Inventory of Urbanism (I.)

Forum 2000 "A World We Want to Live In"

The central question, which was also reflected in the title, extended into other panels of the Forum, which at the Žofín Palace updated a range of topics, starting with biodiversity protection or the already notorious urban sprawl, ending with aesthetics, harmony, or beauty... They were also highlighted by separate lectures from significant figures in the architectural world: the Finn Juhani Pallasmaa, the German Stefan Behnisch, and the Japanese Fumihiko Maki. Today, already legendary names introduced important personalities from the Faculty of Architecture of CTU, prof. Zdeněk Zavřel and prof. Ladislav Lábus to the Prague audience.

Aesthetics: Seeking Harmony and Beauty
This panel focused on the idea of the influence of architecture and the environment on human lives and personal identities. It emphasized the importance of collaboration between political figures, architects, and their clients.
Its main speaker, Juhani Pallasmaa, criticized contemporary architecture and raised the question: “Shouldn't architecture aim to promote equality, human dignity, and optimism, instead of unconditionally offering itself to the purposes of consumption and the private interests of corporations?” According to Pallasmaa, values in architecture are important because the environment influences people from within. He expressed the assumption that people, due to today's obsession with consumption, are losing the feeling of belonging. He therefore emphasized the role of cultural identity that architecture should reflect. This reflection is more important than imposed aesthetic value and the construction of buildings for “selfish, self-centered economic interests”. He added that the emphasis on cultural identity should not be conservative but rather focused on the recreation of culture by each generation. Finally, Pallasmaa highlighted the growing importance of sustainability for the future of architecture. He called for the use of “cleaner, more ingenious, and more sensitive technologies as systems and processes in the context of time, not as aestheticized objects.”
Fumihiko Maki addressed the process of architectural competitions and the need to distinguish between observing beauty and experiencing joy from architecture. He believes that beauty is influenced by culture and can only be judged with the passage of time, whereas joy is an experience that is universal and “deeply rooted in human emotions”. Maki described his experience visiting bookstores and markets to better understand local cultures and life before he approaches his own work as an architect. “Understanding,” he said, “adds fundamental value to a space.”
Using examples of the modernization of urban sewage systems and the preservation of the historic center of Budapest, former mayor Gábor Demszky showed that strong government and regulations are a necessity for urban development. He called for a more pronounced role of municipal authorities, whose activity is necessary to preserve historical heritage and protect the public interest from the interests of developers. Demszky highlighted the idea of “open spaces with high architectural quality,” which he sees in some current projects in Budapest.
Willem Jan Neutelings agreed with him on the impact of regulations on urban development. “The beauty of cities lies in the simple balance between private and public interests,” he said, adding that “buildings, by their nature, are not just private objects.” He tried to prove that urban development cannot be left solely to the market and must be guided by a concern for strong urban planning. Furthermore, Neutelings joined Pallasmaa’s opinion that architecture, or the design of buildings, should respect cultural identity. However, he reminded that architecture can at times even shape it, as in the case of the Eiffel Tower... Later, he used the example of using contemporary ornaments and collaborating with local artists as a way to strengthen the cultural identity of neighborhoods.
Pallasmaa closed the panel by again emphasizing the importance of cooperation between political leaders and architects.

Limits of Urbanization
Creativity, the mantra of the neoliberal ethos, is the new paradise of solutions…
At the Forum, the urban panel attracted the attention of professionals and its debate was moderated by sociologist Jiří Musil: discussing there were London urbanist Richard Burdett, Dutch architect Willem J. Neutelings, Belgian philosopher and art historian Lieven De Cauter, director of the London Design Museum Deyan Sudjic, and Greek architect Elia Zenghelis. The professional attractiveness of the panel was amplified by the everyday global assault on the foundations of urban life, which increasingly attacks the peacefulness of social elites. People are beginning to talk about reaching a “tipping point”… Some even define the situation as a “perennial disaster era.” Half of the world's population today lives in cities or urban agglomerations; a century ago, it was only ten percent. (Statistics warn: with every minute of the Forum lecture, another person moves to a third-world city.) In contemporary cities (in the third world), as many as one in three inhabitants lives without hygiene and basic infrastructure. Simultaneously, this expansion process can be observed with the depopulation of centers, which according to many is reflected in the increasing crime rate—particularly in the suburbs. More general aspects name broader marginalization of communities and ultimately also social segregation, which, among other things, is responsible for increased energy expenditures for transportation. (Even in Prague, there is pressure to build new highways: while in thirty other world cities billions are being spent to get rid of them, a "local" voice from the podium reminded). Warnings from social statistics are accompanied by a visible increase in construction—over the last twenty years, humanity has built more houses on Earth than in the last five thousand years...
In summary, our living environment is under increasingly dramatic pressure from 1/ delocalization, 2/ hypermobility, and 3/ social division.
Regarding Europe itself, De Cauter cited thematic or amusement parks as an example. According to him, a similar amusement park has emerged from Bruges, adding: “Bruges has been declared dead for more than a century. And Prague is approaching this dangerous model very quickly...”

How to Democratize the City?
Zenghelis leans on the belief that the essence of the destruction of contemporary, compact cities is the process of “urbanization”; and that particularly lies in the support for unlimited expansion of the city (De Cauter even uses the term urbicide). When Zenghelis uses the term “urbanization”, he has in mind a movement in the Czech Republic known for the increase in private land and the concurrent process of gradually dissolving the “public sphere into the world of private property.”
Can this process be faced? Among the selected defensive instruments that were most frequently named in the panel, one can mainly find a restoration that is quite simple to banal. It is the idea of architectural community. (And the restoration of the idea of a common language stemming from it.) The fundamental principle that feeds this stance is the city as a public space.
A series of slides offered concrete, positive examples of architectural interventions that have energized the city as a space for the collective and the urban society. A park instead of a parking lot. A school in the center of a social ghetto. Support for public transportation (a road lane for metrobus, bike path, free bicycles) instead of car transportation. However, the most controversial (demographic) topic also emerged: regulating the population boom...

Conclusion
The discussants agreed that the mentioned democratization stance requires adherence to a general condition, which is the definition of the city's boundaries.
The tool with which the city can create is precisely architecture. As an exposed nerve, a panel discussion participant discovered the conviction that the beginning of the "change" in thought must be a) the resurrection of the city within its original boundaries, b) the revitalization of the public sphere. Only in this way can the city be defended: against the growth of a new spatial order or “spatial disorder”…