René Boer, "Smooth City: Against Urban Perfection, Towards Collective Alternatives" (Valiz, 2023)

Welcome to the new Books Network. Hello and welcome back to new books and urban studies, a podcast on the new books network. I'm one of your hosts, Timmy Coyadro, a graduate student at the University of Vienna. I'm excited to be speaking with René Boer, author of Smooth City, Against Urban Perfection, towards collective alternatives, published in 2023 by Valais. The book examines how urban spaces have increasingly become "perfected" into a sanitized, seamless, and homogenous place. The book operates on multiple levels, looking at the aesthetic and design implications, as well as the economic and social factors of these perfected cities. But beyond problem diagnosis, Boer also presents an alternative framework and vision for what the city could be. René, to start off, could you just share a bit about your background and your practice with the audience? Thanks for having me, Timmy. Really great to join this conversation. I have a background in urban studies as well. I studied this program at UCL in London, quite a while ago now. But I'm originally from Amsterdam, and after my studies, I moved back to Amsterdam and became part of this ecology of people that are organized in various collectives. And this group of people is working on urban development, but also architecture, heritage, design, also working in the arts a lot. And within these groups, we formed various collectives, maybe one that listeners might know is failed architecture, which is a transnational platform for spatial criticism. And recently we found a new collective. It's called loom practice for cultural transformation, working on larger society transformations from a cultural perspective. But myself, I'm mostly also mostly interested in cities and how we live together in city. Great. And so before getting into it, I'm still curious, like you have this very interesting, varied background. Like how did you come to specifically write this book? I think it really comes also from the experience of growing up in Amsterdam, and also becoming part of, let's say, more alternative urbanisms when I was at quite a young age, mostly in the squalig movement in Amsterdam, that used to be quite present, quite big, and was really, it's not this kind of disorganized or spontaneous kind of movement that it's often portrayed to be, but it's actually very organized, very structured, and really offers a set of tools for people to, to occupy space and shape it and redesign it after their own desires. And I think historically a lot of groups in Amsterdam have really done this on a very large scale, occupying empty buildings, large office buildings or large industrial buildings, and really reimagining what these spaces can be. And by doing so, this is also often in a very collective way, allowing a lot of marginalized groups also to become part of that, refugees or queer groups, and really allowing them to, yeah, to become part of the city and shape it after their own desire. And for me, this was a really important experience to be part of this. It really taught me a lot about space, about cities and urban development, and also power plays out in cities. But over time, many of these kind of spaces have been kind of controlled and ultimately also being eliminated if you can put it like that by the local authorities. And for me, this process of, let's say, power play and control from the side of the authorities, especially when it comes to, yeah, more marginalized groups creating space for themselves in the city was quite a formative kind of process. And really, yeah, really made me learn a lot about how cities work. And ultimately, I think this experience is the basis for this research and this book. Yeah, now that makes a ton of sense and write the lived experience having such a through line and the fact that in the book you do reference Amsterdam, I mean, we go to a number of cities, including Cairo, New York, elsewhere, but Amsterdam certainly continues to come up and which makes sense given what you just spoke about. Going through the book in person, one thing that really stands out as you've paged through it are the interwoven visual collages, the smoothscape says you term them, how did the visual collaboration come about and why did you feel it was important to pair these collages with the text. Yeah, so as I was researching and writing this book, I thought that this condition of the smooth city, this condition of like total perfection, optimization and control in the urban realm is also very much an aesthetic condition or has like very much an aesthetic side to it. And I really wanted to not just have like a written text that is describing that, but also try, I mean, give a few examples. I was taking photos myself also been working with a photographer looking at like maybe some key examples of this kind of smooth condition, like prime examples of the smooth city. I always felt that if you take a photo, there is still let's say many cities are I feel are working towards a smooth city so every new change in the city is like this additional step in the smoothification, but when you take a photo, there's still like smooth and kind of unsmooth kind of examples or like elements. And I thought would be interesting is to work with this artist and graphic designer case decline to work on these collages that are more of let's say an aesthetic horizon of what the smooth city will be. So it's not necessarily what the smooth city looks like right now, but it's more of an aesthetic horizon that many cities work towards. And that kind of relates to the end of the book, you have the urban future section. So it is as just like vision of a future, if you will, right? Yeah, definitely. So like I think we all experience these different varieties of smoothness in the cities that we live in, but I feel that many cities this smoothness is still increasing. So I think if you look at some cities in like five, 10 or 15 years, it might be even much more smooth and then there are now powered by also like a lot of new technologies, for example, and we try to capture that kind of feeling in these collages together. So we've been using the term smoothness for a few moments now, could you define what is the smooth city and why you felt that terms smoothness was useful in this analysis. Yeah, so I think it's an it's an urban condition, so the state in which a city finds itself right and that can be characterized by words like as perfection optimization control efficiency on the one end, but also like this kind of eradication of everything that stands in the way of this kind of perfection