The Critical Dialogue Series visits the New Urban Agenda

Recently we sat for a action- and discussion-filled week as an enlarged dirty dozen of creative minds in a bright room enjoying a simultaneously bucolic, decrepit, and post-industrial view over the river Spree in central Berlin munching on good food and thought stimulating content. The event revolved around us as well as our take on the issue of the New Urban Agenda and Habitat 3. It did not focus exclusively on the primary axis of the forthcoming global event and its envisaged resolution, thus allowing us to also ponder in somewhat more general terms about the materialization of human dwelling – including spiritual, metaphysical claddings and issues of a meta-textual nature.

This, over the course of the week, led to challenging questions: Do we need representation on the subject and, if we need it, do we talk about the parameters of the resolution itself or the substance we are after and that is embedded therein? Is this representation reflective of the course of action it proposes or are we faced with two very different stories? Can the impact of this representation be measured, that is, can it be isolated in the wider context of facts and, if so, what is its balance? These are difficult questions when taken to the context of Habitat 3 and its predecessors, or are they?

There is a fairly easy response, namely, documents that want to be all explaining fail to translate into reality, documents that want to be all enclosing fail to enclose all and, given the track record of Habitat 1 and 2, they also fail to have a direct impact. Rather, their impact is tied into a wider debate and ensuing course of action and they trigger both good and harm in this wider context. However, it is in the nature of dominant discourse that it is engrained in power structures and logical settings that make it fairly impervious to precisely this sort of critique unless it emanates from the system itself that propagates the discourse.

Staying strictly with the position of the outsider, what follows from this? One possible interpretation is that there is little need for another political document; there is only need for discussion, studies, research, publications, programs and program implementation. Any valid document should derive from this type of production and engagement instead of political consensus building. Especially since in our current world society, no amount of political consensus on this subject will be translatable into overall spatial practice and, worse, consensus is built in a way that no difference can be made. Yet, if Habitat 3 could be a source of knowledge convergence and evaluation it would become something useful, as a showcase for real urban development, it could become something motivating – people could understand it for what it aspires to be – a tool for a more just and equitable world.

However, as a platform for the launch of yet another ultimate and upgraded version of international political correctness that turns a blind eye on some of the more contentious and meaningful local dialogues that UN-Habitat and their staff habitually engage with in everyday life, it serves its purpose as well as its counter purposes – just think of the misappropriation of the cities without slums leitmotiv as a justification for slum eradication by some governments. So, Habitat 3 likely will be the logical sequential number on the way to habitat four. It will be another bus stop on the way to another global agenda imbued with good-heartedness as well as a hearty dose of self-centeredness. It will be one more fad that one can see coming and going and will not want to be reminded about too much after it went down into history.

Many will not share this view publicly and many will not (want to) understand the criticism. When our journey closed on a Friday, third party visitors were puzzled when we coupled something with so little grip and legal implications as Habitat 3 with the term hegemonic. And, while not giving in to fantasies of omnipotence or calling for more global power delegation, this lack of grip is directly tied into the central issue we’ve been debating – every twenty years a resolution emerges that tries to be more and more comprehensive regarding its subject while, at the same time, the negative externalities of the phenomenon it assumes to tackle grow disproportionally. The metaphor that comes to mind is that of a bull rider nurturing fantasies of control during a rodeo. And that is why the questions in the 2nd paragraph are pertinent.

Oliver Schetter.

Dear Habitat III,

On Urban Visions 3 – Visions for Habitat III (2013) it is assumed that “A reinvigorated urban planning will optimise economies of agglomeration, promote sustainable density, encourage social diversity and mixed-land uses, foster inclusiveness, maximise heterogeneity, promote liveable public spaces and vibrant streets, and thus make the city more functional, maintaining environmental balances.”

While meditating on these objectives, it is important to consider the means by which we can accomplish them and, from our perspective, we believe that cultural expressions and traditions could play a vital role. That being said, we cannot fool ourselves into thinking of these cultural expressions as an creative economy and focus on a commercial perspective of what can be barely considered culture.

We believe that local traditions are the only possible stable foundation for the creation and maintenance of identity spaces in order to construct truly inclusive cities. And, with this in mind, we suggest mechanisms for the preservation and fostering of local traditions and cultures, with specific policies and investments, taking into account the vast aspects of culture and its many forms of expression: from growing your own food, open data technologies or folk music.

We know there are many other important aspects on an urban development planning, but encouraging people’s affections within their territories is a fundamental part on making citizens take part in building the cities we need.

As Rebecca Solnit said, “culture is not only beneficial to cities; in a deeper sense, it’s what cities are for.” That’s what we’ve been working towards in the last decade in different levels of federal, state and municipal governors, independent collectives, universities, civil rights groups and with many cultural producers around the world, that believe on creatively keeping the memory of their ancestors as part of the day-to-day development of the community.

Best,

Ricardo Ruiz