentier state  
 
Beatriz Itzel Cruz Megchun 
 
 

Published online: May 2023 

 
To cite this article:  

Cruz Megchun, B. I. (2023). Place-making alternative social innovations in a rentier state.  

Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and  

Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 27-43. 

 

 

  



 

28 

 

Place-making alternative social innovations in a rentier state  
 
Beatriz Itzel Cruz Megchuna 

 
aUniversity of Portland, Pamplin School of Business, Portland, OR, 97203, USA. megchun@up.edu 

 

Abstract 

This work discusses place-making practices as a possible category of social innovation processes in a rentier 

state. We aim to document alternative processes that conceptualize different forms of participation and 

human agency. We want to provide a different discourse where individuals’ representations of their 

complex system of symbols, rules, and codifications of living in cities prevail. Thus, we provide a theoretical 

framework of the city under capitalism to introduce place, space and practice later. We introduce 

Wachsmuth’s (2014) postulation of the city as a “category of practice” to document one representation  

of urban processes via alternative visualizations in the Emirate of Sharjah, UAE. We use a case study 

approach to record the complexity of happenings in place-making and its relation to social innovation 

processes. The results indicate that social innovations and place-making/practices processes encompass 

collective and collaborative actions of a specific social group toward satisfying a social need. However, the 

latter differs in intentions, actions and outcomes, as individuals concentrate on intervening places to deal 

with their longing for home while creating a sense of belonging through a series of rituals in an urban 

context. This work provides an opportunity to advance the understanding of social innovations in other 

contexts while offering frameworks that honour immigrants’ cultures and social realms and thus bring into 

being other worlds. Thus, we require epistemological approaches, theoretical frameworks and a dialectic 

character that offer an alternative to prevent exclusionary conceptualizations of participation. 

 

Keywords: Social innovation, Place-making, Practice, City as a category of practice 

 

Introduction 

Cities display the material processes subsumed in the relationship between humans, the environment and 

the landscape under capitalism. Their design sets urban hierarchies with restrictions and privileges that 

inhibit or facilitate individuals to struggle or succeed socially and economically. These urban compositions 

exhibit the fluid reality of material flows of commodities, money, capital and information, which can be 

transferred and shifted across the globe. Capital accumulation and the locations of its division of labour 

have a distinctive material landscape (as fixed capital) that is produced as a “thing” in place. This spatiality 

is as integral to its structure and reproduction as its temporality (Soja, 1989) and is imbued with meaning  

in everyday social practices. Researchers regard place space as an integral component of social structure 

and action. They are reconsidering the spatiality of social life, specifically how people act and get attached 

to the environment (Derr, 2002; Vorkinn & Riese, 2001) and how its changes affect their sensitivity. This 

reappraisal forces a reflection and reconciliation about how experiences are lived and acted out in place 

and how they relate to and embed in political and economic practices that are operative over broader 

spatial scales. 

 

For centuries, people have acted and embodied resilience through creativity and ingenuity, to deal with 

challenges imposed by nature and humans. Communities have acquired the ability to reduce the impact of, 

cope with and recover from the effects of shocks and stresses of crises and disasters without compromising 

their long-term prospects. There is an increasing number of movements, among those social innovation, 



 

29 

 

across the world where citizens are setting spaces for people to learn a myriad of tools to create, build and 

devise solutions relevant to their community. Social innovation is one of the most recognized disciplines,  

as ‘it applies new approaches, takes existing processes, and brings new tools to bear in solving the world’s 

most pressing societal challenges. Social innovation seeks to achieve scale by harnessing the power of 

collaboration to address societal issues in a better and more efficient way’ (McKinsey & Company, 2016,  

p. 1). Citizens might have the aid of governments and/or the empowerment of private philanthropists to 

gain access to resources that give them agency. These resources might provide them with the means to 

communicate, collaborate, interact, exchange and co-create value in different types of social initiatives. 

However, this theoretical framework and conceptual approach might differ depending on the economic 

system where it is used and implemented and on the inhabitants’ migratory status living in that context. 

 

This work explores the complexity of place-making and practice as a locus of social innovation processes  

in a rentier state. This work has four sections. We start with the theoretical framework of the city as  

a category of practice to later move to the concepts of place, space and practice and social innovation. 

Subsequently, we introduce the case study, where we document a practice, cricket, that is representative 

of the cultural identity and visual discourse of the urban landscape of the Emirate of Sharjah. This practice 

and the act of place-making exhibit the inner realities (interventions) that describe how things interact and 

coordinate in the micro-scale realm. The third section consists of the discussion between social innovation 

and place-making practice, specifically their commonalities and differences in their approaches, practices, 

processes and requirements. We offer a conclusion and a series of future research recommendations to 

advance the topic. 

 

Literature review 

City as a category of practice 

Contemporary urban studies appear to encounter the spectre of universalizing theory, which embodies  

an extensive line of Eurocentric epistemologies that might perpetuate narratives of their embeddedness 

within social processes. Those studies generally explore spatial arrangements and social patterns of 

particular urban places leading to an all-encompassing, acontextual and neocolonial metanarrative. Thus, 

urban theorists are increasingly questioning and challenging the sites and biases upon which urban studies 

have been based (Davis, 2004; Robinson, 2002, 2003; Roy, 2009; Stren, 2001; Wachsmuth, 2014). They 

argue that universalizing theory might ignore the power-laden realities of differences, place specificity, 

everyday life, struggles and experiences of inhabitants (Brenner, 2018). Researchers studying cities of the 

global South bring relevant, atypical and different analyses since their work manifests a closer 

consideration of how theory and site interact and how cities are informed. Their research provides 

evidence that the so-called third-world urbanization or underdevelopment urban theory no longer fits the 

Euro-American theoretical approach. They demonstrate that contemporary urban forms of analysis are  

ill-equipped to describe the conditions they aim to decipher (Angelo & Wachsmuth, 2015; Roy, 2009). They 

argue that ‘methodological Cityism’ projects fail to fully comprehend the varied impacts of urbanization 

processes because they assume a particular set of social, economic and power relationships endemic to  

the concept of the city that no longer hold. 