and optimization. So everything that is outside of the norms that is an aberration or doesn't fit, let's say, the straight lines of the smooth city is being taken out or eliminated, whether it's undesirable people and desirable aesthetics and desirable, I mean, when I say undesirable, I mean like from the perspective of let's say the propagators of the smooth city. And by taking out, let's say, all these unwanted elements and and what results is very much a new kind of aesthetic condition that I felt was best described with the words smooth like so this kind of completely finished controlled kind of service that doesn't have any irregularities doesn't have any surprises it's completely like. Yeah finished her medically closed off controlled kind of service so that's yeah, I thought that would be the best way to describe this this urban condition that is emerging in cities worldwide. Yeah, and it's interesting that while we while some people call our turn neighborhoods rough that are unpleasant or stigmatized we don't we don't typically call. The more favorite neighborhood smooth but it's it was something I thought about as it's really kind of played out why you why you use that term. Yeah, definitely it's like it's a contrast right and rough smooth as a kind of an opposite or the unsmooth yeah for for other kinds of neighborhoods yeah. So in the book you have a whole chapter where you you really comprehensively lay out the historical origins of the smooth city whether it be Renaissance era urban restructuring of Florence or the hazmat manization of Paris. But then in the book as you acknowledge this historical antecedents you also argue that the smooth city is is novel and is is doing something more than this condition is is not just a continuation could you explain your thinking about whether it's continuity or divergence as you seem to think. Yeah, so I think historically there have been many attempts at. kind of controlling the urban environment, right? So, or smooth, smoothifying it, if you will. And so, I was man was really trying to, yeah, control, let's say the unruly medieval urban fabric of Paris at the time, but also introduce new space for high-end residential space, high-end commercial space. And, but I think this was kind of one of projects that was happening in one particular city. It has later also been, I mean, was used before, also in colonial cities, in parts of colonial France, has later been exported to other cities as well. But I think at this moment, it was kind of a specific methodology, a specific way of working, and also like a one-off kind of projects, so to say. And this goes for many of these other kind of historical examples that try to control the city or perfect it. But what I think what is happening now with the smooth city is that it's a phenomenon that's happening at the same time around the world and cities around the world. So, it's very much a global phenomenon. And I see it more as a perfect storm of some kind of larger developments that are happening that really kind of drive the smooth city globally. So, it's not just one planning ideology or one project in a specific city. I feel it's these larger developments that play out in cities around the world that are driving the immersion of the smooth city everywhere. Yes, thanks for that. And to what you were just talking about these multiple processes that are ongoing, could you sort of speak to that a bit more in the book? You describe economics, social and cultural processes that may not all be instantiated with a clear mission to smoothify the city, but which work together to have the smooth city be the end product? Yeah, exactly. So, I don't think smooth city is often a very immediate kind of vision. But it is the outcome, especially like for example, in a city like Amsterdam, I think there is not a clear plan for the municipality that says, for example, like we want to turn Amsterdam in a completely smooth city and eradicate everything that stands in it. There's no policy that describes that, but it is the result. So, it is becoming the reality. And that is really because of like indeed, as you say, like some major developments that are kind of interrelated and are also kind of resonating with each other. And I think one of the most important drivers of the smooth city is the rise of neoliberal urbanism in the last let's say three decades roughly, in which the urban is really seen as a commodity that you can trade rather than let's say a shared public good, so to say. And in city, in a city like Amsterdam, this really plays specifically out, for example, when you look at social housing. So, Amsterdam has a long history of social housing with at some point 80% of the housing stock being like let's say in communal hands and being divided according to a waiting list. And on the back of this kind of neoliberal urbanism, this has brought about a process of privatization with many of these social housing units being like sold off. And this has really been an important part of like bringing private investors to the city. We have been like renovating many of these of these places, but also renting them out for like selling them again for the highest price. So, really like pushing this kind of process of economic efficiency and optimization of the housing stock, for example. So, this has been one of the most important drivers, I think, in city's worldwide. But it has also been this kind of renewed interest in the city, which is a more social cultural phenomenon, with I think in many cities around the world, like people leaving cities in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s, especially in the global north. But yeah, from let's say the 90s onwards, people having this renewed interest in the city and returning on a large scale to the urban environment. And thirdly, so there is also like, and thirdly, I think technological developments have been very important also in driving this small city. And maybe this is a bit obvious, but like the presence of our smartphones in the streets, we're bringing our smartphones to public space, but also the omnipresence of mobile, of very fast mobile internet everywhere, has really also really changed how we use the city, but also how we bring like an element of control to the urban environment. We can capture and document everything all the time. And I think this is really pushing also our driving, the surveillance, the culture of surveillance in the urban environment, that is yet another completely different kind of driver of this city. But all these kind of processes have emerged roughly at the same time over the last three decades. Growing over time, becoming more