Round table
SOCIETY
says that you cannot give privilege to certain traffic. Telefónica can not decide that the traffic I generate is less important than that of El Corte Inglés, for example. That is the concept of neutrality. There are people, especially service providers, those who control the servers, that propose there be no neutrality. That they, the ones providing the service, should be able to create priorities within the traffic they handle. It is a debate which goes largely unnoticed, although not in the United States. Of the two current presidential candidates, one is pro-neutrality and the other is anti-neutrality. The reality of it all at the moment, is that the rules of the game demand neutrality, and it is illegal to give certain traffic a priority which may eventually influence who can access that information and who ca not. Andrés Walliser I would like to ask Juan Freire about something that is closely related to this change, this flip in society which has come about through new technologies. It is about the ability that new technology has to include or exclude people. Traditional methods of inclusion and exclusion in general society have been based on where one lives, or on one’s cultural capital. The internet includes, but also excludes many citizens who, partly due to their age, are not up-to-date on the technology. The whole concept of e-democracy is very much in fashion, and is being developed in many areas of our lives, in many countries, but it leaves a lot of people out — especially the older generations. On the other hand, when we were in one of the worst places that I think we visited, the Cañada Real, which is far worse than many Brazilian shanty towns, there was a man in one of those shacks who was using a computer. He had probably stolen it… Salvador Pérez Arroyo [interrupting] No! 424
Andrés Walliser …but maybe that person, disconnected from the rest of the world in so many other ways, is able to gain access there. Juan Freire In my opinion it is a question of radical change: it creates new inclusions and generates new, complex exclusions in pre-digital society, which already had its own set of inclusions and exclusions as you pointed out — we were all aware of them. What internet allows is the reconnection or inclusion of part of those who were previously excluded, and the creation of new exclusions. People still believe that the biggest barrier is that of access, but I think that this barrier is getting smaller and smaller, depending on the context of course. In the Spanish context the access barrier is becoming limited to very specific collectives. It is a worry and must be taken into account, but as far as quantity goes, I think it is quite reduced. This is, among other things, because access is becoming more transversal and as you mention, there are people using technologies where least you would expect it. Let’s not just think of the internet here, think of mobile phones too. Mobile phones are a strange technology really, because in the western world, the developed world, we consider them to be a pretty silly sort of luxury. However, in developing countries the mobile phone is acting as a tool for progress. It is in Africa, not Europe or the United States, where bank services over the mobile phone are most developed. And this happens because it is the only way to safely transfer money. I think that cultural or mental barriers, and even the different ways of seeing the world are very relevant. The generation that was born in the 80s and 90s has grown up connected, and has a totally different attitude to life and the world, conflicting with the attitudes of their parents or teachers. There are also barriers
SOCIETY
Round table
between people from a consumer culture and others who come from a more underground culture. The first use digital tools, but mainly as a means for consuming. Others see the Internet as a space for freedom, where they can do things apart from consume, and even as a space for creation. I think that this redraws the traditional lines between those who can and those who cannot gain access to a series of services and technologies. Participant 1 I would like Salvador Pérez Arroyo and José Castillo to answer the question “What or who conceives the idea of Madrid?” Salvador Pérez Arroyo It is very difficult to reply to that. I disagree with 80% of what has been said here. This very interesting debate about the freedom of communication media has always existed; and the one about technologies and how they are governed too. I think that speeches like Jordi Borja’s and all those people from ’68 are old hat. We were comrades of the resistance at the time, but the speeches have become out-dated. What we have learnt today in this very difficult and complex world is to maintain a certain balance. It is not possible — and I direct this towards Marie Vanhamme — to forget that the terrible urban disaster of Madrid is imputable to the policies of the Partido Socialista Obrero Español. Or maybe not so much to the Party itself, but to the urban planners who copied the Italian model of consolidated cities, and tried to freeze Madrid with so called zero-growth. They did not realise that a balance had to be sought. Balance does not mean filling everything with asphalt, but nor does it mean leaving many, many square kilometres without any modern functional systems, as we saw in the amazing images from Mexico, presented by José Castillo. I think that what we can manage is a maximalist discourse. I do not agree with what Andrés
Walliser said about the Cañada Real. And that is why I leapt up when he said that the computer must have been stolen. No Sir! The computer could perfectly well have been paid for, even if it is in the Cañada Real. And [turning to Andrés Walliser] I think you will agree with me. Madrid, with the huge migrations of the Franco years had many places just like the Cañada Real, heaps of them. The whole of Madrid was full of people who had abandoned the smaller towns, and were later absorbed into the sort of constructions that we can see on the hills we visited this morning, in Vallecas. Buildings that had densities and inner patios to rival the Tiburtine architecture of Rome. One problem among many now occurring in Madrid, is large scale immigration. These immigrants will eventually become absorbed in a similar way to those who in their time, abandoned the fields of Spain and came to labour in the cities. But to answer your question: The idea of a city is not conceived by its citizens, nor should it be. They should contribute to it. The city must be directed in some way, because there is no international order capable of spontaneously moving 5 million people. That simply does not exist in the DNA of society. In fact a society does not have DNA, because it does not have a body which is capable of regenerating itself, defending or balancing itself. I wish it existed and that we could compare it to a living organism. We have a biologist here (referring to Juan Freire). But it is not a question of that. I think that we have to accept things as they are and try to be a little more optimistic. There has to be criticism. Citizens must participate and planners too. But architects are not politicians. Architects, in 99% of cases, are the common, simple tools of speculation in Madrid. I do not know how many architects there are here. Urbanism is not fashionable. In the Escuela de Arquitectura de Madrid — according to Sáenz de Oíza, the famous designer of the Banco 425