After Postmodernism: Readdressing the Role of Utopia in Urban Design and Planning

Abstract

After Postmodernism: Readdressing the Role of Utopia in Urban Design and Planning Tali Hatuka and Alexander D’Hooghe The last few decades have brought massive political, eco- nomic and social change to urban areas. Trends such as population growth, the rise of dual economies and oppres- sive political regimes, and continued transnational migration have accelerated urbanization and caused urban resources and territories to become increasingly contested. The ques- tion is, can urban design and planning respond effectively to these changes? And how do these changes affect places? These questions need to be analyzed in the context of current theories and practices of urban design and plan- ning. Beginning in the 1960s, many urban designers responded to the excesses of modernism by embracing such concepts as context, the quotidian, and multiplicity, and integrating them into design practice. Among plan- ners, a similar assessment fueled development of a partici- patory model, sometimes called “planning from below,” that expanded the range of participants in urban interven- tions to include NGOs and social movements. For many, therefore, urban design and planning dis- course today is based on critical reassessment of actual places produced by the Modern Movement—which has, in turn, suggested alternative ideas about the relationship between socio-political space and design. But this opposi- tion is seen as arising within a postcritical era, dominated by pragmatic approaches that emphasize materiality and tech- nology and that view public spaces as arenas for spectacle. This approach has been employed worldwide in urban design projects that regenerate city centers through the selling of place image within a tourist economy. Examples include the celebrated Schouwburgplein square in Rotter- dam (West 8), the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (Frank Gehry), Parc de la Villette in Paris (Bernard Tschumi), and Fremont Street in Las Vegas (Jon Jerde). Such projects celebrate the global economy and downplay local political agendas, developing technological strategies in lieu of real engagement with urbanization issues. 1 For better or worse, Mark Dorian has argued, the rhetoric of crisis that charac- terized the urban design discourse of the 1960s and 70s has almost disappeared. 2 Unfortunately, most current projects employ the language of multiplicities, differences and flexibility, but are unable to critically address important changes in cities and their urbanizing regions. A similar decline in the critical assessment of space is appar- ent in planning discourse. Today, public-sector planning relies on nongovernment organizations that operate “from below” to produce alternative plans for market-based development. As recently argued by Bishwapriya Sanyal, this reliance has a side effect—namely, it diverts attention from public-sector mechanisms essential to social development and change. 3 Planning from below has also shifted professional focus from the object itself (i.e., the city) to action-oriented par- ticipatory approaches such as advocacy and communicative planning. 4 These strategies, which map the requirements of different groups, deal primarily with distribution of resources, and operate within an existing order. As a result, the planning process has become a matter of inclusive negoti- ation, and can no longer foster macro-visions of social justice. In summary, then, by focusing entirely on the concrete and pragmatic, the urban design and planning professions have dissociated themselves from universal questions. Fur- thermore, this is happening at the exact moment when these questions are resurfacing. Such a situation obliges us to reflect on what has been achieved and what has been lost through the engagement with postmodern discourse. We argue here that a reformulation of urban ideals and a resurgence of visions of the utopian are crucial to the future of cities. The Utopian Debate How is it possible that the utopian vision has vanished in this most urbanized epoch? How can we justify distancing ourselves from this discourse at a time when urban resources and territories are becoming increasingly contested? One departure point for a discussion of the utopian debate is the work of Thomas More, who in 1516 defined utopia as both the “good place” and “no place.” 5 However, debates around the idea have existed since Aristotle argued that Plato’s ideal society was a false model on which to base the construction of political theory. 6 Aristotle’s view was that only critical assessment of existing social and political realities could improve society. More recently, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels coined the term “Socialist Utopia” to dismiss the idealized com- munities of Claude Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen. They were concerned that these “escap- ist” movements, with their optimistic views of human nature and predictions for a better future, would strengthen resistance to Marxism—or Scientific Socialism. 7 Conversely, however, other theorists have argued that the utopian promise is a prerequisite for social change. In The Principle of Hope, Ernst Bloch described how utopian thinking has contributed to the development of society. 8 But he differentiated between abstract utopias unembed- ded in reality, and concrete utopias grounded in the pos- sible. To Bloch, utopia was a horizon, a place beyond reach but within view. By aspiring to it, people could become active in the production of a better world. In an effort to overcome utopia’s negative totalitar- Hatuka and D'Hooghe / Readdressing the Role of Utopia

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.