present, and quite a fast pace pushing the emergence of this small city everywhere. No, yeah, I really, I feel like as you lay that out, especially I think to maybe the audience, the aesthetic element is, though not maybe the most critical of them is something that really is important and is very viscerally felt. Like I know myself or others often talk about as you lay out in the book cities increasingly looking the same, the way that platforms like Airbnb have created a default typology of design and the way, I mean you also refer to festivalization and like other strategies that cities, city authorities are taking to that lead to this conversion visually. And in the book you have a lot of really great visceral thick descriptions to start off each chapter. I think I kind of curious about you really seem to invest a lot in making sure the description of the smooth city comes across even though you kind of, which I'm just now thinking out loud, you have a bit more of the collages which are creative representations of the smooth city, and in the text you really do the thick descriptions of the actual places that you've been to. Yeah, it's true, I think a lot of people recognize it, but at the same time there are also people when I try to explain the smooth cities like I don't really know what you're talking about, right? And then I really hope that these kind of like let's say instances or examples of the smooth city kind of try to communicate what I'm talking about. And so I try to give like quite extreme examples of and also show the variety of it at the same time. So I mean there is let's say a historical urban neighborhoods that have been modified but also urban renewal processes where like very completely newly built neighborhoods but also show the let's say the international variety so it can be like European cities but it can also be cities in the global south that have very different forms of the smooth city where for example the smooth city is more of an archipelago of gated communities and malls and people move in between these kind of places with like air conditioned cars which in itself are very smooth kind of environment. And so the smooth city takes a very different form in many different places around the world. And I hope I try yeah what I try to do is to communicate a little bit how how the smooth city can can appear in different places around the world. Another question that came to me as I was reading was the relationship between scale and the smooth city. One could think of them of it as a condition that's really just localized to a subset of highly gentrified neighborhoods in in global cities. However you use the term city not neighborhood to evoke this more hegemonic or larger scale process could you could you talk about on the one hand even if someone identifies or sees what you're talking about as present they may think okay this is just something that's relevant for a small number of places in your life. Yeah it's interesting you bring it up I think it's a very important conversation to have a part of this of this topic. And I think indeed the problem is the scale and like kind of the the size of this of the smoothness the dominance of it. And so I think if there is one neighborhood that has been renovated or there's a newly built neighborhood attached to a city center I think that's not necessarily a problem I think the problem is when the when it reaches a certain scale is that it becomes unescapable right this is the only kind of urban condition that you can relate to at some point. And cities like Amsterdam I think not only the historical city center but let's say yeah the entire let's say central parts I mean this the more central half of the city is become completely modified and it's steadily growing right so I mean can you still escape this move city can you still become part of different kind of an urban condition. If the smooth city is, if you don't like to be in this completely controlled and perfected environment, where do you go? So indeed this kind of scale is quite important to understand also why the smooth city is a problem. Speaking on that kind of scale thread, you also, I won't put in the book, you discuss how the smooth city is dependent on non-smooth, smooth cities or urban spaces and that there's this extractive relationship, could you speak more about that interdependence? Yeah, definitely. I mean, I was thinking about it this morning when I was cycling through Amsterdam and I saw like in this one street, I saw people cleaning the street, I saw people repainting some of the wooden frames of the windows. I mean, there were so many people working to perfect and optimize this historical part of the city. And it's very clear that none of them, I mean maybe one of them coincidentally would have lived in a smooth part of Amsterdam, maybe a lot of them are not living in the smoothified parts of Amsterdam. So the city is also relying on resources from outside is most smooth, smoothified kind of core. And it's not only in terms of labor and human beings who have to work to keep the smoothness of the city so smooth, but more on a global level. So all these technologies that are now embedded in the city from our own smartphones to all the technologies embedded as part of this smart city that is also being created in cities like Amsterdam and other cities. And all these materials, all these electronics are at some point they're obsolete or they're being replaced and they're being shipped to other countries where they're like being disassembled by kids, you know, like in very terrible conditions. And these kind of material circulations are also part of the smooth city. And the smooth city is not, it's like it's externalizing many of its effects in many ways. So, yeah, it relies on the not so smooth living conditions of many of the people who work in the smooth city will keep it smooth. It relies on global systems of waste disposal, for example. So I think in many ways, the smooth city is not contained by itself, but is very much part of this kind of global circulation that's happening. To take another perspective for a moment, clean safe and efficient cities may sound very attractive to listeners. One might say the smooth city is a problem just because it's not fully accessible or equitably distributed. But you talk about this smooth city as problematic in and of itself. What's your perspective on those that see these positive elements of it and just see it as an issue of more fair distribution. So, I mean, I agree to the extent that I think that we all need cities that are kind of hygienic enough and safe enough and that function well enough to live the lives that