Search

Representations of love appear across many disciplines and discursive fields that are and should be in conversation with geography. It is imperative that geographers engage in formidable but worthy tasks to distil diverse renderings of love into the regenerative interventions we urgently need. Those interventions require geographically minded interpretations of love to drive radical research, pedagogies, policies, and practices in ways that have direct and indirect effects across the life course and life worlds. Such labours are mediated by state and law, by intersectional relations, or by neuroscience, and involve asking how love underwrites critical infrastructures—of place (making), care and entanglements, colonialism, and human‐nature relations in the Anthropocene and posthuman—that lead to the flourishing futures we seek. Rich geographical studies oriented to those tasks still face charges of flattening difference. This commentary picks up one aspect of this agenda: a blind spot in geographical research relating to the ethical imperative to love based on benevolence. Instead, I champion the revolutionary possibilities for geography to inform policies, pedagogies, and practices by using a love based on alterity aligned with social weight, reasserting accessible science as an effective driver of social and system transformative changes. Specifically, I argue for a regenerative socio‐political analytic of love in a time of disaster, decolonisation, and diffraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 outbreak in Australia led to a period of economic crisis. In response, Commonwealth and State Governments targeted the construction sector for concentrated economic stimulation. Planning systems, and their reform, were identified as levers to stimulate economic activity. This paper explores early COVID-19-initiated planning system reforms in New South Wales and Western Australia. It explores key reforms in each state and provides a comparative analysis of reform objectives, the influence of key stakeholders, reform innovations and possibilities for future reform. COVID-19-induced reforms emerge as both the continuation of the long-term reform agenda and reactionary interventions to immediate economic challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conditions for studentification are changing with increasing numbers of students living in high-rise – and high-quality – micro-apartment-style accommodation provided through purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) blocks. This 'verticalisation' of studentification is a global phenomenon, with Australia representing a frontier with distinctive geographies that result from its rapid ascension to the second-ranked global destination for international students. Yet, despite rising student numbers being recognised as positively impacting national and state economies, little is understood of how student accommodation development fits within the broader scheme of Australian urban revitalisation. To address this, we combine concepts relating to condo-ism and condo-isation to offer an original analytical framework that examines how PBSA has created new conditions through which vertical studentification can be produced in and of cities. We therefore ask how vertical studentification relates to wider Australian housing and urban development trends in ways that differentiate PBSA development and trajectories from other forms of accommodation. We also question how vertical studentification relates to the realities and regulation expressed as intra-urban geographies of Australian university cities and their resident-host communities. We argue that deliberately recognising and dovetailing several self-reinforcing and contradicting urban development dimensions invites a foundation for further interrogating vertical studentification in existing and emerging sites in Australia and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The continuous rescaling of metropolitan governance has been a prominent feature of the neoliberal state. Metropolitan coalitions are one variant of governance in which disparate actors are brought together around a common agenda or platform. Drawing upon the example of Australia's Committees for Cities and Regions (CCRs), this article applies urban governance theory to better understand the effectiveness of networked metropolitan governance coalitions. We find that such coalitions derive political legitimacy from the externalities produced by their network relations, which we theorize as a three-dimensional nexus of vertical (between levels of government), horizontal (between local actors), and diagonal (with CCR counterparts) components. Although the CCR model is distinctive to Australia and New Zealand, it reflects similar networked and multiscalar processes at work elsewhere, serving as a template for political landscapes in which in-built legacy political arrangements largely preclude metropolitan-scale issues from being addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Planning practice requires ongoing interaction between regulatory “facts” and deliberative “norms”. Played out in local and strategic developments, “norms” are the agreed values and positions developed by advancing deliberative engagement of residents; while “facts” are the more rigid statutory procedures through which planning decisions are typically made. However, conflict arises between residents' groups and local government decision-makers when deliberative norms, now a key tenet of strategic planning processes, struggle to gain traction in the factual spaces provided by statutory planning regulations. A contentious planning process in St Kilda, Melbourne, Australia (concerning the redevelopment of a car park into a commercial and public space) highlights the challenges to deliberative engagement in highly-regulatory planning systems. Drawing on this contested case, this paper examines how the broader formal and relatively fixed framework of regulatory-based decision-making fails to support participatory principles, undermining both the desired communicative ethos and enduring collaborative outcomes and norm development. Specifically, the paper problematises tensions between residents' growing expectations for greater transparency and participation in planning, arising from a growing regard for deliberation in strategic planning, and the hegemonic nature of statutory planning that preserves planning control within the formal domain of government and the private sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]