In Lisbon the waterfront has been the very hub of the city, teeming with activity. The industrial port transformed it. But the city has a physical memory traceable in the urban fabric. From a direct and physical relation with the water the city has evolved to a contemplative, gaze perched on the hills. The port area plays an important role for the citizens, and yet the divorce between city and port has been increasing in the last years. In several interviews that have been made after the failure to implement POZOR at the central part of Lisbon, and as quoted by Castro (1997, 94) “the opinions expressed by 38% of the interviewed people defend that the waterfront must not be exclusively administered by only one entity, and the management of the area should be shared by the APL and the CML (Lisbon Municipality). About 24% of the inquired considers that all entities (CML, APL, central government, private entities, other public entities, etc.) may act in a coordinate way, in different occasions, in order to raise the opportunities offered by the area and to increase its profitability.” These inquiries confirm that the common citizen perception of the POZOR is adequate, although he or she does not know the mechanisms of power and how they operate over the territory. A significant percentage pointed out the problems caused by the ‘exclusivity’. The inquire reveals the necessity of a strong coordination to promote behaviours of ‘inclusivity’.3 Cities can be compared to living organisms. One can analyse their behaviour but may never predict all of their next moves. Cities are coordinated by separate organs and they tend to work independently; on the waterfront each of these organs are acting in a isolated manner as if they didn’t belong to the same body. The lack of coordination between each organ leads to a waste of energy, in which a great deal of time and effort is spent in a relationship of misunderstanding. Unlike living organisms that constantly develop a selfhealing behaviour, the city at the waterfront suffers and seems incapable to improve its present dysfunctional relationship. If each ‘organ’ worked together and played its specific role the entire city would benefit from it. At the present, the situation in Lisbon where the different institutions act only upon the ‘symptoms’ which deteriorates ‘health’ of the city as a whole. If the common citizen, who is the user of the urban space, could be compared to a cell, than each cell feels the negative effect of a suffering body. So is the situation of Lisbon waterfront, one in which city and port are involved in a painful relationship.
3
The Public Art Observatory organized an international conference in Lisbon, hold in 2002 under the title “Inclusivity, a Challenge For Public Art And Urban Design” where the subject of cross dialogue between urban agents under the influence of artistic events was extensively discussed.
81