we want to live. I'm definitely not criticizing that. I also recognize very much that there's a lot of people maybe coming from urban environments that are not safe and clean and functioning enough and that are very happy to finally maybe live in such an environment. On the one hand, but on the other hand, I really think that in some cities, these kind of the kind of obsession with safety and cleanliness and control is being pushed to such limits that we're losing something that is really at the core of what a city makes a city, which is about being able to be confronted with things that are different to be confronted with. And so, I think that's the responsibility of some other people, things that might just arise, things that are maybe not completely controlled and optimized and just there to be completely commodified. So, I think we're losing a lot in these kind of smooth environments. And even though it is important to make sure that things are clean enough and safe enough, I think we should be really careful that we're not pushing it too far. And I think a very related question. I think in the book, you talk about how certain urban planning and logics that focus on wholeness or cohesiveness are part or at least one element of the smooth city that leads to this. Whether in down of any difference or sort of vitality, could you could you talk about urban planning and its role within the smooth city. Yeah, so I think urban planning, but also urban design or architecture as fields have like historically always been about like trying to get a little bit of order in what has often been quite a messy historically messy urban environment. Or sometimes start from scratch outside create a new city like the historical urban environment is too messy. We're going to start from scratch and everything will be perfect and beautiful in this new place. So, I think that has these have historical been important impulses in in these kind of fields. And indeed, I feel that they're often they're often pushing it too far and indeed they work from this notion of of wholeness that like everything should be according to the plan according to, let's say, the full schedule or like overview of control that is being created. And that there is very limited kind of space for for difference or for things to escape this is this, yeah, these comprehensive plans and and at over time, if you like stack all these plans over each other year after year of the year. At some point you get like this, this sense of total plan controlled kind of environments that don't offer any kind of space to breathe or for any other kind of direction outside of these plans, right. When these urban plans provide for let's say high quality urban furniture, high quality materials in the public space, they have created incentives for every property owner to make sure that every building is in perfect condition very slowly you got this this total. So yeah, this smooth service in which everything is being perfected controlled and optimized with all the materials being excellent quality excellent and very well maintained and that there is very. If you feel that you need to take a different course if you're if you can't afford to be part of this, but also if you maybe don't feel you would like to like. Yeah, you you just feel like you would like to have a different city with different kind of ambitions, then perfect cleanliness and perfect control. Where do you go right where where is your part to create your own experience in your own desires. So I think that's yeah that's yeah that's quite a crucial problem of let's say this this. Yeah, wellness of urban planning one might sort of think about what you've been describing as primarily just a function of gentrification. Which you very much do speak to in the book, but could it's also I think are trying to distinguish smoothness as not just simply gentrification, but a bit more than that. Could you talk about the interrelations between gentrification and smoothness in your mind. And I think there's also in the past other authors have also used different terms that are also likes in a related in a very similar way. I mean, Mark, I'll say talks about the non place, the city as a non place. Or Remko has spoke about the generic city. So I think a lot of authors in the past have already kind of observed this like this broader urban condition that I refer to as the smooth city. This gentrification is obviously a very closely related kind of topic. What I feel however is that gentrification is also being used as a bit of a swear word for everything that people see in the city. And I think it's often not very used very not not used very precisely. For me, what I think is important that we use gentrification really for this process of let's say people with more money pushing people with less money out of certain neighborhoods. And I think this is very much a socio economic kind of process, very much a democratic process and that we keep the word gentrification for this specific kind of very problematic process often also very violent process. But that what is happening in cities today is a much broader aesthetic, cultural technological transformation that is broader than the specific identification of a street or a neighborhood. So that's why I wanted to. to introduce the notion of the smooth city to really capture this broader condition that is also related with new technologies that is also related with, let's say, the commodification of not just houses, but of how space is being imagined in general. So I think this is much broader, kind of, yeah, this total shift of what city is. I feel the really like landmark shift in urban history, I think this is like an unprecedented kind of development that cities are being brought into this kind of condition globally. And I think really that gentrification is, as a framework, is not capable of describing what is happening. I should also not be used for doing that because I think we really need gentrification for this very specific analysis of, let's say, the displacement of people from neighborhoods. - Right, yeah, it's interesting. And I know that with gentrification, people, you know, there's a pen sort of agitives, like cultural gentrification and other formulations, but gentrification of your mind, you know. And there's a lot of ways people use that word. And I feel it's deluding a little bit what is it supposed to describe also. - So at the one hand, the smooth city is this very dominant hegemonic force that almost seems to be marching and next to the next block, after block, but at the same time in the book, you talk about it's highly dependent on a consistent maintenance