 

Wachsmuth (2014) postulates that the city ought to be treated as a category of practice, an ideological 

representation of urban processes, rather than a category of analysis. This view offers the opportunity  

to observe people’s relationship to urbanization processes rather than a category of analysis adequate  

to describe these processes. It shifts the explanatory task away from abstracting complex urbanization 



 

30 

 

processes into objective city moments. It centres on mapping how these processes are experienced and 

interpreted by social actors in everyday life and formed into practical representations (Wachsmuth, 2014). 

The city will look more like a cognitive map (Lynch, 1960; Mazer & Rankin, 2011) that depicts spontaneous 

representations that arise directly from everyday urban spatial practice. For example, researchers studying 

the ambiguous and expanding borders of the globalized Middle East explore traditionalism, 

cosmopolitanism and modernity. Those examining modernity document the landscapes of malls, gated 

communities, Islamicized public spaces and informal settlements (Alawadi, 2014; Elsheshtawy, 2010;  

Rab, 2011; Singermann & Amar, 2006). 

 

We mapped objective city moments of spatial practices and representational spaces to observe people’s 

relationships to urbanization processes in the Emirate of Sharjah. The objective was to document how 

social actors experience and interpret these processes in everyday life and form them into practical 

representations of social action. We studied the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because it is a rentier state, 

wherein the rental of oil prospects or their exports provides one of the primary incomes. We will attempt 

to define a rentier state. It is a challenging endeavour as each economy has some elements of rent, and the 

state of the oil phenomenon’s impact differs on the state’s nature in the Arab region. First, a rentier state is 

thus an economy where wealth is created around a small fraction of the society (Beblawi, 1987). The state, 

the principal rentier in the economy, plays a crucial role in moving economic activity. The rent held in the 

hands of the government is redistributed to the population. Citizenship becomes a source of economic 

benefit. In 2020, the UAE had a population of 9.282 million and 94,7997 were Emirati citizens (UAE 

Governmental Portal, 2021). 

 

In this context, noncitizens furnish the managerial and service labour for the country’s day-to-day 

functioning. Nevertheless, the social and cultural aspects of migrant life lie outside Emirati society, as 

migrants are temporary. Hence, we researched locations in the Emirate of Sharjah where practices alter, 

bend or reflect a distinct way of life. We selected those practices that exhibit the mediation of everyday 

experiences through inhabitants’ interaction and coordination in the micro-scale realm. Our objective  

is to offer different spatial narratives from the all-encompassing, acontextual and neocolonial 

metanarratives that might perpetuate narratives of their embeddedness within social processes. We focus 

on those narratives that unveil the realities of differences, place specificity, everyday life, struggles and 

experiences of inhabitants (Brenner, 2018). 

 

Place-making 

Scholars have studied place from the viewpoints of anthropology, human geography, sociology, etc.,  

as it is not an abstract entity and influences (and is influenced by) broader social, economic and political 

processes and developments. Place interlinks with an assemblage of elements co-existing in a specific order 

(de Certeau, 1984), has multiple dimensions (Entrikin, 1991), qualities (Relph, 1976; Seamon & Sower, 

2008), and varying spatial and temporal scales (Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 1991). It is the terrain where the 

consumption of space (capitalist utilizers) and the production of enjoyment (community users) clash, and 

basic social practices, like tradition, self-identification, solidarity, social support, reproduction, etc., are 

lived out. These social spaces become a force of production, representing a network of exchange and a flow 

of commodities, communication, energy and resources. In the opinion of Lefebvre (1991), the production 

of space is the process and the outcome of the process that encompasses the totality of flow and things of 

the capitalist material geographical landscape. The interaction between place and space is crucial, as the 



 

31 

 

space of the whole takes on meaning through a place, and each part (each place), in its interconnection 

with other parts (places), engenders the space as a whole. 

 

A sophisticated body of theory has explored ‘place’ and the ‘production of space’. Both concepts are 

structured dialectically in the human experience since the comprehension of space is related to the places 

we inhabit and derive from the meaning itself (Relph, 1976). The concept of place is regarded as a location 

created through human experiences, which requires a space filled with meanings and goals. A place has  

an unlimited size as it refers to an event (has taken place), a myth (said to have taken place), or a history 

(authority) that happened in a location. Space is more abstract as it is an assembly of coexistent elements 

in a particular order to spatially focus on human intentions, experiences and actions (Seamon and Sowers, 

2008). Lefebvre (1996) argues that the production of space also occurs through representations of the 

everyday, lived experience of space and the collective meanings of representational spaces (Image 1). 

 

 

 

Image 1:  Constellation of elements of place-making. 

 

People undertaking daily rituals – mundane/extraordinary, random/staged – are transforming urban 

processes and forms while creating places of belonging. In these places, individuals carry out different 

practices, which are an intrinsic part of the generation of space (Lee & Ingold, 2006; Schatzki, 2001; 



 

32 

 

Sheringham, 2006). Practices reflect the total nexus of interconnected human practices, including 

knowledge, meaning, human activity, power, language, social institutions and historical transformation 

(Schatzki, 2001). Practices are not just individuals undertaking activities or actions dislocated from a bigger 

context but are fundamental for understanding the society they are part of (Pink, 2012). They display rituals 

in which individuals repeat a series of actions involving gestures, words and objects performed in a place 

(Aractingi & Le Pape, 2011). They are also media for individuals to attach cultural depth to their local 

realities by layering an attachment to a collective and accruing a sense of belonging. 

