Episode Transcript
Speaker 1 00:00:07 Welcome to field architecture, breeze blocks, where your editors shared their thoughts on works in progress, bridge matters and current happenings in architecture and spatial politics. My name is Maria mat Santi. In this episode, I'm joined by my architecture editor to discuss the concept of a smart city. Hello everyone. Thank you for joining me today. I would like to ask you to quickly introduce yourselves toward our listeners.
Speaker 2 00:00:31 Hi, I'm Maria Toya. I'm also an editor we're ready, introduced ourselves in the previous episode. So we're gonna keep talking about comfort and discomfort.
Speaker 1 00:00:41 Hi, I'm hu.
Speaker 3 00:00:42 And Hey, I'm I'm Renee. Um, I'm also part of field architecture.
Speaker 1 00:00:46 Thank you. Rise for a brief quick introduction for listeners, as <inaudible> just mentioned, the idea that we are gonna discuss, uh, the concept of a smooth city. That is something that comes from Renee's worker body of work. Uh, but we're gonna frame it in the, in the discussions we're having and the series that we are now planning around this around the idea of discomfort and architecture. So I think probably the easiest way to start is asking Tony, what is this MUN city?
Speaker 3 00:01:15 Yeah, thanks. Well, great. We're having this conversation. I think it would be interesting to, uh, yeah, to test a little bit how these two concepts relate to each other. Um, I think, yeah, the smooth city is a researcher started a few years ago. Uh, and basically it looks into how cities around the world, uh, are undergoing this process of perfection optimization are becoming much more efficient, controlled beautified, sanitized stratified, right? So, uh, become this really, uh, fantastic, smooth and perfect kind of urban environments. And, um, I think we see that, uh, really around the world happening and it's, we can see it as, uh, quite of a historical change in cities. Uh, I mean, for a very long time, many cities around the world used to be in pretty bad shape, being very dilapidated. And, uh, yeah, this idea that the city is something that is like really perfect and optimized, uh, I think is relatively new. And I think it also causes a big problems to, um, yeah, what cities can do, uh, and how we live together in, uh, in cities. So, uh, and there's a bit of a contradiction, uh, here in the sense that we think that yeah, the city being perfect is actually great, but I think it's not, I think, uh, there's, uh, there's a big problem, uh, actually there.
Speaker 2 00:02:30 Yeah. So we know there is a book coming out about this topic, right? Yeah, exactly. But you have already done some's research about it. And there is this article that is amazing. There is called the smooth city in the new urban, in which you already start addressing all these issues about the smooth, uh, city and what does it mean to have a sanitized urban space. Right. Uh, and it's very interesting in that text, how you address, uh, the issue about what is it that is left outside of the smooth city and how is it that the smooth sir exists by itself precisely because everything that is not as clean can belong to the smooth series, uh, is, is, uh, producing somehow the possibilities of existence of that. Yeah, definitely of that sanitized urban space. So I don't know if you can tell us something else about this counter.
Speaker 3 00:03:26 Uh, yeah. So, so I think what we see is that like, especially the centers of like main urban centers around the world are, are becoming so smooth, but, um, this, this, it definitely has a downside, right? So it really relies on, let's say an UNM smooth condition elsewhere. Uh, so all the investments in the smooth city are, uh, one side of a coin of which the other side is obviously a disinvestment of other areas. So this smoothness is also being produced. Right? And like in my Booker also discuss how this smoothness depends on this kind of matrix of control. It needs to be like renovated and cleaned and, um, and maintained like all the time. And, but for example, the, the people will do that obviously, uh, in many cases don't live in the smooth city themselves, but often live in other areas, right. Or all the products that people need to surround themselves with comfort and convenience in a smooth city, uh, are often produced in urban environments that can be seen as, as not so smooth. Right. Uh, and I think this, uh, yeah, there is a very, uh, yeah, important duality here.
Speaker 4 00:04:33 So I wonder, uh, if you can explain to our audience, like how you developed your book, how it's composed of and how, uh, you develop your argument.
