No description available.

Si l'on prend la notion dans ses différentes acceptions, la question du patrimoine se pose aujourd'hui avec acuité dans les grands ensembles (GE). Cette recherche considère qu'elle est une clé de lecture originale pour comprendre les attendus institutionnels de la gestion des GE. Parallèlement, l'objet décalé qu'est le GE permet des réflexions sur les processus de fabrication du patrimoine (enjeux, contradictions). La recherche porte pour cela sur des GE exemplaires,précurseurs et contrastés : ceux du sud-est de Saint-Etienne, en particulier Beaulieu et Montchovet.Au gré des stratégies d'acteurs, ces GE se sont opposés : Beaulieu a toujours été destiné à une population large desalariés ; Montchovet est un GE dévalorisé destiné par réorientation dans les années 1980 aux plus démunis et aux immigrés.Un schéma directeur d'initiative locale (office et Ville), élaboré en 2000 et mis en oeuvre grâce à l'ANRU, s'appuie sur ce constat et propose la démolition de Montchovet et la confortation de Beaulieu. L'opération est emblématique d'une démarche de retour aux sources du mouvement HLM. En étant valorisés au titre du patrimoine (notarial, mais aussi architectural et mémoriel), des groupes tel Beaulieu s'imposent en idéaux de référence. Us servent de point d'appui (y compris au sens topographique dans ce cas) pour la reconquête du parc et d'une clientèle qui s'est détournée des HLM.Mais ce modèle refondateur escamote la pluralité des mémoires d'habitants, tandis que la préservation au nom des spécificités architecturales s'enferme dans des impasses et contradictions (gentrification, usages allant contre certains principes du logement social). / Taken as meaning both heritage and inheritance, the issue of patrimoine is of particular significance for France's grands ensembles (GE) today. This paper considers patrimoine as an original key to understanding institutional expectations for managing GE. At the same time, studying an unpopular subject such as the GE allows for reflections on the processes by which heritage comes to be defined (with its various issues and contradictions). With this aim, the research examines exemplary, precusory and contrasting GE in southeastem Saint-Etienne, particularly the Beaulieu and Montchovet GE.Differing strategies led to two contrasting GE: Beaulieu was destined for a large population of salaried employees;Montchovet is a depreciated GE, reoriented in the 80s for the most impoverished and immigrant populations.A local plan commissioned in 2000 by the city council and the social housing agency and carried out by the French urban renewal agency, uses these assessments to recommend the demolition of Montchovet and the reinforcement of Beaulieu. These operations are emblematic of a progressive retum to the roots of the social housing movement.By being promoted as patrimoine (notarial and architectural heritage and inheritance), sorne GE like Beaulieu become established as models that can redefine social housing stock and the population who left during the 70s-80s.But this project also erases the histories of the poor and immigrants at the same time as conservation in the name of architectural specificities becomes contradict my (gentrification, uses going against social housing principles).

Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel, fundamental to Jewish tradition, and a contested city, part of the Israel–Palestine conflict. Departing from an analysis of mainly interviews and policy documents, this study aims to analyze the interplay between the Israeli identity politics of Jerusalem and city planning. The role of the city is related to discursive struggles between traditional, new, and post-Zionism. One conclusion is that the Israeli claim to the city is firmly anchored in a master commemorative narrative stating that Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel. A second conclusion is that there is a constant interplay between Israeli identity politics, city policy, and planning practice, through specific strategies of territoriality. The goals of the strategies are to create a political, historical and religious, ethnic, economic, and exclusive capital. Planning policies are mainly focused on uniting the city through housing projects in East Jerusalem, rehabilitating historic heritage, ancestry, and landscapes, city center renewal, demographic balance, and economic growth, mainly through tourism and industrial development. An analysis of coping strategies shows that Jerusalem planners relate to identity politics by adopting a self-image of being professional, and by blaming the planning system for opening up to ideational impact. Depending on the issue, a planner adopts a reactive role as a bureaucrat or an expert, or an active role, such mobilizer or an advocate. One conclusion drawn from the “Safdie Plan” process is that traditional Zionism and the dominant collective planning doctrine are being challenged. An alliance of environmental movements, politicians from left and right, and citizens, mobilized a campaign against the plan that was intended to develop the western outskirts of Jerusalem. The rejection of the plan challenged the established political leadership, it opened up for an expansion to the east, and strengthened Green Zionism, but the result is also a challenge to the housing needs of Jerusalem. / Författaren tillhör även "Forskarskolan Urbana och Regionala Studier – Städer och regioner i förändring"