 

In the design of a city, professionals must distinguish between place and space since both are embodied in 

material processes. Professionals need to understand their mode of determination and their mediation, the 

place construction and transformation and how they forge together in a dialectic unit. Studying a place 

from a political stance could reconcile how experience is lived and acted out in a place and how this relates 

at different scales. We could question: Whose place? What kind of place? Which place? Professionals are 

designing for inhabitants. Lefebvre (1991) proposes the ‘conceptual triad’ to contemplate other modalities 

of space within a single theory. The aim is to expose, decode and read space by differentiating their 

dialectical character of interaction. (i) Representation of space refers to the conceptualized space 

constructed through the discourse of professionals and technocrats. It comprises the various codifications 

and objectified representations used and produced by these agents. (ii) Representational space is the 

directly lived space experienced through the complex symbols and images of the inhabitants and users.  

This space overlays the physical space and the symbolic use of its object, unveiling some underground, 

clandestine side of social life, while (iii) spatial practices are those secret society’s space. These practices 

are revealed by deciphering spaces through people’s perception of their daily reality concerning space 

usage. They structure everyday life and a broader urban reality ensuring societal cohesion, continuity and 

specific spatial competence. 

 

Social innovation 

The term social innovation (SI) is an active and evolving concept in praxis and theory, which raises debates 

about its approaches, practices, processes and requirements. Its realm has extended from the public and 

policy level to international academic and scientific study, as its application cuts across all fields and sectors 

of society, such as civil society, educational institutions and the public/private sector. Its theoretical 

underpinning draws inputs from economics, management, business and technology innovation, human 

organization, economic diversity, social anthropology, sociology, political studies and governance, among 

other fields of knowledge. The ecosystems for SI actions can be found in socio-technical approaches, socio-

behavioural fields and creative arts documented around the world (Beham et al., 2009; Goldenberg et al., 

2009; Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010; Nicholls & Murdock, 2012). Consequently, its discussion demands 

integrating the many different and even conflicting meanings of social practices offering a broadness  

that is crucial for understanding the concept. 

 

Since the early 19th century, the term SI has been associated with social reforms and revolutions in 

education and work. Its meaning has evolved with the advent of new behaviours and practices 

encompassing all areas of society. Recently, the term has served to label any social phenomenon or process 

of change (Bernal & Cecchini, 2017). This plethora of vastly divergent subject matter and problem 

dimensions subsumed under the same heading without making distinctions between meanings, conditions, 

genesis and diffusions, affect the development of a concept. Distinctions are important because they help 

to understand the concept when it is implemented under specific living conditions experienced by  



 

33 

 

a population. In broad terms, SI aims at activating, fostering and utilizing the innovation potential of the 

whole society to face the neglected, poorly served or unresolved services/actions organized by the state 

(Andrew & Klein, 2010; Goldenberg, 2004; Morales Gutiérrez, 2009; Mulgan, 2006; Neamtan & Downin, 

2005). It is distinguished from other manifestations of social change, as certain factors drive its initiatives in 

an intentionally targeted manner to satisfy better or answer needs and problems than is possible based on 

established practices. 

 

SI demands a collaborative effort in the learning journey toward developing a social innovation solution. 

This journey might have different facets depending on the socioeconomic and cultural environment and the 

institutions of a nation. However, the outcomes aim to satisfy human needs, raise awareness about and 

open access to human rights, reach a concrete achievement and improvement, create a long-lasting and 

broad impact and enhance institutional capacity to learn (Table 1). Its effects lead to the development of 

social capital, social cohesion, empowerment and democracy and cause necessary changes in the 

relationship and development of cross-sectoral partnerships. Their realm extends from the public and 

policy level to academic and scientific study, as its application cuts across all fields and sectors of society. 

These cross-sectoral collaborations among the public sector, civil society and the private sector are crucial 

to reaping their full potential. 

 

Table 1:  Social innovation common factors. 

 

Have a collective and collaborative action 

Contribute to satisfying human needs that have not been considered or 

satisfied 

Raise awareness about and open access to human rights 

Enhance human capabilities 

Empower a particular social group 

Reach a concrete achievement and improvement 

Have a long-lasting and broad impact 

Be social by both their means and their end 

Require learning and institutional capacity to learn 

 

SI relies on the interaction of many actors (civil society, public sector, private sector, government, financing 

bodies and academic institutions) to achieve different impacts or effects (local, national, global and glocal), 

using a specific governance model (centralized, multilevel or social network) to address needs. These actors 

are deemed to give analytical primacy to systems and processes of change that use communities’ 

knowledge and cultural resources to generate innovation. This type of innovation becomes social when  

it is accepted and diffused in society or certain societal sub-areas, and later it becomes institutionalized  

as a new social practice. Image 2 conceptualizes the series of stages, stakeholders and actions involved  

in the SI process. In each of the five stages, different actors interact and collaborate by exchanging 

information and cooperating to deal with the various milestones posed (Domanski & Monge-Iriarte, 2017; 

Murray et al., 2010). For example, citizens are suppliers of information about their needs and contributors 

to developing and improving the outcomes generated. They are committed to collaborating, learning and 

trusting others to exchange and gain knowledge that fosters dialogues that allow them to meet their needs. 



 

34 

 

The nature of this process raises questions about who is responsible for leading the efforts to generate, 

implement and evolve SIs and how those who are accountable can contribute to its success. 

 

Image 2:  Stages of social innovation. 

 

Responsible innovation 

Responsible innovation is an instrument that organizations can use to properly embed scientific and 

technological advances in society without causing more problems than they solve. Managers require 

sophisticated approaches, frameworks and resources to identify and define how their organizations should 

innovate, where they could innovat, and how they should think about adapting or configuring their 

innovation process. This implementation calls for a commitment to being anticipatory of those intended 

and potential unintended impacts, reflective about the underlying purposes, motivation and potential 

impacts, inclusively deliberate to dialogue, engage and debate with the public and stakeholders and 

responsive in the inclusive, open and collective process of reflexivity (Owen et al., 2013). Therefore, 

managers have to be aware of understanding the norms, laws and standards within a specific society 

(context) to ensure the avoidance or prevention of impacts and behaviours during the implementation  

of innovations. Above all, they must reflect on the dilemmas and unintended and undesirable economic 

and social impacts of innovation, such as the undercover value of cheap labour, labour reproduction and 

ecological externalities. In this case, we regard it to address SIs. 