Speaker 3 00:04:45 Yeah, sure. So, I mean, the book consists of various parts. I mean, first of all, it really tries to describe what the smooth city looks like. Right. And how we encounter the smooth city nowadays and in a very superficial way, this is about like how, uh, it's buildings, it's public spaces, but also it's people have been perfect in many ways. And also what you don't see in the smooth city. So the voids, the, the discontent, everything, uh, all these kind of things have been like designed away, right. To, to optimize this, this, this picture perfect, uh, kind of image. Um, and then it goes on to discuss all the mechanisms that really maintain the smoothness, uh, on an, on an everyday basis. Right. So know, um, notions around private ownership, but also the role of urban planning, the role of all these new technologies around the smart city that optimize this, this smoothness, the role of design is of course, um, then it goes on to this, describe like a different how, how it functions this smoothness.
Speaker 3 00:05:40 So how it becomes hegemonic, how it creates a certain, uh, like these homogenous zones in the city, how it becomes unescapable, eh, how it is really difficult to avoid a smooth city as it is, as it is growing, how it works as a social imperative. So, um, you have to follow the, the line of the smooth city. Otherwise, a certain discomfort will emerge how all of this is being scripted into the urban environment, how people internalize it. So it, it has a lot of different kind of components. And I also dwell on, let's say the wider, um, let's say global developments that have really pushed this, um, the rise of the smooth city, which, um, vary from, let's say the rise of new liberal urbanism of last two to three decades, but also the fact that people now all want to live in the cities creating this, like kind of push on the urban environment and also this broader, smooth turn that you see in, in general, uh, culture, I would say. So this, the, the focus on smoothness in all parts of our, uh, of our lives. And I also, yeah. Then I also try to say a few things about why I think the smooth city is a problem. And maybe also like, uh, I hope to highlight some ways how we can move beyond.
Speaker 2 00:06:53 So I, I wanted to just follow up on that, um, on, on what you mentioned about the function, right? The, the norm the normative function that is given to this smooth city, and what is it that is req, I mean, for a function to exist, there must exist some functional subject able to, to perform that function. Right. And so I am wondering, what is it like who, who are, who are the people that inhabit, if you can Ize it somehow, who are the people that inhabit on, or what, what is it that it is demanded from people in order to inhabit this, uh, this smooth city? You mentioned already that there is some wideness, of course, but I'm, I'm wondering if there is also there, for instance, some demands of, uh, certain sexual preferences, or if on the contrary, if, if there is for instance, the tokenizing to, of queerness in the smooth city as a way of navigating the city, or if queerness actually does not fit into the smooth city, like I'm just, yeah. Curious about it.
Speaker 3 00:08:01 Yeah. So what I think you see in the, in the smooth city that a lot of let's say norms that are already dominant in society are really like very strictly inscribed in the spaces, uh, of the city. Uh, and that it's, uh, and it becomes really hard to avoid them, but because of the, there's no lack, uh, there's a lack of voice. There is a lack of ways to, uh, to go beyond certain norms. Everything is like, uh, becoming this like smooth, homogenous, perfect kind of surface, um, that really, uh, demand this kind of norms to align yourself with it. And at the moment that you, uh, dis align, uh, with these dominant norms, uh, there is immediately some kind of disorientation, uh, as Sarah AME describes, uh, really nice or a sense of discomfort if we stay within the topic of this, uh, of this conversation.
Speaker 3 00:08:51 And, um, and I think what, um, what, what Sarah a really beautifully describes for example, that if, uh, so like through, uh, in the smooth city, I think in the way, like how space being reorganized in the smooth city, uh, inevitably there will be, um, in the smooth city will be, um, predominantly inhabited by white people or as proximate, uh, as white as possible. Uh, and by the continuous presence of white bodies in the smooth city, uh, there will be, um, this white kind of whiteness is being inscribed in, uh, its public spaces. And if, uh, if, for example, don't, uh, fit this specific norm, and we can look into all kinds of aspects, also sexual orientation, as you mentioned, of course, if the, if the heterosexual norm is being inscribed everywhere in this smooth city, being not heterosexual immediately creates a sense of, of deviation, of not being aligned with, let's say the straight lines of the smooth city, um, making you yeah. Making it very obvious you don't fit in. And yeah, I think this is, um, I mean, like on the one hand, we can say this creates kind of, uh, discomfort or disorientation, uh, but this disorientation can even, uh, be more extreme right. To the point that we can describe it as a violent process, if a space is strictly heterosexual and really kind of is fixated on these kind of norms deviating from that, I think is, uh, yeah. Uh, can be, uh, can be experience is very violent.
