This paper investigates how queer women and nonbinary people (referred to as non-males) find space within a heteronormative context that actively resists their existence. In their modes of formation, these spaces actively resist the straightening and commodification of queerness and empower the community in a subversion of patriarchal norms. Using Seattle’s context, the authors investigate historic queer non-male spaces along with two contemporary case studies using archival research, oral histories, participant observation, and semi-structured interviews. The result is an identification and examination of two different forms of counterpublic spaces utilized by the queer non-male community to create locations of queer belonging: the exclusive/inclusive space, investigated through the case study of a local lesbian bar, and the non-exclusive/ inclusive space, represented through the case study of a women’s sports bar. Both serve as places of resistance and empowerment. While both create spaces of belonging for queer non-males, the former achieves this by establishing an exclusive space, while the latter does so through a non-exclusive space that actively supports queer non-males. By engaging the inclusive/exclusive dichotomy the cases offer insights into the complex dynamics of identity, community and belonging for queer non-males.
The article explores how urban densification is defined, measured and conceptualised in the context of Lahore through the narratives of key policy stakeholders. A preliminary analysis of policy documents, and the recent changes in building regulations and land-use rules show that there is a commitment to increase density by discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the growth of mixed-use, highrise buildings. By conducting an analysis of policy documents and the changes in building regulations and land-use rules through the narrative of key stakeholders in policy making, the research unveiled motivations which underpin policy makers’ commitment to higher densities, illustrating how urban densification is manifested in the realm of policymaking, the forms and typologies within which high densities are envisaged by stakeholders and how these have materialised on the ground, and the implications thereof.
In March 2024, Berkeley Planning Journal editors Xixi Jiang and Nick Shatan facilitated a virtual roundtable on “Publics and Planning Academia” with five former editors or contributors to the Berkeley Planning Journal who earned PhDs from the Department of City and Regional Planning between five and fifteen years ago: Fernando Burga, Ricardo Cardoso, Jia-Ching Chen, Paavo Monkkonen, and Hayden Shelby. This infor- mal conversation moved between multiple registers, from contemplations of the pub- lics and purposes of planning academia to personal reflections on writing, research, and career trajectories. Over the course of two hours, the discussion covered six major topics: Audience and voice; Resonance, relevance, and accountability; Working across linguistic publics; Planners as interpreters; Public teaching; and Doctoral reflections. This conversation has been edited for clarity.
