Cities In-Between

abstract from the Master Thesis: "Cities In-Between. The prospects for Knowledge-based Economy Region in Macedonia"

by Stefan Lazarevski

At the end of the XX century, the fragmented totality of Europe was exposed to the mighty forces of functional integration, competition, cooperation, dependency and interdependency of the different entities. The so-called globalization, derived on these principles, became the structural bond between the divided east and west, north and south. Freed from political and ideological chains the urban landscapes surfaced as the most important “playground” for these integrative processes. However, while the mega-cities thrived, the small and medium-sized cities were faced with fundamental challenge: how to become constructive part of the global arrangements? This question is even more liable in the European urban context, dominated by the lower-tier cities. As a result, many scholars proposed the idea of networks and knowledge, as the key aspect of any modern socio-economy milieu.

Flanked between several Balkan metropolitan regions, there is a group of so-called cities in-between that have experienced development in rather conflictive environment. These cities are neither large nor small; neither global, nor local; neither fully connected, nor marginal, which makes their status fairly ambiguous. Being such urban agglomeration, the metropolitan region of Skopje embodies the “fight” of the European medium-sized cities to get a fair place in the regional and global urban system. Many studies have shown that crucial prerogative in achieving this objective is maintaining strong bond between the economy and the urban planning. The relationship between these two aspects has always been a two-way, cause – consequence interplay, which depicts the ups and downs of any society. Therefore, the aim of the thesis is examining the prospects of Skopje to develop and maintain a stable and progressive knowledge-based economy that will immanently reflect on the quality of urban planning in the wider micro-region. In which way, this goal can be achieved is searched through several steps: evaluation of number of indicators that depict the score of the city within knowledge foundations; review over different actions and policies undertaken by variety of actors and constructing own coherent development strategy.


Additional texts to follow.

The Rent Gap Theory

by Biljana Spirkoska

The Rent Gap theory or renting gap theory was founded in 1979 by the geographer Neil Smith. The theory forms an explanation for the beginning of the process of Gentrification or social restructuring of a quarter, arguing that the process is driven by land prices and urban speculation rather than cultural preference for inner city living. The Rent Gap theory, according to Smith, is essentially a measure of the difference in a site's actual value and its potential value at 'best use'. In his further explanation, when the overall rent gap (the actual rent and the potential rent after rehabilitation (rent gap), in an area is determined to be great, it is suggested that the area will undergo gentrification as developers identify this difference as an economic opportunity on which to capitalize.

In his lecture on The Rent Gap Theory, Frank Eckardt explains the transformation of devalorized inner-city housing stock into an affluent neighborhood as follows. In search for low prices, authentical and central location, the more economically marginal subgroups, for example artists and yuppies, are the first to arrive in the devaluated inner-city urban neighborhoods. Since these young individuals usually live in non-family households, they have a higher tolerance for perceived urban ills such as crime, poor-quality schools, lack of amenities like shops and parks, and the presence of disadvantaged racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups, the same main reason these areas are being avoided by the middle-class. As the number of the newcomers grows, they create amenities valued by them, particularly service establishments such as new bars, restaurants, and art galleries that serve them. These added amenities and investment to the area, increase local property values, and pave the way for attraction of the middle-class. Given that the cost of the rent in the area in turns increases significantly, the local residents no longer can afford to leave there, meaning they are priced out of their own neighborhood. In the same way, certain businesses which were catering this particular segment of population shut down once that population is displaced.

Smith further links the phenomenon of gentrification also to a restructuring of the economy. In his explanation, "deindustrialization has not only brought about the downfall of certain city districts, but also stimulated the growth of the service sector, which generated a particular employment structure in central urban areas"(GUST, 1999). In other words, while the economic activities are suburbanized, high-level service functions and executive decision-making tend to be increasingly centralized in a downtown central business district. In this context, Smith demonstrates that "gentrification is not only a local phenomenon but just as much determined by international and global factors. Gentrification is more than rehabilitation of the housing stock. It has become the hallmark of the unevenly developing global city"(GUST, 1999).

The positive and negative sides of the gentrification process are being broadly argued. While some are emphasizing the undeniable contribution made towards the revitalization of the city centers, others point to the associated displacement of lower- income residents and small-scale businesses, which results in transformation of the neighborhood's character and culture. Furthermore, they argue that "gentrification didn’t solve any of the urban problems like crime, homelessness, since the problems were only exported to other neighborhoods"(GUST, 1999). From Smits critical perspective, "the phenomenon amounts to little more than a greed-inspired attack by politicians and realtors against a mix of local minorities, lower classes, and homeless persons".
The critics on the gentrification process have mounted to the point when even community organizations have started to be established to fight against it, and rent control ordinances have been passed by some cities.