Speaker 1 00:10:22 I have a question on, you were mentioning before, when you were talking about the structure of a book, you mentioned that you're also like trying to propose certain ways of like escaping this Mo city. And I know the concept of ity, something that you mentioned also on the yeah. In the previous. So like formative say that you did about Des city, but mm-hmm <affirmative>, could you elaborate a bit more on that idea for city and how maybe we could connect it as well with the idea of comfort and discomfort, or like navigating comfort and discomfort in a way that is productive in the way we yeah, definitely build cities.
Speaker 3 00:10:54 Yeah. So my thinking of this has also evolved a little bit. Um, I now actually want to continue on this notion of queering also, um, and like being queer in a smooth city, um, is being, uh, experienced as some kind of friction definitely, but maybe we can indeed also make this friction productive again. So if everything is smooth and perfect, um, we can also think about like creating this friction again to maybe, um, yeah, put some tension in this smooth city, try to create some first cracks in this, this very polished and smooth surface. And, um, and the way how to describe it now, I think is that queering is a way to yeah. Like kind of make the first crutches in this smoothness and from there on hopefully, uh, I think you also need to think of a strategy maybe to sustain, um, these, these kind of scratches and open the cracks a bit wider.
Speaker 3 00:11:45 Right. And I think then we can look at the notion of commoning as a way to collectively sustain these kind of gaps in the, in the, the smooth city. And I think that is all from a, a bottom up, uh, kind of perspective. Um, and indeed like when there's the first holes in the smooth city and we can talk about a certain porosity. So I think then also for others, there is an opportunity to attach yourself to the city again, right. When there's, everything is like smooth and repellent, there is no way that you can, uh, I don't know, add your own little addition to the city, or like find a way how you connect to the city. But when there is like certain gaps, you can yeah. Hold on to the city again, uh, attach yourself to it and yeah. And be part of its of its development.
Speaker 3 00:12:31 And then I think what is, yeah, it's also interesting to think about the role of, let's say the design, the, the more top down role of the designer, the planner, um, the architect maybe, or even I know the real estate developer, if we daresay, but all these kind of more top down roles, um, that could think about, uh, maybe finding ways to then sustain this porosity. Right. So when this, uh, the porosity has been created from a bottom up kind of movement, and maybe on the individual role, maybe, um, fruit is like very direct forms of querying. Then we can have think about how from this top down perspective, this porosity can be sustained and to make sure it's not immediately erased, but maybe to allow it to flourish these, these forms of porosity.
Speaker 2 00:13:16 Yeah. Thank you. I, I really love this idea of like making cracks, like making it permeable somehow. Yeah. And I really like how also AME develops this idea, right? Like when, when you do not fit in the space, what you are actually doing is enlarging the scripts, like making, making your own space, somehow it, it is violent. She does not describe it as a smooth movement on the contrary yeah. Of friction, right? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. And I really love that idea, but I also somehow ask myself all the time, how like, in this type of systems, in which everything tends to be reabsorbed right. In which it, it works as a monster that monetizes and makes everything profitable and reinscribe it right. In insight so that it can make it part of it. So I'm curious how to, how, how can we, if, how can we think of alternative ways of not, not allowing these frictions to be reabsorbed?
Speaker 2 00:14:21 I'm thinking, I always think of this example in Colombia, in Bogota, at one point, the major of Bogota gave some specific spaces to graffiti makers so that they could make their graffitis, you know, and that totally disrupts what a graffiti is about. A graffiti is precisely interruption of the urban landscape or of the, you know, it's like, it's unexpected, it's eventful. Um, so giving a particular space in the city, it's already reabsorbing it, somehow making it part of it. Oh, look, you want to be disruptive, come and be disruptive with us. Yeah, of course. So I am, I am wondering how we sit that we can think precisely in the margins or trying to avoid that. Um, and if it's possible or if it's not, or if it's just simply part of this enlarging, enlarging the norms, if it's part of it and it is actually something desirable precisely because it enlarge the norms. Yeah.
