Humanity is facing a global crisis fueled by human-impacted environmental conditions and reflected in the planetary expansion of urbanization processes worldwide. As a result, urban research, planning and design are called upon to play a relevant role in evaluating possible courses of action and ways out through imagination. The 20th N-AERUS conference, held in cooperation with the Habitat Unit as a digital event at the TU Berlin, sought answers to complex but indispensable questions under the guiding theme of “How to plan in a world of uncertainty?”.

[tcl-gallery id = “1”]

Planning in the context of uncertainty means that actors in urban development and architecture are confronted with massive challenges while attempting to sustainably plan for them. Climate change is a poignant example, transforming the underlying environmental circumstances, thereby increasing related risks. Such uncertainties within the environment are exacerbated and compounded by poverty, political instability and other factors, comprising further significant obstacles to sustainable urban development. This is a matter of concern for cities across the world, especially where people’s access to resources is limited or even restricted – a situation that can be predominantly observed in the Global South.

How to plan for and with uncertainty? This was the topic of a conference initiated by Paola Alfaro-d’Alençon, steering committee member of N-AERUS and DFG Research Fellow at the Habitat Unit of the TU Berlin, Institute of Architecture. From February 4th to 6th practitioners, researchers and academics from Africa, South America, Southeast Asia and Europe were invited as participants and speakers. Among them were members of N-AERUS, the “Network-Association of European Researchers on Urbanization in the South”. The network deals with questions of planning in developing countries and the possible role institutions of higher learning, especially in Europe, can play to find adequate solutions.

“Forced eviction is seen to undermine the adaptive capacity to deal with stress and crisis.”

What did the presenters and speakers discover and propose? Ximena de la Barra (International Consultant) pointed out that those with access to financial resources don’t suffer from crisis, but instead, they profit. She concluded that without related accountability, democracy and its institutions are weakened in the process. Rene Hofmann (Cities Alliance) called for tenure security as a key to creating stability and counteracting uncertainties in cities. Especially forced eviction is seen to undermine the adaptive capacity to deal with stress and crisis.

“Rethinking current models and pedagogies related to how people make sense of urban space seem to be possible solutions.”

Loren Landau (Oxford Department of International Development and ACMS-University of Witwatersrand) asked how we can foster the right to the city and build a common future, if people are stuck in one place against their own will and unable to return home due to the pandemic.
Rethinking current models and pedagogies related to how people make sense of urban space seem to be possible solutions. Catalina Ortiz (Bartlett Development Unit, UCL) illustrated how co-production can serve to contest urban narratives, centered on a seemingly simple idea: cooking and places of cooking. Here, stories can function as learning devices that can be supported by digital architecture tools such as BIM.

Warren Smit (AURI Network) described poignantly how Capetown flood management specialists see flooding very differently. He emphasized that co-production offers a way to overcome such obstacles, e.g. by introducing long-term historical perspectives. He also stressed that co-production can support, yet not substitute public participation.

“Cities are the locus of crisis, yet also the places of coping with crisis through social infrastructure, planning and inter- and transdisciplinary learning.”

We asked the initiator, Paola Alfaro-d’Alençon about her views of the conference results: The international exchange between participants fostered a better understanding of the framework conditions in which uncertainties take place. In this context, vulnerabilities are seen to increase against the background of the privatization of public amenities. At the same time, this plays out differently according to cultures that have specific ways of dealing with natural resources. The conference also illustrated how cities are the locus of crisis, yet also the places of coping with crisis through social infrastructure, planning and inter- and transdisciplinary learning.

N-AERUS conference, TU Berlin
Click here to watch the conference.

In today’s post-digital age, our economy and society are extremely unstable and small disturbances can lead to serious problems that ultimately endanger the entire system. The coronavirus – defined as a disturbance – is currently showing us how quickly a local epidemic can turn into a pandemic that threatens the future of both the economy and society, and thus our ability to live together. What comes next, and when will it happen? Perhaps a new perspective of the city and the countryside will emerge.

[tttgallery id=”908″]

Our society today is characterised by the fact that it is highly differentiated and specialised at all levels, i.e. the economy, infrastructure, our way of life and leisure. At the same time, a great many activities are broken down into their individual parts, which are often scattered around the globe. These parts have to be held together day after day by a huge movement of goods and people and a vast exchange of data and information. The very high efficiency of this system, which leads to low costs for both producers and consumers but puts a great burden on the environment and the general public, is inextricably linked to fundamental instability. This instability is especially evident in four main areas:

1.) The extreme spatial divisions of labour, combined with just-in-time production (no warehousing), mean that a problem occurring anywhere in the world that disrupts production, traffic and/or the flow of data immediately affects the entire global economy as well as personal leisure time behaviour – problems in a remote region can easily have a global impact.

