How climate, economic and social shocks combine to restructure urban futures

While crisis urbanism exposes structural vulnerabilities and governance challenges, the authors identify a potential path forward in what they term reparative urbanism. This concept focuses on political and ethical practices that prioritize repair, justice, care and collective flourishing. It emerges from recognition that crisis-fueled urban inequalities cannot be addressed by technocratic solutions alone.

Cities around the world are entering a new phase defined not by isolated shocks but by continuous and overlapping crises that are reshaping everyday life, governance systems and political possibility. This warning comes from a new academic study published in Dialogues in Human Geography that argues that the convergence of climate disruption, pandemics, economic instability, racialized inequality and geopolitical turmoil is transforming the very conditions under which cities operate. 

The study, titled “The modalities and politics of crisis urbanism: A new reparative conjuncture?”,  sheds light on how contemporary crises shape urbanization processes and what forms of politics may emerge in response. Through a multi-dimensional framework, the authors argue that today’s crisis landscape has deep structural implications that extend far beyond emergency response, demanding new approaches to justice, governance and collective life.

A polycrisis landscape reconfigures how cities function

While crises have long influenced urban development, the authors argue that the present era is defined by the scale, frequency and simultaneity of crisis events. Climate-related disasters, economic shocks, health emergencies, democratic backsliding, global supply chain disruptions and mass displacement now overlap in ways that amplify their effects. For cities, this results in a persistent condition of instability that permeates social life, urban planning and state practice.

The authors introduce the concept of crisis urbanism to capture this interplay. Crisis urbanism describes the ways urban spaces are shaped by, and in turn shape, ongoing emergencies. It reflects how governance institutions respond under pressure, how inequalities deepen, how infrastructures absorb stress and how communities reorganize in the face of uncertainty. Rather than viewing crises as temporary disruptions, the study treats them as structural forces embedded within contemporary urbanization.

To understand this shift, the authors map four modalities through which crisis urbanism unfolds: chrono-politics, spatial-politics, statal-politics and epistemological politics. Each modality captures a dimension of how crisis influences the rhythms of urban life, the distribution of vulnerability, the authority of the state and the production of knowledge that legitimizes or challenges dominant narratives.

Chrono-politics, the first modality, concerns the altered temporalities of crisis. Cities today navigate a spectrum of crisis timescales, from sudden shocks such as extreme weather events to slow-burning processes like rising sea levels or housing affordability decline. These uneven temporalities change how governments prioritize policy, how communities prepare for future risk and how public attention moves between acute emergencies and long-term structural problems. The study argues that the compression and acceleration of crisis rhythms leave little room for democratic deliberation, pushing institutions into reactive modes that often perpetuate vulnerability.

The second modality, spatial-politics, captures how crises materialize unevenly across urban landscapes. Inequalities rooted in racial capitalism, austerity policies, displacement patterns and uneven investment shape who is exposed to crisis impacts and who is shielded by protective infrastructure. The geography of crisis urbanism reveals the fault lines along which housing insecurity, environmental hazards and policing practices intensify. Some neighborhoods become permanent sites of crisis management, while others benefit from resilience planning and resource concentration. The authors argue that these spatial dynamics deepen segregation and reinforce structural injustice.

Urban governance shifts as states manage through crisis

The third modality, statal-politics, focuses on how governments increasingly rule through crisis frameworks. Under continuous pressure, states deploy emergency powers, rescale authority and reorganize administrative systems in ways that reshape urban governance. These responses can include securitization, austerity budgeting, rapid redevelopment and the outsourcing of public functions. The authors contend that governance through crisis often reinforces neoliberal logics, emphasizing efficiency, risk management and privatization at the expense of democratic participation and social welfare.

Communities experiencing repeated exposure to crisis, whether through extreme weather, eviction cycles or underfunded infrastructures, often develop skepticism toward state institutions. At the same time, governments may invoke crisis narratives to justify exceptional measures or suppress dissent, creating tensions between collective safety and political accountability.

Yet the study argues that crisis does not only restrict political possibility; it also generates openings for contestation and new forms of collective action. Social movements mobilizing around housing justice, climate resilience, migrant rights and public health have emerged directly in response to crisis conditions. These mobilizations challenge dominant models of crisis management and advocate for alternative forms of urban life centered on care, solidarity and redistribution.

The fourth modality, epistemological politics, concerns how crises are defined, interpreted and communicated. Knowledge production, whether through expert assessments, media narratives or government reports, shapes public understanding of what counts as a crisis and what solutions are considered legitimate. Competing narratives can either reinforce dominant power structures or challenge them, influencing which communities receive support, which risks are prioritized and which long-term interventions are pursued. The authors emphasize that epistemological politics is central to understanding the struggle over urban futures.

Toward a reparative urban politics amid ongoing crisis

While crisis urbanism exposes structural vulnerabilities and governance challenges, the authors identify a potential path forward in what they term reparative urbanism. This concept focuses on political and ethical practices that prioritize repair, justice, care and collective flourishing. It emerges from recognition that crisis-fueled urban inequalities cannot be addressed by technocratic solutions alone.

Reparative urbanism involves building infrastructures of mutual support, fostering democratic decision-making, investing in marginalized communities and transforming how public institutions engage with citizens. It challenges approaches to crisis that rely solely on resilience, securitization or emergency response. Instead, it asks how cities can redistribute resources, rebuild social bonds and address the root causes of vulnerability.

The study argues that while the conditions of crisis urbanism constrain political horizons, they also create openings for reparative politics. Grassroots initiatives, community-led planning, cooperative housing models, climate justice campaigns and collective care infrastructures are identified as examples of emerging reparative practices. These initiatives reflect a shift from crisis management toward transformation, emphasizing long-term wellbeing over short-term containment.

Yet the authors remain cautious. The structural forces driving crisis urbanism, including economic inequality, environmental degradation and global political instability, remain deeply embedded. Whether reparative urbanism can scale beyond local experiments to reshape broader governance regimes is an open question. The study suggests that meaningful change will require sustained political commitment, cross-sector collaboration and institutional willingness to embrace alternative models of urban development.