process. And that is an, in fact, it is in fact a very fragile condition as well. Could you sort of speak to that tension within smoothness and it's both dominance and fragility? - Yeah. I mean, I think sometimes when you see very smooth parts of a city, you feel this almost like a natural given. It is like this is how it has always been and how it will always be. But I think then we often forget how much is being spent on keeping a smooth city smooth in terms of cleaning, in terms of maintenance, in terms of general investments. And you also see that, for example, central parts of Amsterdam are being cleaned like three or four times a day. There is all these maintenance or renovation schedules in place that stipulate that everything is being repainted every, I don't know, every five years, for example. And I think as soon as you stop investing in the permanent cleaning or the permanent renovation, or like, in building new stuff to the city all the time, I think as soon as you stop doing that, I think very soon things will look a bit dirty and then very soon a bit messy. And at some point things start to really dilepidate. And so in that sense, I think the smooth city by itself, these smooths and so on smooths and very rapidly within months and years, you end up with a very unsmooth city. And I mean, historically, that's also been examples of that. I mean, you're probably more aware of this, I've never been, but Detroit, for example, being a famous example for city, that was once very prosperous and has over time also went into a process of economic decline and de-smoothening in many ways. And yeah, so in that sense, I think the smooth city is not there forever, right? So I think it's something that can disappear also. And maybe that's on a, I also feel that's a hopeful note, right? So I think things can change. The smooth city is not, in that sense, not very stable. But the forces behind it might be very stable, but it's something that can still be opposed. - No, I think the Detroit example is quite interesting as that multitude of factors, but the disinvestment that occurred necessarily led to that de-smoothening. But we're certainly hoping for forms of de-smoothening that don't require massive kind of white flight and retention of capital and what have you. We'll get to sort of some potentialities that you describe in the book in a moment, in the resistance. But one, I think final question in this sort of problem, a taste problem monetization section. In another interview, you mentioned being interested in age and time more in your contemporary interests. And I was curious about where age is a, to what extent age is a mediating factor in people's relationship to smoothness, like some of the things that you talk about in the book about, like a certain urban authenticity or process that becoming are often maybe superficially associated with younger people and for older people, the greater desire for order and predictability is typically assumed. But I'm kind of curious if you have thoughts on how age and your sort of position in your lifespan relate to smoothness. - Yeah, good question. I mean, I think it's indeed interesting to maybe question these kind of assumptions so that indeed there is, I think people of all ages have human characteristics like a desire for spontaneity and a desire for, yeah, maybe also a little surprise in their life, but maybe also a little subversiveness, I don't know. And indeed maybe also people of all ages also have like a desire for a certain amount of order and kind of overview in their lives, right? So maybe let's, yeah, let's try to criticize these assumptions a little bit. But indeed, I think in general, I think what the smooth city is also doing is kind of compressing everything, right? So it's compressing the diversity of the city into like, how much in 80 it's compressing the material diversity into like this very limited set of materials that are being used. So, and but it's also compressing time, I feel, it's like if something is being optimized and brought into perfection and then perpetually being kept into this kind of perfect condition, there you don't see any change, you don't witness time processing itself in the urban environment, right? You don't see things slowly decaying, you don't see people slowly working together to improve something. So everything becomes this almost kind of timeless kind of closed of kind of environment. And I also feel that people need to experience, I mean, this is the same also with technology, for example, right? So the technology being introduced in the urban environment in the sense that it kind of also takes out the experience of time, it's not that you have to walk somewhere to buy something or you have to go somewhere to talk to somebody. I mean, it's just, it's always just a matter of hitting one button and immediately kind of your taxi, your cab shows up and takes you somewhere, right? Or you can immediately speak to somebody. So I think all these kind of delays are also taken out of the city. So there is very little ways in which you can experience time progressing in the urban environment. And I really feel that's important also for a human being to experience that you're alive, that time is progressing in a day, but also to imagine like, hey, if I want to change myself or if I want to become something else, what is kind of the time span, right? If everything in the city is also being like compressed into sameness, you can never experience, you will never encounter something else or something that is completely different than who you are, right? So it's very different than to imagine how to become something else and if you don't experience time, you can also not like lay that out anytime. So I think this compression of everything, this homogeneity of everything is also becoming this kind of total standstill in time and of what people, who people are and what they can become. Really well said. And I think yes, in the book, I just just one get from on this note, I know you had a description of Amsterdam and the way that buildings have been like pressure washed or sort of made to seem as if they're brand new when they're hundreds of years older or more specifically that they all came about at the same time when it was actually a much more incremental process. So it is interesting this sort of what this homogenization does to your sense of cities, growth and trajectory. Yeah, totally. It's interesting also how like I'm sitting like Amsterdam, but I think many historical cities around the world also being frozen in time, right? So there is this. UNESCO designation at some point and says like this is beautiful and