2.) Our lives and economy are completely dependent on electricity due to technological development and digitalisation – without electricity there is no transfer of information, no jobs and no transport. Small disturbances in the power supply or targeted hacker attacks can quickly paralyse our lives.

3.) In order to increase the efficiency of economic activity and the use of infrastructure, and to minimise costs, numerous reserves (capacity reserves in hospitals and factories, and personnel reserves for emergencies and breakdowns of all kinds) have been done away with in the last 20 years in accordance with neoliberal thinking. As a result, the economy and society are very poorly prepared for any exceptional situations.

4.) The financial sector lives entirely from positive expectations for the future, because the repayment of existing loans depends on the continuation of future economic activity in a positive direction. If this is called into question, however, the loans very quickly become “bad loans” and the financial collapse that accompanies this can easily affect the entire economy.

Small disturbances in any of these areas can quickly lead to serious problems, which in the end can even endanger the entire system. Triggers can be natural disasters, accidents, wars, terrorist attacks, social conflicts, environmental problems, economic crises or pandemics. With the coronavirus, we are currently seeing how quickly a local epidemic can turn into a pandemic that threatens the future of our economy and society.

“It will become necessary to review and modify the four factors of instability.”

It is not yet possible to predict how long this will last. However, everything indicates that it will continue to preoccupy us beyond 2020 and that living together as before corona will not be possible for some time to come. In the long term, this crisis may lead to central elements of our current economic activity and life – extreme specialisations, global divisions of labour, great distances between home and work, mobile recreation – being called into question. In such a situation, it would be reckless to concentrate solely on fighting the coronavirus and then to want to return to “life as usual”. Instead, it will become necessary to review and modify the four factors of instability mentioned above precisely because of their pronounced instability.

“We should rethink the relationship between urban and rural areas.”

What we should also rethink is the relationship between urban and rural areas: In light of the coronavirus, the “progressiveness” of cities, which are very highly specialised and globally networked, is being called into question to some extent, while at the same time the countryside’s previous “backwardness” suddenly appears to be quite positive in a new way. And a rural area that does not function as an extension of the city, but is decentralised and characterised by strong regional economic structures, could become an important factor of stability for cities in times of crisis.

“Perhaps the corona crisis will help put an end to the current lack of appreciation of rural life.”

However, this reassessment of urban and rural must not be allowed to lead to a situation in which the countryside is only seen as positive and cities only as negative – such complete shifts from one extreme to the other have occurred time and again in the past, especially during times of crisis. They do no justice to the reality of the city and the countryside as two different but equally valuable forms of life that complement each other, however. Perhaps the corona crisis will help put an end to the current lack of appreciation of rural life and to ensure that our society also develops a new urban-rural relationship in the search for more stable forms of life.

This opinion piece can be found in topos 111. Get your own copy here.

What does the future of urbanised territories of medium density look like? “Transforming Peripheries”, the new online magazine – a joint venture of urbanes.land and topos – strives to find answers to this question. It concentrates knowledge about urbanised territories and connects the realms of academics and practitioners across borders, sectors and regions.

[tttgallery template=”content-slider”]

Since the UN announced that the majority of humankind lives in urban areas, we have allowed a single vision to become the dominant answer to future challenges: The idea of the resilient urban body. This reduction misses a large potential of urbanised territories that are not directly ascertainable by a single frame. All over Europe a long history of shared territorial responsibility has fostered co-penetrating rural/urban-realms that have long outgrown the traditional dichotomy of city/countryside. A large segment of Europe’s population lives in these rich conditions – their multifaceted potential for resilient development still has to be unlocked, however.

“Manifold novel expressions of the urban as much as the rural, and mixed and hybrid conditions profit from multiple interdependencies”

Urbanised territories are at the heart of Europe’s industrial production; they are hubs for logistics and data, and simultaneously green lungs and a spatial reserve for sustaining development in the energy and food sector. Manifold novel expressions of the urban as much as the rural, and mixed and hybrid conditions profit from multiple interdependencies. Local identities have often shifted and new modes of production, movement and ownership flourish. Initiatives, both bottom-up and top-down, have emerged across the continent, covertly questioning ideologies of urban promise and countryside plight. They can drive new models of balanced, circular and equal trading, working and living systems and inspire additional ways of comprehensive transition.

Looking from the in – rather than the outside, from the existing and not the expanding – the aim of the joint effort of urbanes.land and topos is to concentrate existing knowledge about these urbanised territories and connect the realms of academics and practitioners across borders, sectors and regions. For one year, this “transforming peripheries” magazine will act as a platform for exchange and connection. It will share best-practice strategies, reflect on what works, and provide levers to influence the spatial development agendas of policy makers, urban planners, business leaders, academics and community groups alike. We encourage and welcome all parties to add, dissent or comment on the magazine. Dynamic exchange, instant reflection and a broad spectrum of different angles are some of the best things an online magazine can offer.