I will finalize with Peter Marcus explanation of the two opponent sides:
…the poorer residents of the Lower East Side of Manhattan, of Kreuzberg in Berlin, and of the area around the University of Southern California in Los Angeles wish to keep the gentrifiers out as much as the residents of the suburbs and luxury housing of these cities want to keep the poor out; yet the two desires are not equivalent morally. One represents the desire of those poorer to insulate themselves from losses to the more powerful; the other represents the ability of the more powerful to insulate themselves from the necessity of sharing with, or exposure to, those poorer. One wall defends survival, the other protects privilege. (GUST, 1999)



This text is based on a lecture on The Rent Gap Theory held by Prof. Dr. Frank Eckardt within the course German cities in transition at Bauhaus University in Weimar.

Further references:
― Ghent Urban Studies Team, 1999. The Urban Condition: Space, Community, and Self in the Contemporary Metropolis, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam
― http://www.sfu.ca/geog452spring00/project3/m_rent.html
― http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification
― http://www.answers.com/topic/gentrification

The new Public Space?

by Stefan Lazarevski

If you Google the phrase “public space”, most likely you will hit the Wikipedia’s definition of public space as “an area or place that is open and accessible to all citizens”.
Architects and urban planners prefer to think of it as a static and materialistic space, fertile for experimenting with different tools which stimulate social interactions, accommodate public functions and provide common ground for debates. The followers of the Situationists, one of the last avant-garde movements of the twentieth century, envisioned the public space as a space for action. They thought that “every step taken in public creates a situation that changes space”. (Scymczak, 2007) Each intervention in public space, according to them, was nothing but strategy that immanently provokes publicity, because public space structures society and at the same time, it is socially produced. The projects and the participants within these public spaces should become part of the history of a place.

On the other hand, the expansion of the social networking sites has shed totally new light over the definition of public space. Reflecting on the identity construction, the social networks and the speed of the information interchange, Edwin Gardner identifies the virtual social space as the new public space. “No need for Architecture, we’ve got Facebook now”, he says. This, new social space abandons the actual, built environment in favor of an imagined, virtual one. There is no need for physical architecture anymore to enable social practice. Further on, he explains that the rise of social networking is some sort of remedy for the alienation and anonymity that inherently comes with the metropolitan life. Some of the loneliest people often live in the big Metropolitan cities, where work-life relationship is very fragile. These people have little or no time for face-to-face social interaction which ultimately could result in no interaction at all. Internet, on the other hand, has effectively changed the perception of boundaries and distances of the World, making it one global village. Here, argues Gardner, no one can comfortably disappear in the crowd, and this, in a bizarre way provides the people with psychiatric treatment against social amnesia that comes with a disconnected life. Creation of an image of ourselves, in this virtual space, anticipates deeper psychological process of how we picture ourselves. The perfect avatar, types of social networks that we are involved or even the status updates in limited characters, speak of a very sophisticated and profound identity construction. The second life provided by the virtual public space, not only doesn’t relieve the anxiety of self-consciousness, but in fact it magnifies it.

One of the biggest advantages of the social networks is the possibility of social interaction literally anywhere, making architecture’s social function redundant. However, this by no means, should be translated as goodbye to the old town squares, streets or any physical evidence of public space. On contrary, virtual social space should be understood more as “an augmentation of existing social practices. Virtual social space and the social networking as such should facilitate further development and upgrade of the traditional public space.
One of the oldest forms of virtual social networks is the Chinese Guanxi. This is translated into networks or connections and is based on individuals' having something in common. The essence of Guanxi is that each relationship carries with it a set of expectations and obligations for each participant. What was once pervasive relational business network today is one of the most common forms of online organization. However in either of the cases the conventional public space was never underutilized or abandoned, but in fact it provided physical accommodation of abstract and yet necessary organizational system.

Whichever side we choose to lean on: the traditional or the virtual public space, it is undeniably that the social media is changing how we relate to ourselves and space. Edwin Gardner underlines: “Tomorrow the invisible dimension floating over everyday life that is social media will descend and touch down; it will become omnipresent in the everyday. When the internet becomes truly mobile and computing ubiquitous, when the virtual mixes with the real and when the interface merges with the face-to-face, than we will be in a new place all together.” (2009)


Reference:
― Gardner, Edwin, 2009, Essay: No need for Architecture, we’ve got Facebook now, Volume 19
― http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/, 03.05.2009

Shaping the Society through the Public Sphere

by Nora Arsovska

“High columns and domes in antique-roman style. This is the description for the new building of the Constitutional Court, legislative organ of greatest importance in Macedonia. .. Zivkovski (the author) sais that this building will raise the consciousness of the Macedonian nationality for their own cultural heritage.” Quotation from a short column written and announced by the magazine Kapital.

Antique-roman style/raising the consciousness of the Macedonian nationality for their own cultural heritage. The above quotation represents the current state of conducted public opinion, which actually is an image of non-existing productive critics or an instrumentalized public thought.