 

We used design thinking (DT) and anthropology to introduce responsible innovation to sensitize 

practitioners about the negative implications of neoliberal capitalism. We argue that anthropology can 

assist DT in bringing other types of knowledge and kinds of experiences and expertise to understand groups 



 

35 

 

from a cultural perspective (holism) and comprehend behaviour from the participant’s point of view 

(cultural relativism). Postmodern anthropology and interpretative anthropology approaches enable 

individuals to explore the invisible, silenced others within the cultures and domains they are excluded from 

(Said, 2014) and historically specific processes to express their challenges (Coombe, 1991). They provide 

instruments to depict the social world in ways those in specific positions live, negotiate and define meaning 

and value in everyday life. This reflective process is relevant to address and inquire more significant 

systematic questions (Image 3). Therefore, DT and anthropology contribute to democratizing the SI process 

by addressing power and vulnerability from a plural view. 

 



 

36 

 

 

Image 3:  Engagement and participation stage. 



 

37 

 

Case study 

Our case study is located in the Emirate of Sharjah, one of the seven Emirates of the UAE, which shares  

a border with the Sultanate of Oman, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. 

Sharjah is the third most populous emirate. Its history dates back over 120,000 years since human 

settlements were found in the Mleiha area. It has been a commercial and trade city, a political port and  

a cultural (identity) hub. In the past three decades, the ruler has invested heavily in regenerating the city’s 

old town section as a public art and culture site leading to being regarded as “the Cultural Capital of the 

Arab World” by UNESCO in 1998 (Foreign Affairs, 2008). 

 

The UAE has one of the most significant number of South Asian immigrant populations (59.4%), including 

Indian (38.2%), Bangladeshi (9.5%), Pakistani (9.4%) and others (2.3%). The UAE experienced large-scale 

migration for construction involving mainly male migrants in the 1970s. This Asian migration to the UAE has 

become more differentiated over time. For example, many migrants from these nations remain low-skilled 

labourers, others have semi-skilled and skilled jobs, while others have professional or para-professional 

qualifications. These migrants are pushed to migrate due to economic and social issues, such as poverty  

or the incapacity of local economies to generate jobs for them. They are attracted to migrate because it 

represents an opportunity to send money back home and have better quality of life for their families. These 

groups have few places to create a sense of community. Among those is the intervention of places to play 

cricket. There is a diaspora of migrants from South Asian countries, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and 

Indonesia, among others, that intervene in empty spaces, alleys, parking lots and urban voids across the 

UAE. They use these spaces to practise cricket (ritual) every Friday from 5:00 am to 9:00 am. In this case, 

we will describe a synthesis of various groups intervening spaces in the Emirate of Sharjah. 

 

They repurpose the place into a temporary informal and regulated cricket pitch. They use any object 

available, such as bags with objects, bricks, rocks or lime, to make evident and alive their landmark of 

practice, the 22-yard cricket pitch. Inhabitants bring their wickets, bats and balls to set imaginary geometric 

boundaries. In some cases, the external boundaries overlap when other groups practise nearby. The 

practice is masculine-centric, attracting blue-collar, construction and administrative employees. Their 

weekly practices become rituals as members perform a social liturgy in a codified, repetitive and consistent 

way for decades – meeting in a specific location and bringing along objects, dressing behaviours, norms and 

rules. These practices show a communal negotiation, resolution and network of exchanges with clear signs 

of specific diasporas, ethnicity, status and experience. Cricket unifies the space and places through the 

conscious process of structuring values, memories, goals, behaviours and skills relevant to this location. 

Informal pitches exemplify the representational space via complex symbolic and lived experiences.  

In contrast, the spatial practices unveil the invisible side of immigrants’ social life, creating a collective 

memory of their identity (Image 4). 

 



 

38 

 

 

Image 4:  Cricket place-making. 

 

This practice-place represents an interesting case of transformative threshold and a locus of potential  

in SI since there is a communal negotiation and resolution of an array of complexities. The place-making 

practices (cricket) share similarities in the rituals and how cricket is a medium to build trust, security and 

establish self-identity as a migrant. They use clothing and equipment that represents the visual identity  

of their team’s notions of craft, aesthetics and identity. It also exhibits clear signs of individuals' diaspora, 

status and experience. It is inferred that members of different diasporas create trust networks to maintain 

their practice since their immigrant status pushes them to forge trust. Members might have different 

hierarchies and roles in organizing the games and inviting new members. However, these place-making 

practices vary depending on the nature of the spaces, as they have unique characteristics in their flexibility 

of use and negotiation that enable different type of appropriation. 

 



 

39 

 

We identified two types of typologies in the nature of the SI intervention. First, semi-consolidated SI, where 

the space intervened is planned and designed for a specific purpose (e.g. construction or demolished area, 

etc). Even though private or governmental entities regulate the space, members can borrow it to build  

a formal and regulated playground. This urban space is claimed by residents who do not have the means  

to become members of a formal space of practice. Members are empowered to change or modify the 

space where they can formally undertake their rituals. Membership for this space can be earned through  

an invitation to work relations or their active participation in continuously improving the place of practice. 

Second is consolidated SI, where the space is informal, and members borrow it to transform its real 

purpose into a temporary informal and regulated playground (e.g. an informal parking area). This urban 

space is claimed by residents who do not have the means, capabilities or interest in designing a formal 

space of practice. They use the space unauthorized for a period of time to undertake their rituals (cricket 

pitch). Memberships are obtained through the sporadic discovery of the group, word of mouth or personal 

invitation. Members claim their space and command level through seniority and consensus. 

 

Discussion 

This work explores whether place-making and practices are alternative ways of SI processes in the UAE.  

