Nicosia and Belfast, the two faces of a same coin
Nicosia and Belfast are two faces of the same coin; the differences between the two
cities can be easily identified. The Nicosia partition is uniform and continual; the Belfast
partition is multiform and diffuse. There are two opposing principles of crisis management:
abnormal problems can be solved via normal policy-making strategies (Belfast), or town
planning can be a part of the peace building process (Nicosia). But in Belfast and Nicosia the
most acute and perceived spatial divisions are not simply those of class or culture but of
national identity. The border that divides both islands remains the key issue that is replicated
within the cities.
Urban space has become the main place where the claims for sovereignty are
expressed. Urban violence and segregation however are still thinking of as a conflict outcome.
To overcome this approach sovereignty must be thought of not as a contracted-good but as a
multi-scale transaction or relation. This approach stresses the importance of everyday life and
urban landscape.
The previous analyses have been focused on formal agreement at the state level and on
the cross-border bodies, but the conflicts have bestowed upon the cities an atypical kind of
sovereignty. Belfast is in charge of the so-called ‘peace-lines’ construction, and the Nicosia
Master Plan is one of the first ongoing local-global partnerships.
Conceptualising the problems of town planning in terms of sovereignty provides us
with a better understanding of the iconography issue inside the Nicosia historical centre
regeneration project and the Belfast Dockland new development project. These projects try to
build a sharing space and identity through a pre-national and post-national iconography; both
use the urban landscape to create a new peaceful script.
Our research should not bring us to a term-to-term comparison but will allow us to
analyse the place of sovereignty inside the urban space through the town planning and
geopolitical relationship.
cities can be easily identified. The Nicosia partition is uniform and continual; the Belfast
partition is multiform and diffuse. There are two opposing principles of crisis management:
abnormal problems can be solved via normal policy-making strategies (Belfast), or town
planning can be a part of the peace building process (Nicosia). But in Belfast and Nicosia the
most acute and perceived spatial divisions are not simply those of class or culture but of
national identity. The border that divides both islands remains the key issue that is replicated
within the cities.
Urban space has become the main place where the claims for sovereignty are
expressed. Urban violence and segregation however are still thinking of as a conflict outcome.
To overcome this approach sovereignty must be thought of not as a contracted-good but as a
multi-scale transaction or relation. This approach stresses the importance of everyday life and
urban landscape.
The previous analyses have been focused on formal agreement at the state level and on
the cross-border bodies, but the conflicts have bestowed upon the cities an atypical kind of
sovereignty. Belfast is in charge of the so-called ‘peace-lines’ construction, and the Nicosia
Master Plan is one of the first ongoing local-global partnerships.
Conceptualising the problems of town planning in terms of sovereignty provides us
with a better understanding of the iconography issue inside the Nicosia historical centre
regeneration project and the Belfast Dockland new development project. These projects try to
build a sharing space and identity through a pre-national and post-national iconography; both
use the urban landscape to create a new peaceful script.
Our research should not bring us to a term-to-term comparison but will allow us to
analyse the place of sovereignty inside the urban space through the town planning and
geopolitical relationship.
Publicité