What is actually happening with the public sphere in countries in transition? Where is it positioned in the state constellation? The public sphere, according to Habermass is a category that should intermediate between the society and the state and it should shape the public opinion. It is public information for which battles had been fought against the hidden politics of monarchies. The public opinion has enabled the democratic control of the government activities.
On contrary, the situation in countries like Macedonia is different. The public opinion is not a democratic tool for controlling the government activities. It is easily bribed and corrupted, especially for the cost of identity.

During the 18th century, the bourgeois public sphere had been formed representing the rational exploration and debate between the government and the private sector. The literature clubs, newspapers and political magazines, institutions for political debate that had been formed show the liberal and democratic public sphere in the early modernism. That had been a society where individuals criticize the common interests, where the individuality and citizenship could have shaped the society through their activities in the public sphere.

Another situation in the epoch of the modernism that Habermass illustrates (similar to the situation in our society) is the transition from the entrepreneurs, market capitalism into the governmental or monopolistic capitalism. This is the stage where the state and the private corporations overtake the vital functions of the public sphere and at the same point the liberal and democratic public discussion transfer into sphere of domination. Through the mechanism of bureaucracy the government manipulates the economy, trying to prevent the crises and at the same time controls the public functions like education, social care, and public mediums.

The giant corporations enter the public sphere and transform the individuals from citizens and public debaters into mere observers of the political, cultural and public matters. The developments of new media, marketing, public relations are becoming controlling tools of the private corporations. These tools empower the private corporations in the realm of public sphere and at the same time suppress the rational individuals and citizens.

After analyzing the transformation of the capitalism, Habermass encourages the idea of communicative acting. The instrumental acting directly connects the instruments to the goals, without rethinking the rationality of the aim. The communicative acting is focused on inter-subjective communication and understanding the goal, or forming consensus over a question.
The described tool according Habermass is the tool for initiating critics and reconstruction of the society.


Reference:
Steven Best and Douglas Kellner, 1991, Postmodern Theory, Critical Interrogations, The Guilford Press

Collective memory under siege

by Stefan Lazarevski

The recently held Bauhaus Kolloquium in Weimar revealed several issues that planners, architects, sociologists and other city researchers are being occupied with at the moment. The questions of control and freedom, core and periphery, state and society as well as networks that are enforced, based on Michael Hardt’s and Antonio Negri’s perception of the new World-order, were addressed. There were two focal points; the relationship between theory and practice overshadowed by the economic, political, social and moral issues that pervade in any globalized society; and how to escape the conformist role that architecture tends to aspire by focusing on moods, ornaments and atmospheres.
Sounds familier? Yes, it already had been an issue in the early 20’s when the founders of Bauhaus Gropius and Mies van der Rohe demanded a “resolute affirmation” of the current conditions and responses adequate of the needs, goals and the time.

Now, standing in the turning point of humanity, clinched between economic and moral crises, architecture must once again rise and answer the social dilemmas. This can, very easily, be understood as self-centered and arrogant position of architects but it also must be considered that, as Keller Easterling said in her expose, some of the most radical changes to the globalized world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of architecture, urbanism and infrastructure. Finally, the city is the physical evidence of the collective memory and the changes in global trends will most definitely be embedded in the urban form and architectural language and as such will remain to justify our actions in the society of our time.

In her book “The city of collective memory”, Christine Boyer asks probably one of the most fundamental question of the identity of cities and ultimately the nation states; the question of what is collective memory? Today when identity is attacked by forces of globalization, is the collective memory under siege? This question seems to be very liable in a societies that are driven by political figures and pseudo-scientific workers on constant alert of strengthening the national identity. The rise of the nation states has mobilized and commercialized the collective memory, bringing it to a mere product, that can be easily sold, once it’s branded. This only proves that collective memory is rather political question than programmatic and in most of the cases it has nothing to do with the past. The reflection of such memory is to be found in different layers of the city which piled over the time.

However, what happens with the memory once it has been subjected to the instants of war, of genocide, of totalitarian rule or nationalistic amnesia? Is it a break from conventional form of memory or an absolute memory free situation? Christine Boyer argues that memory is absolute zero in such actions, that Bogdan Bogdanovic describes as urbicid; but she does not differentiate the true from the false memory. Perhaps this is the right approach, because if collective memory conveys only data, than the value of that information or its accuracy is of no importance to the identity structure. Then why totalitarian rule is bad for collective memory? In the globalized world, most of the spectacular architectural production by star architects happens in countries with soft or absolute totalitarian rule. The cities in these countries get inerasable urban form and thus build up its own collective memory.

“The more centralized the power, the less compromises need to be made in architecture” says Peter Eisenman. However, the liability of such collective memory hovers over the issues of morality, truth and its independent reading. Sure, we have the chicken, but is it really not important if it came first or was it the egg. The lack of dialog, transparency and process, corrupts and undermines this collective memory giving it a questionable and false face. Yes, it is a memory but it is a declarative one.