Speaker 3 00:15:22 Yeah. I think you're totally right. So I think this is a big impulse of the smooth city, right. Of like incorporating like the non smooth in its kind of smooth representations and that not only happens in the city in many different ways. Um, I mean, think about all the many cafes, for example, in Western Europe and probably also elsewhere that have incorporated this kind of trashy squat kind of aesthetic, right. So like completely incorporating the aesthetics of counterculture in a very consumerist kind of environment. I think that happens on a very large scale and it, the smooth city has completely succeeded there. Um, so, and I mean, we need to be hopeful of, uh, ways out of this because otherwise it's gonna be very, uh, a very gloomy kind of conversation, I guess. Um, but I think like if, um, making these cracks are not, are not just about aesthetics, but are always about also kind of a political dimension, I think you can always try to avoid it. So if with every crack you make, you continue to acknowledge what the political dimension of is of it is and how it can relate to other people's interventions and how that can be a movement outside of this smoothness, uh, that is connected to each other and not just isolated within, let's say a certain consumption pattern. Yeah. I, I think that is, yeah. I have to say that is still, uh, possible. Otherwise we have to give up on cities. I'm afraid.
Speaker 2 00:16:43 <laugh> yeah. I agree with you. I, I'm also a, a futurist in that way. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:16:49 Now that you were giving the example, I was impressed the first time I saw cruising areas here that are like demarcated. So like normal gay, traditional gay areas, like, sorry, cruising areas are normally market there's actually even like a map outside. And they say like, you cannot cruise outside of this area. And I was like, what? But this is like, you, you lose the entire point of cruising, like when you have a specifics. And I was really like, I remember the first time I saw it. And for me was like understanding a little bit how am works in terms of like the city, I don't know, kind of eating up all these things that are made happen and suddenly just finds a way to swallow them again into the entire system. Um, but yeah, I just wanted to share that because for me it was like, wow. <laugh>,
Speaker 3 00:17:37 But what makes it extra difficult? I think, I think in the past there has been a lot of theorizing around like occupying the vac or like the creating the, the corrects in the city occupying the corrects. But I think at AMAM we've also moved to a point when there is, there is no abandoned buildings or cracks or, or abandoned places or voids to situate yourself in. Right. So I think it also gets increasingly difficult to make this crack, if everything is so perfect, where do you start? Right. If everything is so hermetically sealed and everybody is like F like continuing and, uh, and following these, the, these lines, the straight lines of the smooth city, where do you make your first crack? And I think this is also maybe where we can bring the, the, the broken window theory in, right. And maybe, and reverse it. Uh, so who's gonna make the first broken window making it easier for a second person to also break a window. And, uh, yeah, I think, I think that is, that is a big question that we have in cities like Amster right now.
Speaker 4 00:18:32 I, I wonder like, what you say is, is very convincing. And if, but if we situate ourselves on people who are usually feeling comfortable in these spaces, right. Like why I wonder, like how, why is this a problem? Why, what are we missing when everything's smooth? Yeah. If for some people, it feels so comfortable and always even like allowing graffitis, cruising, uh, even homelessness in certain areas, you know? Yeah. Like what can we, how, how do you see that? Like, what's the argument to say, what are we missing and why do we need to see what yeah. The smooth city is obscuring.
Speaker 3 00:19:18 Yeah. Thanks for bringing this up. I think it's a matter of saying, sorry, we need to embrace discomfort. And this is, um, and you know, why it's important to talk about this? I think first of all, we need to acknowledge that this, the comfort of the few people in the smooth city. Uh, and I, I, I think we talked about this before really relies on the people producing this comfort elsewhere, but also the people who have been expelled and are, for example, living in suboptimal housing conditions and experiencing dis discomfort because of other people comfort in the smooth city. Uh, but also the people who for example, have to go to work in the small city, um, and experience discomfort, because they don't fit in the, the very, uh, picture perfect norms of the small city. So there's a lot of discomfort, uh, because of the comfort of a few.
Speaker 3 00:20:04 Right. So I think we first need to acknowledge them. And I think, secondly, so yeah, so obviously discomfort is, is not fun, right? Uh, who wants a lack of <laugh> wants a lack of comfort. Um, but I think somehow we need to equalize this, let's say the lack, this, this kind of discomfort, right? So we need to, to solve the, the very discomforting kind of conditions, uh, in which many people find themselves. But I think also at the same time, um, yeah, people who are in this comfortable position need to embrace the fact that living in the city be part of an urban democracy. Um, and it's is always gone with certain levels of friction, certain levels of, uh, conflict, which are always part of making a democracy together, right. An urban democracy. So I think, um, that people who have designed every form of discomfort away and are like surrounding themselves with convenience of optimization and comfort really needs to reconsider the fact that if you want to relate to others in the urban environment that are different than you and shaping the city together with people that are not the same as you will always be part of will always come with some level of, of friction and disagreement.