historical and it's kept it is worth preserving. But then I think our generation is the first generation that is being yeah like kind of kept away from also adding our layer to to this city right I mean we're the first generation that can like just look at it and oh wow that's UNESCO but we're also the first generation that is then not able to to add anything or to change anything right I mean the doors of the canal housing Amsterdam need to be like a specific kind of canal dark green you're not allowed to do anything else right if what if what if our generation likes pink more there's no way that we can do that right so and I think that is that is just in essence very problematic to do that to to a city it's kind of freezing of time so far we've really been talking about the smooth city as a problem it's origins some of the implications but you also do in the book discuss alternatives and contestations specifically you introduce porosity as an alternative framework could you describe what this entails and and maybe share some examples as well yeah definitely so what I think is important that like as I describe in a book I think there is many there's many problems with the emergence of the smooth city it being enter democratic this this notion of of compressing the city but also the fact that it's the kind of this norm machine and that is really time to oppose this smooth city as it's growing everywhere and it's becoming more dominant in cities around the world and and but at the same time it this is not a nostalgic plea to go back to cities that were in a very bad state right it's it's not a romanticization of failure or danger or duriness or like this idea that a city should be a total mess and that's just adventures right it's I definitely don't want to do that so I also definitely want to recognize and acknowledge the many problems that people have with surviving in cities in many ways still also today and so I think that's very important to mention so I don't think we should work towards the unsmooed or the opposite of smoothness in being so it's it's the opposite of of something that is efficient and optimized and controlled being like a total mess and falling apart that is not what we should work towards so I think we should move beyond this framework and and it's not about completely dismissing this this idea of order I think we should work towards a different kind of order that is not about let's say the total control of urban planning and the total control of investment spreadsheets but it's more about let's say collectively created kind of urban environment which I like to describe as kind of a porous city or a porous urban environment I'm not the first one to to introduce this kind of notion when talking about cities Walter Benjamin and Angeladius are ready like 100 years ago we're describing Naples as a porous kind of environment and and porosity I mean like you can think of a porous material like a sponge as a porous material with like holes in it that can absorb also something that is external that's passing through it right so for example sponge can absorb water or other fluids and these fluids like shape the new are like changing the characteristics of the entire material right and I think without stretching this metaphor too much I think this could be very yeah an interesting kind of metaphor for for the urban something that is open has like holes on all sides and other things can flow into it and flow out of it and while they're there they can change it and I think that in general would be very interesting way to think about the city as a place that a lot of people can become part of and to and shape it together and and and this should not be about the right of the strongest right that like just anyone can just come in and it should be my way or we thought about it should be our way right I think it this it should be about people creating new structures new forms of order in which they can collectively shape the city and that should be a democratic process also so it's about a new order in which people are much more at the forefront of shaping their own urban environment rather than let's say urban planning doctrines or in a flows of capital that dictate what a city what a city should look like so yeah that's that's the crawl for the poorest city as opposed to the this most city no and I think it it is interesting and to us as you were saying rather than the direct opposite of smoothness it's it's a different framework the different approach and within the within the chapter where you lay this out you also talk about the role of thresholds or other rather it's not just an openness that is an archic per se but it or or totally an archic without other values but that there's other socially determined and collective ways of of order that you hope to arise could you maybe talk about the democratic and collective spirit that you envision and and maybe the specifically what the thresholds in your framework would be yeah yeah definitely so I mean with you being in Vienna I think what is very I mean I haven't been for a very long time but I think for example the the housing cooperatives that you have in Vienna and in other cities in in Austria and Switzerland are very beautiful example of how people can work towards I can realize their own kind of urban environment to some extent right like work together and yeah to create affordable housing and together decide what it looks like how it will function but also at the same time they also decide together we will live there right so a porous kind of city doesn't mean that just anybody can just walk in and out when you create this porous kind of urban environment together this housing cooperative doesn't mean that anybody can just show up and say like hey I will live here too right there is a there is a threshold there is a door that is locked and only a few people have the key and in that sense it's not totally open but there is like there is a sense of openness in the sense that maybe there is like a waiting list or there is like a weekly evening where you can show up and present yourself like hey I would also begin on to living here can can I put my can I leave my details and maybe at some point you're being selected to also live there so it's not completely closed off in the sense that it's only if you can afford it you will be able to enter the space but you can relate yourself to community you can maybe connect with people and at some point you can obtain a space there so indeed it's kind of porous city it's a city that is not completely open everywhere but that's a city with like collectively designed thresholds so and the thresholds in