Professor Eckardt in his expose on modern Empires refers to Foucalt’s ideas of understanding urban society and says that it is all about power. People are controlled by places, by its culture and habits and most certainly by the different forms of power such as the State or the modern companies. Sometimes, they are controlled by the burden of its own collective memory. It is also true that people are the creators of all forms of control and they are the ultimate key in changing them.

“Before any process of memorization can take effect, silencing has to be undone.”
Christine Boyer

This text has been inspired by the lecture ''Collective memory under siege in the age of Empire'' held by M. Christine Boyer on the 11th International Bauhaus Kolloquium in Weimar.

The importance of Place

by Stefan Lazarevski


The emergence of the so called Age of Mass intelligence, sponsored by the rise of Internet, Social Networking and Reality TV, has exposed an ongoing debate, within the sociologists, economists and urbanists, of whether place really matters. In a world where modern economy is powered not by labor and production, but by knowledge and communication, the question of importance of place is very liable.
In 2005, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman published a book (Friedman, 2005), where he outlined a picture of the global economical shifts. He announced: “The World is flat!” What he referred to was the global shift of the economies from local to global scale, resulting in increasing trend of the outsourcing, off shoring, supply chaining and in-sourcing; this proved that the creative class has established networks which are not place based anymore.
On the other hand, the explosive growth of cities and urban areas worldwide, the rise of the creative centers, and concentration of economic and cultural activities has exposed the clustering force as a strong factor that keeps the value of the location very high. The World’s economical landscape according to Florida (2008) is anything but flat; on contrary it is a spiky World that we live in, today!

The discussion of whether place really matters is especially fierce within the contemporary knowledge-economy based societies. In such a society, the knowledge is the driving force for overall development; there, the economical and political evolution, the social relations and habits of the citizens as well as, the urban growth and the physical form of the city are just a reflection of the level of accumulated knowledge. To understand how these cities work, we must first define and understand what knowledge economy and knowledge – based societies are?
Etymologically, the phrase Knowledge Economy was introduced by Peter Drucker in his book “The Age of Discontinuity” (1968). In the late 60s of the XX century, speaking about the brain drainage in economically inferior countries, Drucker identifies the knowledge as the key factor in future economical development of the western civilization. “For the intellectuals knowledge is what is in a book. But as long as it is in the book it is information if not “mere data”. Only when man applies the information to doing something does it become knowledge.” (Drucker, 1968) Therefore the emergence of Knowledge Economy, according to Drucker, is not only a product of intellectual activities, as it is normally conceived, but rather part of “history of technology” which recounts how man puts tools to work. Today, the economies must be knowledge based in order to perform, to grow and to compete. The question remains what is the basic economic, social and political unit that stages such progress.

sketch of the core-principles of the Saraswati knowledge-economy based city in India, Calthorpe Associates, 2008

The artificial political boundaries of the nation states cannot be taken as the framework for analyses of the knowledge-economy based societies. The cities on the other hand, being endowed with knowledge infrastructure, human capital, widely spread communication, social and financial networks and ultimately being decision making centers, are the actual focal point of knowledge economy in many respects. Over the history, the most serious force to challenge the endurance of the cities was the Technological Progress. Every technological invention, throughout the history was a promise to a boundless world. The invention of telephone, car, air plane even the World Wide Web, were step forward in freeing people from geography. But, as compelling as it sounds, this notion repeatedly proved its self wrong. The cities kept the high concentration of the main economic factors: talent, innovation and creativity or what Florida refers to as the “clustering force” (2008). In the knowledge economy, talented people tend to go where other talented people are, because one of the drivers of innovation is the exchange of implicit knowledge among actors. Cities can be good environments for this type of exchange, which ultimately sponsors the competitive and creative edge of the society. Face to face contacts also enhance the mutual trust which only proves that proximity is vital in terms of preserving already established networks or conceiving new ones. Finally, cities, with their urban diversity, are the promoters of creativity. Namely, places which are able to attract diverse groups of people by ethnicity, nationality, gender and sexual orientation, argues Florida (2000), are an environment that is easy to plug into; such places can be said to have low entry barriers for talent. Therefore these places - cities are fertile ground for establishing and maintaining the knowledge economy and ultimately they are our “playground”.

This is why the place and the city, as most conflictual place of them all, is and will be very important and immanent to our self-identification.


reference:
― Drucker, Peter, 1968, The Age of Discontinuity, Chapter 12, Harper & Row, New York
― Florida, Richard, 2000, The Economic Geography of Talent, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
― Florida, Richard, 2008, Who’s Your City, Basic Books, New York
― Friedman, Thomas, 2005, The World is Flat, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York