Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Population and Society

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Space and Culture
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nielsen, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Return of the Excessive

Superfluous Landscapes

Tom Nielsen

The Aarhus School of Architecture

As the cities continue to grow, through the addition of more or less controlled enclaves, they develop into highly differentiated, heterogeneous urban fields of centers and that which lies in between. It seems like a mechanism or an unknown natural law is working against the homogenization and "in-formation" of the city for which the urban planning is working. The in-between spaces beyond the urban centers are made up by the part of the material structure of the city that cannot be defined positively and therefore is in excess. These backsides of the city are used and reappropriated as alternative public spaces, accommodating the rituals and meetings of people. As an alternative to the possibilities of a public appearance, offered by the increasingly staged and controlled primary public spaces of the urban centers, the alternative public exists at the backside of the spaces of the primary public and the way that people use the superfluous landscapes is a way of consuming them. These superfluous landscapes almost call for such consumption, just as they deny any idea of the disappearance of the urban heterogeneity. The article tries to understand and describe this through Bataillian ideas of heterogeneity and formlessness. The superfluous landscapes are seen as something that haunts not only the planners but the city itself, as unseen and undeveloped parts of the urban field that has to be understood as a part of an ongoing process of excretion and reappropriation. In the article, these ideas are related to observations of a concrete example—two hills of surplus soil.

Space and Culture, Vol. 5, No. 1, 53-62 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/1206331202005001006


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Material CultureHome page
T. Edensor
Waste Matter - The Debris of Industrial Ruins and the Disordering of the Material World
Journal of Material Culture, November 1, 2005; 10(3): 311 - 332.
[Abstract] [PDF]