To this effect, the work examines the key elements and factors innate in SI and its process and place-

making and practice and processes. Table 2 shows similarities in the collective and collaborative actions 

required from a specific social group to satisfy a social need not considered. In both cases, social groups 

(and other SI actors) focus on using social means to develop social outcomes that raise awareness about 

human needs. Indeed, there are differences in their approaches, as SI has stakeholders, multiple actors and 

institutions that might support different endeavours. They rely on cross-sectoral collaborations between 

the public sector, civil society and the private sector to learn and grow. However, it also means that the 

institutional agency has a willingness and capacity to learn. Their processes aim to enhance human 

capabilities to empower a particular social group to reach a concrete achievement and improvement that  

is long-lasting and has a broad impact. 

 

In comparison, place-making is an approach initiated by and for social groups as a self-agency activity to 

deal with their lived experiences as immigrants. The group members create learning through their ritual 

experiences that are shared formally or informally through verbal narratives, such as events, histories or 

myths, that are only understood by members experiencing them. Place-making is a vehicle to acknowledge 

and celebrate the invisible side of their social life to create mutual support and shared resources to secure 

establishing a self-identity. Their goal is to preserve their cultural identity by creating a space to recall home 

and a sense of belonging in the micro-scale realm. 

 

Table 2:  Social innovation and place-making:  common factors. 

 

Social innovation Place-making 

Have a collective and collaborative action Have a collective and collaborative action 

Contribute to satisfying human needs that have 

not been considered or satisfied 

Contribute to satisfying social needs that have not 

been considered  

Raise awareness about and open access  

to human rights 

Raise awareness about the complex symbolic and 

lived experiences of immigrants 



 

40 

 

Enhance human capabilities 
Unveil the invisible side of the social life  

of immigrants 

Empower a particular social group 
Create mutual support and share resources  

of a particular social group 

Reach a concrete achievement and improvement Reach security by establishing self-identity 

Have a long-lasting and broad impact 
Create local systems of dependency at the micro-

scale realm  

Be social by both their means and their end Be social by both their means and their end 

Require learning and institutional capacity to learn 
Embed self-agency and exercise collective  

learning capacity  

 

When we analyse the SI process along with the place-making practice process, we observe that despite 

similarities in the collective and collaborative actions of a specific social group toward satisfying a social 

need, there are differences in the stages, intentions, actions and outcomes. If we use the case study as  

a singular example (Image 5), we can notice that the first stage starts as an action dealing with longing  

for a place or situation that might recall home. To start a practice, they must connect with other individuals 

of a similar social group to create a community. The second stage focuses on creating opportunities 

through exploring, inquiring and discussing where they can intervene to perform their practice. The third 

stage consists of intervening in a place to perform a practice for a specific time, leaving the physical area 

intact after completing it. The fourth stage concentrates on sustaining the practice by securing group 

members to get involved and participate in the rituals to sustain them and create collective action. Finally, 

the last action concentrates on producing possibilities through creating local systems of interdependency 

where members of the social group interact and can maintain their language, meaning, knowledge and 

wisdom and thus create other plural worlds. 

 



 

41 

 

 

 

Image 5: Stages of social innovation and place-making / practice. 

 

The place-making and practice stage differs from the SI process, as the objective of the latter is to diagnose 

a human situation that can be solved, scaled and procured into a systematic change in the context studied. 

Therefore, it requires the active participation of members of social groups, stakeholders and institutions. 

On the contrary, the case showed how individuals have self-agency to organise interventions that support 

their social (and cultural) needs. Consequently, the results show the need for a new conceptualisation  

of SI that considers different types of systematic change and the roles played by stakeholders. They need  

to recognise diverse phenomena and how the type of government, economic style and social establishment 

influence these. To advance SI theory, we need to document the realities at other latitudes and decolonise 

conceptualisations. 

 

Conclusion 

The work shows that SIs and place-making /practices processes encompass collective and collaborative 

actions of a specific social group toward satisfying a social need. However, the latter differs in the 

intentions, actions and outcomes, as the individuals have the self-agency to organize and intervene  

in places to support their social (and cultural) needs. They do not aim to solve a problem and find a solution 

that can be scaled and procured into a systematic change. They concentrate on intervening places to deal 

with their longing for home while creating a sense of belonging through a series of rituals in an urban 

context. We recognize the need to pursue further research and thus propose to analyse the city  

as a category of practice, where we can map practices that create temporary spaces of opportunity  



 

42 

 

and plural worlds embedded in the urban context. Therefore, we require epistemological approaches, 

theoretical frameworks and a dialectic character that offer an alternative to prevent exclusionary 

conceptualizations of participation. We need to listen to and document the perceptions and experiences  

of people to create concepts that honour their realities. 

 

Acknowledgement 

This research was partially funded by a CAAD grant in 2016 and a Butine Grant in Fall 2020. It was also 

partly commissioned by the Sharjah Architecture Triennial Research Initiative for the [forthcoming] 

publication and exhibition “Living Continuity”. We also acknowledge the research curator, Sharmeen 

Inayat, for opening spaces to discuss, exchange and expand the research. 

 

References 

Alawadi, K. (2014). Urban redevelopment trauma: The story of a Dubai neighbourhood. Built Environment,  

40(3), 357-375. 

Andrew, C., & Klein, J. (2010). Social innovation: What is it and why is it important to understand it better. Ontario 

Ministry of Research and Innovation. (Cahiers du centre de Recherche Sur Les Innovations Sociales (CRISES), 

Collection Etudes Theoriques, no. ET1003). 
Angelo, H., & Wachsmuth, D. (2015) Urbanizing urban political ecology: A critique of methodological cytism, 

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39, 16-27. 

Aractingi, J., & Le Pape, G. (2011). Rituals and catechisms in ecumenical rite in East and West at the crossroads 

masonics. Editions L’Harmattan. 

Beblawi, H. (1987). The rentier state in the Arab World. Arab Studies Quarterly, 9(4), 383-398. 