the case of a housing cooperative it being a door with a key and it's collectively also democratically decided who gets the key right and I think that this would be this goes in many ways in direction so for example also I also believe in the need for queer spaces for example for the LGBT community to create their own kind of spaces in the city and also like yeah designing the way how this kind of space is maybe different from the rest of the city right this can be in a static way but it can also be very blunt just I mean I know there is a beautiful queer club not very far from where I'm right now and it has a sign like no straight people are something like that I mean that is very I mean straight people can still walk in because nothing is being jacked or anything but there is a very clear threshold right so it's not completely open there is one group in the city that have claimed this space have turned into the space that they need and they want and have also created and also designed the openness of it together in a sense that is very cheap so like it's only like two-year to get in so money is not an it is for most people not an issue to come in but there is also a sign that keeps maybe keeps some people out right so this porosity is also yeah it can be it's also about designing together the forms of openness across the city and it's not just if you have the money then you can enter in and but there's different forms of openness and closeness I think somewhat related to this I was also thinking through and you kind of list a variety of urban interventions that are either individuals or but even more frequently collectives of people who don't necessarily seek consent or permission to intervene on on avoid like a vacant space and abandon building even you know urban urban street art what have you as a these contestations that are necessary against the smooth city. I'm also curious like how ideas about legitimacy and democracy fit into unilateral actions and unilateral reappropriations. Like how do you sort of see those two potentially conflictual but not necessarily coming together between unilateral action and some more collective action that needs legitimacy? Yeah. I mean, I think we're very used to the idea that only if it's decided by a government or if it's paid for by people with money or businesses with money, that's the only form of legitimacy that you can have in the city. And when it's creating such an excluding and normative kind of smooth city, I think it's time to challenge some of these assumptions. So there may be also there are also other forms of legitimacy. So if a marginalized kind of teenage year feels that they also want to add their own expression to the city and there is no way they can get the money to do that or get like the power, the political power to do that, that it's very much legitimized to do that through, I don't know, some beautiful graffiti tech. But I think it's within a more porous city, this remains a constant kind of conversation and even a conflict. And I think also we should not shy away from this conflict, we should kind of embrace it. I think we're not very in many cities, people are not very used to it in the sense that they just rely on, let's say, government and business to decide how it should be. And there is no way to go around that. But I think it's also about creating a culture on how to deal, how to have these conversations and how to deal with conflicts. If some people claim an open piece of land that is not being used for anything else to start a neighborhood garden, that is a claim that is also excluding other people's from also starting a neighborhood garden. So there is a potential conflict there and I think it's about finding structures, designing structures to have that conversation and to deal with a conflict rather than just rely on a government or a business to decide what's best. That leads to another question I had in terms of these new designs or these new approaches and how we get there in a previous interview. You had mentioned a general orientation against solution, solutionism. We also do present some provisional ideas in the book for those with relative power, whether they be the municipal authorities, architects and designers to counter this move city to create more poorest environments. I'm both interested in how as an urban critic, how do you feel about identifying provisional solutions or provisional alternatives? Was that something that came naturally as something that you think is generative or do you sort of have an orientation as you had one point said, it's not necessarily your sole job to list out what this alternative feature should be, like how was going through this thought process of an alternative solution in your writing process? Yeah, so I think I really started with the critique originally and I thought it was really important to find words and design these concepts to really describe this the critique that I have on how cities have changed worldwide. But at the same time, I just wanted to give some starting points on working towards an alternative as well. This became like this set of ideas around the poorest city. As I said, I really believe that working towards the poorest city means collective action by inhabitants of an urban environment when it comes to creating their own projects, their own urban environments, but also opposing some of these policies that we see to urban as a commodity, for example, the privatization of all kinds of facilities or housing. But at the same time, I also don't want to exclude planners and designers or even maybe even real estate businesses. I mean, they're currently also part of, let's say, stakeholders that are working on the city. I think it will be very interesting to see if they can also somehow internalize the critique on the smooth city and work towards a different kind of city. And I do believe that's definitely possible, right? So I think if urban planners, like sometimes, let go with this obsession of perfection or obsession of wellness, maybe there is a part of an urban development project that you're doing that you can leave empty, right? And you can see what happens. Or maybe you can, as an architect, just design a structure that people are going to fill in themselves rather than just develop these completely finalized and controlled boxes. And the only thing that you can do is like there's two positions that you can put yourself at. And that's the only kind of, yeah, like kind of addition that you can do as an inhabitant of that space, right? Or the only kind of design choice that you can make. And I mean, I recognize that maybe not everybody is necessarily