Speaker 3 00:21:22 And there is no way you can design that away without losing a sense of urbanity, a sense of urban democracy, right? When, when all of that is like cleaned away, that means that you have some total totalitarian state in which some people live is almost this kind of dystopian, uh, science fiction. Right. Some people live in, in total perfection, a completely sealed off of the people who don't. Right. So, um, yeah, so I think we need, uh, the, the people of the small city also need to rebrace this, this discomfort, and it's not to, uh, to, to, uh, yeah. Annoy them it's, uh, because we need to embrace, uh, democracy, uh, within the urban scale.
Speaker 4 00:22:05 I really think you, you, you are pointing to such a, um, like an opening way of seeing the city. Sometimes we have discussed, um, about this idea that public space is the place of discomfort rather than just, uh, you know, is, is the place where you need to feel discomfort.
Speaker 3 00:22:25 Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah. And it's otherwise
Speaker 4 00:22:29 It's, uh, ju just what you said, like totally Italian or, uh, this cleaning or, or this idea that, that there is no conflict.
Speaker 3 00:22:38 Yeah. Um, and also in the very light level, right. The fact that you, if you gonna have some foods that you encounter food, that you haven't tasted before, that is different. I mean, you might not be used to, to a taste. So it's like this first is a very slight experience of discomfort, but then you have also have the, I don't know, this, the satisfaction of having related to someone else having related to someone else's culture. And yeah. So I think these kind of like encounters across certain differences, uh, are crucial for yeah. For being together in one kind of, uh, urban environment. So, and this goes for public spaces, but also, I dunno, for interior spaces like restaurants, schools, I dunno.
Speaker 2 00:23:23 Yeah. I, I always distrust that type of discourse about public spaces, the space without frictions, the space of pure encounter. No, it is precisely the space where conflict takes place, where the, where you have to experience that discomfort. Right. Yeah. And if you try to avoid it, you're just, well, well, we know what it comes after that, but you know, it, it is, it is, it is a discourse to, to distrust. So yeah, no, just to say that, I, I totally agree with both of you.
Speaker 3 00:23:52 Yeah. And what's maybe important to add here is that, uh, a lot of people are already experiencing a lot of the discomfort in their lives in living in the city. Right. And, uh, I really don't wanna say that we should add more discomfort just for the sake of having a good debate about, uh, living together or something in the city. So, um, and I think so again, it should be about equalizing, like equally defining this kind of discomfort, right? Like, so taking away from the people who are experiencing a lot of discomfort and giving it to the people who are like, have surrounded or excluded themselves from that, uh, discomfort. So it's about equalizing this
Speaker 2 00:24:26 Yeah. That discomfort cannot be made as Sy normative issue somehow, or, you know, like let's just put ourselves in the place of discomfort. And actually I've met mentions that, you know, like somehow yeah. To put yourself in the situation of discomfort already requires a position of privilege from you. You know? So it is just, um, as you mentioned, it, it, it is not about making discomfort or a politics of discomfort as a normative issue, but rather to acknowledge that there is a discomfort that is already happening and that is producing at its expenses, the comfort of certain other bodies, um, or yeah. Of, uh, or that is relying on other, other comfortable privileged bodies. So yeah. I really thank you for bringing that.
Speaker 3 00:25:22 Yeah, exactly. Maybe to close off like final remark, I think what could also be, but it's also important to develop and that there's also a paradox, right. That we, that somehow we all also need this kind of smooth city for its functionality, its cleans and it's the hygiene <laugh> that it brings. Right. So it's not about romanticizing, uh, decay or dilapidation. I think that's also important to mention, but yeah, I think we can safely say that this smoothness, uh, in many places has gone way too far, especially if we look here, uh, here at Amsterdam, for example.
Speaker 1 00:25:54 So acknowledging how the production of that smoothness is creating a lot of discomfort for others mainly more than, yeah. Not only how do we also experience discomfort, but how the production of all that ness is creating this comfort for as well. Well, thank you very, for super interesting conversation and.