Beham, B., Drobnic, S., & Verwiebe, R. (2009). Literature review: Theoretical concepts and methodological approaches 

of quality of life and work. Utrecht University. 

Bernal, M. & Cecchini, S. (2017). Social innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean. In J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka,  

A. Schröder, & M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future (pp. 128–130). 

Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund University. 

Brenner, N. (2018) Debating planetary urbanization: For an engaged pluralism. Environment and Planning, 
Environmental and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(3),  570–590. 

Coombe, R. (1991) Encountering the postmodern: New directions in cultural anthropology. Canadian Review  

of Sociology, 28(2),  188–205. 

Davis, M. (2004). Planet of slums: Urban involution and the informal proletariat, New Left Review, 26,  5-34. 

de Certeau, M. (1984) The practice of everyday life. University of California Press. 
Derr, J. R. (2002). The poet’s place in modernity: Heidegger, Eliot and Pound. Loyola University Chicago. 

Domanski, D., & Monge-Iriarte (2017). Social innovation in Chile. J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder, & M. Zirngiebl 

(Eds.), Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future (pp. 134–136). Sozialforschungsstelle,  

TU Dortmund University. 

Elsheshtawy, Y. (2010). Dubai: Behind an urban spectacle. Routledge.    
Entrikin, J. N. (1991). The betweenness of place: Towards a geography of modernity. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Foreign Affairs. (2008). Cultural capital meets industrial prominence: The Emirate of Sharjah, charging ahead. Foreign 

Affairs, 87(5), Sponsored section. 

Goldenberg, M. (2004). Social innovation in Canada: How the non-profit sector serves Canadians … and how it can 

serve them better. Canadian Policy Research Networks. 

Goldenberg, M., Kamoji, W., Orton, L., & Williamson, M. (2009). Social innovation in Canada: An update. Canadian 

Policy Research Networks. 

Howaldt, J., & Schwartz, M. (2010). Social innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends.  

Report of ESF, EU and Aachen University.  

Lee, J., & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on foot: Perceiving, routing, socializing. In S. Coleman & P. Collins, 

 (Eds.), Locating the Ffeld: Space, place and context in anthropology (pp. 67–86). Berg. 

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Basil Blackwell. 

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Trans.). Blackwell. 

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press. 

Mazer, K. M., & Rankin, K. N. (2011). The social space of gentrification. Environment and Planning D: Society  

and Space, 29(5), 822-839. 



 

43 

 

McKinsey & Company. (2016). Social innovation: Can fresh thinking solve the world's most intractable problems? 

McKinsey & Company. 

Morales Gutiérrez, A. C. (2009). Innovación social: Un ámbito de interés para los servicios sociales. Zerbitzuan:  

Gizarte zerbitzuetarako aldizkaria = Revista de servicios sociales, (45), 151–175. 

Mulgan, G. (2006). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Skoll Centre  

for Social Entrepreneurship 

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. The Young Foundation; NESTA. 

Neamtan, N., & Downing, R. (2005). Social economy and community economic development in Canada: Next steps  

for public policy. Issues paper by the Chantier del’ Èconomie Sociale in collaboration with the Canadian 

Community Economic Development Network (CCEDNet) and Alliance Recherche Universités-Communautès 
en Économic Sociale (ARUC-ÉS). 

Nicholls A., & Murdock A. (Eds.). (2012). The nature of social innovation. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Owen, R., Bessant, J. R., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence  

of science and innovation in society. John Wiley & Sons. 

Pink, S. (2012). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Sage. 

Rab, S. (2011). Sharjah: Seascape urbanism in a Khaliji port city. In A. Perez-Gomez, A. Cormier, & A. Pedret, Where  
do you stand: 99th ACSA Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, March 3-7 (pp. 791–800). 

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion. 

Robinson, J. (2002). Global and world cities: A view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional 

Research, 26(3), 531–554. 

Robinson, J. (2003). Postcolonialising geography: Tactics and pitfalls, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography,  

24(3),  273–289. 

Roy, A. (2009). The 21st century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), 819–830. 

Said, E. W. (2014). Orientalism reconsidered. In B. Moore-Gilbert, G. Stanton & W. Maley (Eds.), Postcolonial criticism 

(pp. 126–44). Routledge. 

Schatzki, T. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turns 
in contemporary theory (pp. 42–55). Routledge. 

Seamon, D., & Sowers, J. (2008). Place and placelessness, Edward Relph. In P. Hubbard, R. Kitchen, & G. Vallentine 

(Eds.), Key texts in human geography (pp. 43–52). Sage. 

Sheringham, M. (2006). Everyday life: Theories and practices from surrealism to the present. Oxford University Press. 

Singermann, D., & Ammar, P. (Eds.). (2006). Cairo cosmopolitan: Politics, culture, and urban space in the Middle  
East. AUC Press. 

Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso. 

Stren, R. (2001). Local governance and social diversity in the developing world: New challenges for globalizing  

city-regions’, In A. J. Scott (Ed.), Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policy (pp. 193–213).  

Oxford University Press. 

UAE Governmental Portal. (2021). History and facts.  https://u.ae/en#/ 
Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H., (2001). Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. 

Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 249–263. 

Wachsmuth, D. (2014). City as ideology: Reconciling the explosion of the city form with the tenacity of the city 

concept. Environmental and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), 75–90. 

