Contested Urbanity Kevin Logan
he urban realm has become/continues to become a T constructed semi-public stage commodified in pursuit of neoliberalist needs. The effects of globalisation have resulted in cities and city regions becoming the dominant cultural form, over and above the state. Therefore, cities need to compete with each other on the global stage for the same spoils: tourism, inward investment, kudos, desirability etc. Destination marketing has become the strategy of choice in order to define a city’s, or region’s, identity. Central to this, to date, has been the use of ‘iconic’ architecture as a commodified product to generate image and spectacle which are subsequently utilised for city branding/marketing strategies. “[A]rchitecture is subservient to the market and its terms. The market has supplanted ideology. Architecture has turned into a spectacle” and “no longer has significance as anything but a landmark.”1 Bilbao is the seminal city example with its iconic Guggenheim branded art and architecture, and Dubai exemplifying the city region, constructed as a destination theme park whose primary quality is consumption. With the emergence of this type of space the vibrancy, culture and nuances of the city, and thus character, are denied and drained out. In return, the public are presented with marketing/branding strategies conveying a singular desirable lifestyle; brochures containing glossy renderings convey the virtues of desirable urban existence within designer environments inhabited by Photoshop avatars.2 In reaction to this is the recent emergence of a more humanist discourse concerning itself with liveability. Liveability can be defined as the ability of an environment to impact positively on the general well-being of its citizens 1 http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,408748,00.html 2 Crimson Architectural Historians, Rotterdam. Story of an Open City (2009) 4e Internationale Architectuur Biënnale Rotterdam 2009
in socioeconomic and cultural terms. It is therefore primarily focused on the needs of citizens rather than attractiveness to tourists. It also expresses a want and desire for liveliness and authenticity, which can be seen as a reaction against both globalisation and abstract marketing strategies. The seminal liveable city examples cited include Barcelona, Copenhagen and Melbourne, all of which feature in the world’s 25 Most Liveable Cities according to Monocle Magazine.3 In line with this discourse, an emerging range of alternative strategies to make the city a better place to live can be observed. The premise of these is that good cities as a whole are not reliant on a singular iconic attraction and there is a growing body of evidence establishing that a high quality urban realm, and investment in it, contributes towards desirability, and thus liveability. This is something that has not gone unnoticed by private developers and city landlords, who understand the role of a positive setting upon enhancing the desirability and economic value of built developments. This has resulted in a neoliberalist desire for controlled streetscape: The market seeks to reduce risk, and controlling the urban realm is considered a valid mechanism to achieve this. Consequently, private developers play an increasing role in the production, and management, of the public realm with market-led development extending beyond the traditional remits of building. The result is the continued privatization of the urban realm in pursuit of neoliberalist needs, for which the rules of acceptable engagement are set by unaccountable private corporations with the sole remittance of maximising profit margins for their shareholders. The associated loss of civil liberties is treated as merely a minor issue to be overcome through marketing. More London is an entire urban quarter designed as “a 3 Monocle Magazine; issue 35, July/August, 2010.
34