“The aim of the joint effort of urbanes.land and topos is to concentrate existing knowledge about urbanised territories”

Understanding and working with the heterogeneity of urbanised territories requires crossing both disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Finding categories with which to dissect the contributions has proved to be a conflictive task. Still, in order to create a structure of reference, we’ve established four narrative threads that will lead us through this year of continuous discoveries: Character will enable us to look at originality and tradition, at cataclysms for people and society and the active role of inhabitants in transformation processes. Structure will highlight the built and unbuilt dimensions of space and infrastructure on regional and local levels. In Levers we will collect different impulses of transformative approaches and development strategies, while Strategies will illuminate tangible projects, as well as administrative and institutional best-practices.

“The magazine is a spin-off of the 2019 Urban Land Conference in Ulm”

The transforming peripheries magazine is a spin-off of the 2019 Urban Land Conference in Ulm. The research and transfer initiative urbanes.land started out there to connect European knowledge and to transfer some findings to regional stakeholders. To extend and perpetuate this effort, topos now complements the specialists perspective with journalistic proficiency – covering the topics holistically and with love to detail. Idea, conceptualization and roll-out of this magazine have happened in what sometimes seemed to be diverging chapters of public life worldwide. Now, the kick-off coincides with the careful rediscovery of the public realm and reinstating economic functions by individuals, companies and policy-makers. With curiosity and a sense of hope, we and all contributors integrate this challenge among climate resilience, social equality and livability debates that will not stop exerting pressure on regions and cities around the world.

Visit us at https://urbanesland.toposmagazine.com/ 

Up-and-coming is often used to describe a neighbourhood’s upward trajectory, but we rarely consider the nature of this change and what the place was like before.

[tttgallery id=”791″]

Few words are more popular among developers than “up-and-coming”.

Composed of the characteristically direct Germanic words “up” and “coming”, the phrase describes something which is on an upward trajectory, an ongoing process that is likely to achieve success in the near future, a movement from a lower to a higher place, or an imminent arrival at a desired position.

In short, it is all about motion. As Marx explains, capital is value in motion. The value of capital is extinguished if it stops moving. This is why a word like up-and-coming is so important to an industry which has as its principal goal the maximisation of profits from the improvement, renovation and transformation of real estate. Describing a property as located in an up-and-coming area helps establish it as a value in motion, as somewhere where investment will generate a positive return.

Where has the place “come up” from?

Something that often remains deliberately obscured in this use of the phrase, however, is the earlier place which the future place has “come up” from. Was it a less exciting place? Was it less prosperous? Less safe? Were its residents less interesting? Were they lower down the socio-economic scale? We can work this out by reminding ourselves of what has happened in the past half century to the kind of neighbourhood which is described as up-and-coming.

In the 1970s, developed countries were encountering a crisis of overaccumulation. Which is to say there was too much capital and not enough places for it to go. One of the principal ways that the dominant class in these societies resolved this crisis was by moving industry to less developed parts of the world and restructuring those areas which industry had left so that wealthier people could move in.

[tttgallery id=”792″]

Here come the yuppies

Starting in New York in the mid-1970s, spreading to other Western cities in the 1980s, and reaching much of the rest of the world by the 1990s, this shift in the economy of major cities has transformed them from centres of heavy industrial production into places that are ever more oriented around services, creative industries and property development. This process was fuelled by the entry into the inner city of a middle class youth whose parents had left for the suburbs back in the 1950s. Drawn to the more exciting life the city seemed to offer, these “young urban professionals”, or “yuppies”, gradually displaced the more diverse populations that had remained in the city during the earlier suburbanisation.

Instead of plugging into the rich cultural mix that the inner city already supported, these younger suburban kids brought their tastes with them or sought out safer and less edgy versions of that indigenous urban culture. Sarah Schulman talks about the process in her book The Gentrification of the Mind, recalling how it unfolded in the Manhattan neighbourhood she lived in, “The corner bodega that sold tamarind, plantain, and yucca was replaced by an upscale deli that sells Fiji Water, the emblematic yuppie product. Habib’s falafel stand, where he knew everyone on the block and put extra food on your plate when you were broke—he was replaced by a “Mexican” restaurant run by an NYU MBA who never puts extra food on your plate. An Asian fish store was replaced by an upscale restaurant. The Polish butcher was replaced by a suburban bar.”

The transformations Schulman describes here neatly sum up the place that the up and coming neighbourhood has “come up” from. Every place that has had to suffer the incursion of these new, wealthier people, these yuppies, has also been called “up and coming”.