 
 

 

https://u.ae/en#/

	https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J
	ISSN 2184-6995
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
	Place-making alternative social innovations in a rentier state
	Beatriz Itzel Cruz Megchun
	Published online: May 2023
	To cite this article:  Cruz Megchun, B. I. (2023). Place-making alternative social innovations in a rentier state.  Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and  Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 27-43.
	Place-making alternative social innovations in a rentier state
	Beatriz Itzel Cruz Megchuna
	aUniversity of Portland, Pamplin School of Business, Portland, OR, 97203, USA. megchun@up.edu
	Abstract
	This work discusses place-making practices as a possible category of social innovation processes in a rentier state. We aim to document alternative processes that conceptualize different forms of participation and human agency. We want to provide a di...
	Keywords: Social innovation, Place-making, Practice, City as a category of practice
	Introduction
	Cities display the material processes subsumed in the relationship between humans, the environment and the landscape under capitalism. Their design sets urban hierarchies with restrictions and privileges that inhibit or facilitate individuals to strug...
	For centuries, people have acted and embodied resilience through creativity and ingenuity, to deal with challenges imposed by nature and humans. Communities have acquired the ability to reduce the impact of, cope with and recover from the effects of s...
	This work explores the complexity of place-making and practice as a locus of social innovation processes  in a rentier state. This work has four sections. We start with the theoretical framework of the city as  a category of practice to later move to ...
	Literature review City as a category of practice
	Contemporary urban studies appear to encounter the spectre of universalizing theory, which embodies  an extensive line of Eurocentric epistemologies that might perpetuate narratives of their embeddedness within social processes. Those studies generall...
	Wachsmuth (2014) postulates that the city ought to be treated as a category of practice, an ideological representation of urban processes, rather than a category of analysis. This view offers the opportunity  to observe people’s relationship to urbani...
	We mapped objective city moments of spatial practices and representational spaces to observe people’s relationships to urbanization processes in the Emirate of Sharjah. The objective was to document how social actors experience and interpret these pro...
	In this context, noncitizens furnish the managerial and service labour for the country’s day-to-day functioning. Nevertheless, the social and cultural aspects of migrant life lie outside Emirati society, as migrants are temporary. Hence, we researched...
	Place-making
	Scholars have studied place from the viewpoints of anthropology, human geography, sociology, etc.,  as it is not an abstract entity and influences (and is influenced by) broader social, economic and political processes and developments. Place interlin...
	A sophisticated body of theory has explored ‘place’ and the ‘production of space’. Both concepts are structured dialectically in the human experience since the comprehension of space is related to the places we inhabit and derive from the meaning itse...
	Image 1:  Constellation of elements of place-making.
	People undertaking daily rituals – mundane/extraordinary, random/staged – are transforming urban processes and forms while creating places of belonging. In these places, individuals carry out different practices, which are an intrinsic part of the gen...
	In the design of a city, professionals must distinguish between place and space since both are embodied in material processes. Professionals need to understand their mode of determination and their mediation, the place construction and transformation ...
	Social innovation
	The term social innovation (SI) is an active and evolving concept in praxis and theory, which raises debates about its approaches, practices, processes and requirements. Its realm has extended from the public and policy level to international academic...
	Since the early 19th century, the term SI has been associated with social reforms and revolutions in education and work. Its meaning has evolved with the advent of new behaviours and practices encompassing all areas of society. Recently, the term has ...
	SI demands a collaborative effort in the learning journey toward developing a social innovation solution. This journey might have different facets depending on the socioeconomic and cultural environment and the institutions of a nation. However, the o...
	Table 1:  Social innovation common factors.
	SI relies on the interaction of many actors (civil society, public sector, private sector, government, financing bodies and academic institutions) to achieve different impacts or effects (local, national, global and glocal), using a specific governan...
	Image 2:  Stages of social innovation.
	Responsible innovation
	Responsible innovation is an instrument that organizations can use to properly embed scientific and technological advances in society without causing more problems than they solve. Managers require sophisticated approaches, frameworks and resources to...
	We used design thinking (DT) and anthropology to introduce responsible innovation to sensitize practitioners about the negative implications of neoliberal capitalism. We argue that anthropology can assist DT in bringing other types of knowledge and ki...
	Image 3:  Engagement and participation stage.
	Case study
	Our case study is located in the Emirate of Sharjah, one of the seven Emirates of the UAE, which shares  a border with the Sultanate of Oman, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. Sharjah is the third most populous emirat...
	The UAE has one of the most significant number of South Asian immigrant populations (59.4%), including Indian (38.2%), Bangladeshi (9.5%), Pakistani (9.4%) and others (2.3%). The UAE experienced large-scale migration for construction involving mainly ...
	They repurpose the place into a temporary informal and regulated cricket pitch. They use any object available, such as bags with objects, bricks, rocks or lime, to make evident and alive their landmark of practice, the 22-yard cricket pitch. Inhabitan...
	Image 4:  Cricket place-making.
	This practice-place represents an interesting case of transformative threshold and a locus of potential  in SI since there is a communal negotiation and resolution of an array of complexities. The place-making practices (cricket) share similarities in...
	We identified two types of typologies in the nature of the SI intervention. First, semi-consolidated SI, where the space intervened is planned and designed for a specific purpose (e.g. construction or demolished area, etc). Even though private or gove...
	Discussion
	This work explores whether place-making and practices are alternative ways of SI processes in the UAE.  To this effect, the work examines the key elements and factors innate in SI and its process and place-making and practice and processes. Table 2 sh...
	In comparison, place-making is an approach initiated by and for social groups as a self-agency activity to deal with their lived experiences as immigrants. The group members create learning through their ritual experiences that are shared formally or ...
	Table 2:  Social innovation and place-making:  common factors.