interested in spending a lot of time in like completely finalizing their own house. But I think just to offer these kind of opportunities as well, people where people can like collectively design how they live, I think is very much worth it. And also, I think there is also still a need for professionalism, right? So I don't think it's necessarily, it should be the burden of everyone to completely develop their own house and their own kind of urban environment. I mean, I think it's very important that some people know how to build an apartment building and do that regularly so they know how to do it safely and how to do it efficiently. And in a way that is maybe also good for the climate, for example. But at the same time, think about how can people be involved themselves and how can they take collective ownership and collective control of these kind of spaces rather than just working their entire life to pay for a very set box. So I think that's kind of that's an important part that is missing in many cities. So I mean, that was a great, I think, close to the discussion about alternatives. I've taken up a lot of your time already, but I did have a few final questions to close out. What now, the book's been out for maybe approximately a year, a little bit more. What have been some of the conversations you've had with readers of the book or other others that you've been in dialogue with that have really stuck out to you, like whether it be from those in Amsterdam, from whether it be from planners or students or activists, I'm just kind of curious like what the reception has been like and what has stuck out to you or threads that you've noticed. Yeah. Yeah, there's many things I can say. I'm happy it's circulating quite well. We're in the second print right now. What I really, really appreciate is that there is especially a young generation who seems to pick up on the idea and will often come to me to discuss it. And yeah, I noticed that somehow there's notion of smoothness and like the lack of opportunity to transcend a condition of smoothness that some of them really grew up in also. I think that's also different. Younger people really grew up in smooth cities and really feel the need to transform that or to escape it but don't know where to start and I feel that this notion of smoothness for many of them has been very helpful in trying to understand what has been going on, what has been changing and what are its driving forces and what can we do about it. So I think it feels like it's for many of them, it feels like a bit of a, I don't know, a call to action and manifesto that can be useful to start changing the cities they live in. And at the same time, I've also been speaking to a lot of planners and civil servants as well and politicians in local governments and where I thought that they would be a bit offended maybe by the critique. It's like, I mean, someone have been saying this as well. I mean, we're doing our best. to make nice cities. And I mean, fair enough, they're doing their best. And I'm also not saying they're not doing their best. I'm also not saying that they shouldn't be public investments in cities. I very much think they should be. But what I think, what they also said is that they, in many cases, understood the critique and also really think it's indeed a problem. So I was very excited to see that there has been much more resonance also with people who are actually on a daily basis, are reproducing this small city and think that it's interesting to think about how things can be done differently. And so I think that's for me, it's also very excited. And we're now with our collective loom practice for cultural transformation. We're now starting some conversations with various cities to think about how can we device strategies to unravel the small city here and there and to create an opportunity for the poorest city to emerge. And so I think it's interesting to put this into practice. It started as a very general critique, but like to turn this into a practice for unsmoothening and a practice for porosifying. I think I'm very excited by that prospect. And you anticipated a bit of my final question about what projects you're working on next. So with that example of loom, that is very fascinating. Do you have, maybe specific or provisional ideas about what would they look like if you're trying to porosify the city in this consulting role? What are the types of practices that you have in mind? Yeah. I mean, it's also not necessarily a consulting role. It can also be about sharing these ideas with students, for example, that are going to work in a certain city or maybe sharing these ideas with architects and designers that are working on a specific neighborhood. So I think there's many ways that this can continue to resonate. Maybe very interesting specific projects we're working on right now is the in the Red Light District of Amsterdam, which is a very complex and multi-layered neighborhood. And I think right now there is really undersized a municipality quite a drive to also smoothify this, to compress this kind of complex and really urban environment into a much more controlled and sanitized environment. And we're actually working now with the municipality to see if together with a new generation of architects, because this is good to know maybe that the Red Light District is not part of the UNESCO controlled heritage environment of the city of Amsterdam. So there is more as possible in this area. So rather than turn this into a museum, work with young architects to see if we can add a layer of contemporary architecture also, too. This is historical urban core and create affordable housing by doing so. And I think this is very interesting. So rather than just compressing this kind of urban environment into this museum-museum-ized, if that's the worst kind of environment. And make sure that there is actually yet another layer. So there's all these historical layers from sex work, to the Chinatown. It all adds up to each other. And we add yet another layer rather than compressing it into this one to one museum that you can visit. So I think that's maybe a very specific way that we're working towards complicating an urban environment that is in the process of being smoothified at the same time. I think that's a great place to end. Thanks again for your time, Renee. I've been speaking with Renee Borer, author of Smooth City Against Urban Perfection Towards Collective Alternatives, published by Valise Halle encourage all listeners to grab a copy from your local bookstore. Take care and thanks again for joining me today. Thanks, Jimmy. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]