	When we analyse the SI process along with the place-making practice process, we observe that despite similarities in the collective and collaborative actions of a specific social group toward satisfying a social need, there are differences in the sta...
	Image 5: Stages of social innovation and place-making / practice.
	The place-making and practice stage differs from the SI process, as the objective of the latter is to diagnose a human situation that can be solved, scaled and procured into a systematic change in the context studied. Therefore, it requires the active...
	Conclusion
	The work shows that SIs and place-making /practices processes encompass collective and collaborative actions of a specific social group toward satisfying a social need. However, the latter differs in the intentions, actions and outcomes, as the indivi...
	Acknowledgement
	This research was partially funded by a CAAD grant in 2016 and a Butine Grant in Fall 2020. It was also partly commissioned by the Sharjah Architecture Triennial Research Initiative for the [forthcoming] publication and exhibition “Living Continuity”....
	References
	Alawadi, K. (2014). Urban redevelopment trauma: The story of a Dubai neighbourhood. Built Environment,  40(3), 357-375.
	Andrew, C., & Klein, J. (2010). Social innovation: What is it and why is it important to understand it better. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. (Cahiers du centre de Recherche Sur Les Innovations Sociales (CRISES), Collection Etudes Theori...
	Angelo, H., & Wachsmuth, D. (2015) Urbanizing urban political ecology: A critique of methodological cytism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39, 16-27.
	Aractingi, J., & Le Pape, G. (2011). Rituals and catechisms in ecumenical rite in East and West at the crossroads masonics. Editions L’Harmattan.
	Beblawi, H. (1987). The rentier state in the Arab World. Arab Studies Quarterly, 9(4), 383-398.
	Beham, B., Drobnic, S., & Verwiebe, R. (2009). Literature review: Theoretical concepts and methodological approaches of quality of life and work. Utrecht University.
	Bernal, M. & Cecchini, S. (2017). Social innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean. In J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka,  A. Schröder, & M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future (pp. 128–130). Sozialforschungsstelle...
	Brenner, N. (2018) Debating planetary urbanization: For an engaged pluralism. Environment and Planning, Environmental and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(3),  570–590.
	Coombe, R. (1991) Encountering the postmodern: New directions in cultural anthropology. Canadian Review  of Sociology, 28(2),  188–205.
	Davis, M. (2004). Planet of slums: Urban involution and the informal proletariat, New Left Review, 26,  5-34.
	de Certeau, M. (1984) The practice of everyday life. University of California Press.
	Derr, J. R. (2002). The poet’s place in modernity: Heidegger, Eliot and Pound. Loyola University Chicago.
	Domanski, D., & Monge-Iriarte (2017). Social innovation in Chile. J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder, & M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future (pp. 134–136). Sozialforschungsstelle,  TU Dortmund University.
	Elsheshtawy, Y. (2010). Dubai: Behind an urban spectacle. Routledge.
	Entrikin, J. N. (1991). The betweenness of place: Towards a geography of modernity. Johns Hopkins University Press.
	Foreign Affairs. (2008). Cultural capital meets industrial prominence: The Emirate of Sharjah, charging ahead. Foreign Affairs, 87(5), Sponsored section.
	Goldenberg, M. (2004). Social innovation in Canada: How the non-profit sector serves Canadians … and how it can serve them better. Canadian Policy Research Networks.
	Goldenberg, M., Kamoji, W., Orton, L., & Williamson, M. (2009). Social innovation in Canada: An update. Canadian Policy Research Networks.
	Howaldt, J., & Schwartz, M. (2010). Social innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends.  Report of ESF, EU and Aachen University.
	Lee, J., & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on foot: Perceiving, routing, socializing. In S. Coleman & P. Collins,  (Eds.), Locating the Ffeld: Space, place and context in anthropology (pp. 67–86). Berg.
	Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Basil Blackwell.
	Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Trans.). Blackwell.
	Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
	Mazer, K. M., & Rankin, K. N. (2011). The social space of gentrification. Environment and Planning D: Society  and Space, 29(5), 822-839.
	McKinsey & Company. (2016). Social innovation: Can fresh thinking solve the world's most intractable problems? McKinsey & Company.
	Morales Gutiérrez, A. C. (2009). Innovación social: Un ámbito de interés para los servicios sociales. Zerbitzuan:  Gizarte zerbitzuetarako aldizkaria = Revista de servicios sociales, (45), 151–175.
	Mulgan, G. (2006). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Skoll Centre  for Social Entrepreneurship
	Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. The Young Foundation; NESTA.
	Neamtan, N., & Downing, R. (2005). Social economy and community economic development in Canada: Next steps  for public policy. Issues paper by the Chantier del’ Èconomie Sociale in collaboration with the Canadian Community Economic Development Network...
	Nicholls A., & Murdock A. (Eds.). (2012). The nature of social innovation. Palgrave Macmillan.
	Owen, R., Bessant, J. R., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence  of science and innovation in society. John Wiley & Sons.
	Pink, S. (2012). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Sage.
	Rab, S. (2011). Sharjah: Seascape urbanism in a Khaliji port city. In A. Perez-Gomez, A. Cormier, & A. Pedret, Where
	do you stand: 99th ACSA Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, March 3-7 (pp. 791–800).
	Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
	Robinson, J. (2002). Global and world cities: A view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), 531–554.
	Robinson, J. (2003). Postcolonialising geography: Tactics and pitfalls, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography,  24(3),  273–289.
	Roy, A. (2009). The 21st century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), 819–830.
	Said, E. W. (2014). Orientalism reconsidered. In B. Moore-Gilbert, G. Stanton & W. Maley (Eds.), Postcolonial criticism (pp. 126–44). Routledge.
	Schatzki, T. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turns in contemporary theory (pp. 42–55). Routledge.
	Seamon, D., & Sowers, J. (2008). Place and placelessness, Edward Relph. In P. Hubbard, R. Kitchen, & G. Vallentine (Eds.), Key texts in human geography (pp. 43–52). Sage.
	Sheringham, M. (2006). Everyday life: Theories and practices from surrealism to the present. Oxford University Press.
	Singermann, D., & Ammar, P. (Eds.). (2006). Cairo cosmopolitan: Politics, culture, and urban space in the Middle  East. AUC Press.
	Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso.
	Stren, R. (2001). Local governance and social diversity in the developing world: New challenges for globalizing  city-regions’, In A. J. Scott (Ed.), Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policy (pp. 193–213).  Oxford University Press.
	UAE Governmental Portal. (2021). History and facts.  https://u.ae/en#/
	Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H., (2001). Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 249–263.
	Wachsmuth, D. (2014). City as ideology: Reconciling the explosion of the city form with the tenacity of the city concept. Environmental and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), 75–90.

