Anagram Urbanism - Re-shuffling the City

Jellyfish Theatre London 2010 (image source)

When skimming through my notebook today, Igot reminded of a lecture by German artists Köbberling/Kaltwasserback in November at the University of the Arts Berlin. The artists werepresenting a series of projects and urban interventions in public space under the subject ofconsidering the city as anagram. Their site-specific interventions use locallysourced materials that are transformed into object-like architecturalconstructions. Characteristically, the appearance of those constructionsis imperfect and unfinished. After the destruction of the installations,objects and houses, the materials the artists have been using, disintegrate inthe materiality of the city again.
Conceptually, they understand their work asa snapshot of recycling and reshuffling a city's materials and thereforeemploying the concept of an anagram. I would argue further to not onlyunderstand their way of reshuffling materials as being analogous to theanagram, but also the fact that many of their constructions are executed in acollective effort to integrate local inhabitants in the process of building:'Beyond creating art and design objects and architecture, we initiate action'.Hence, through a participatory approach and the way in which a city's materialsget recycled and reshuffled the whole process might be termed as AnagramUrbanism: Reshuffling and recycling the built and human fabric of the city.Thinking this further, such a conceptualisation of an urbanistic approachpresupposes that the ingredients for urban change are already inscribed in thecity itself; the actions that need to be taken are excavating this pre-existingpotentials lying within the urban human and nonhuman networks and initiatingand orchestrating a process of reshuffling. The Anagram Urbanism approach wouldthen be in close dialogue with Saskia Sassen's work on OpenSource Urbanism which has been recently presented here on this blog. Discoveringthe pre-existing potentials or utilising the existing recources inscribed in the city, Anagram Urbanism then is comparable to Sassen'sunderstanding of the city as incomplete and the potential of the city to 'talkback'. And to go further, would that mean that the approach of an Anagram Urbanism wouldmake our cities more resilient, environmentally and also socially? I am not able to give the answers yet but I believe that this conceptual framework is definitively helpful to think about the present and also future state of the city and, furthermore also bears the potential of being incorporated into urban planning strategies.  
To finish this thought, here are some images ofKöbberling/Kaltwassers work, that, in case you have not recognised yet, is alsofeatured as the new header image on top of the blog.

Jellyfish Theatre London 2010 (image  source)

Hausbau Gropiusstadt Berlin 2004 (image source)

Hausbau Gropiusstadt Berlin 2004 (image source)

 

Open Source Urbanism – Hacking The City

There exist various different notions ofOpen Source Urbanism and in recent years various – sometimes cruciallydifferent - approaches to conceptualise phenomena in the contemporarymetropolis have been developed under this terminology. Saskia Sassen’s talk on Talkingback to your Intelligent City at the BMWLab last summer was recently putonline and has been inspiring this post.

I first came across the term of Open SourceUrbanism through following the work of UrbanCatalyst, a Berlin-based research and consultant group. In their article inthe architecture magazine Arch+ dating back to the year 2007 entitled ‘OpenSource Urbanismus: vom Inselurbanism zur Urbanität der Zwischenräume’  they explored the principle ofopen-source analogous to the development of computer software. Targetingalterations in urban policy, Urban Catalyst’s planning concept proposes toencompass a multiplicity of actors with diverse backgrounds to participate inthe planning process.  Open Sourceis therefore used as the metaphor for manifold ideas that should get involvedin working towards a more socially sustainable approach in urban governance andplanning. Also the concept of considering the urban landscape as a“palmipsest”, where new layers do not obscure all traces of their predecessorswould maintain a particular sense of place, that is often lacking incontemporary planning. According to Urban Catalyst it is veryimportant to allow for modifications and ameliorations during this process.This may also result in altering the initial planning goal. The issue ofparticipation and taping the resources inherent to the urban human fabric byfar is not a new concept, although urban policy makers have been advertisingthis approach extensively the last decade. Urban Catalyst further suggest tohack the city through modes of meanwhile uses and use the existinginfrastructures as sources for urban change. In fact, I would argue that thisdefinition of Open Source Urbanism dates back to the Situationist city ofUnitary Urbanism, where urban dynamics would no longer be driven by bureaucracyand capitalism but by participation. Adaptability and the flux, favouringprocess over goal, as well as participation are ideals that are vital for thisway of urbanism. Nevertheless the concept is not new, these topics are stillhighly topical in contemporary urban discourses.

'Fassadenrepublik' by raumlabor berlin as part of the project Zwischenpalastnutzung by Urban Catalyst (image source)

The connection of Open Source Urbanism and the Situationsts havealso been explored by more technologicallydriven approaches, that I will not go deeper into herein. What willprobably be the most influential debate on this terminology would be SaskiaSassen’s. She understands Open Source Urbanism as a type in which the city‘talks back’. The city can also be understood as an assemblage of myriadinterventions and little changes from the ground up (urban protests like theStuttgart). The power lies not so much in each single one of thoseinterventions, but more in the assemblage of those. Together they add meaningto the incompleteness of the city and the city talks back in a dynamic manner.And this very incompleteness, according to Sassen, is the power of the city,something which cannot be achieved by planning the technological intelligentcity like Songdoor Masdar. With herunderstanding of Urban Source Urbanism Sassen combines the understanding ofUrban Catalysts approach that what should be strengthened is that the city isconstituted by the existing materials and the existing human fabric with thetechnological approach towards urban Source. She understands the city not onlyas consisting of hardware – like the Intelligent City – but also as thesoftware of people’s practices. Intelligent cities are closed systems who willbecome obsolete sooner. 

Sassen draws on the example of New York’s Riverside Park, whichdeveloped from a no-go area to being a park for all those who wanted to use it,partly because dog-owners started to walk their dogs in large numbers. Dogkeeping was a reaction of feeling insecure in the neighbourhood. And the citytalked back: get a dog, of course you need to walk your dog, many others do,and therefore your recover the territory of the park. Similarly the increasingamount of farmers’ markets is also an example where the city talks back. It hasnot been a top-down decision. It’s a result of various conditions, butprimarily the desire of city resident to have access to fresh produce. Whatbecomes apparent here is that a thousand individual decisions enabled thepossibility for creating a viable farmers’ market.

Riverside Park dog run (source)

Sassen sees in Open Source ‘a DNA that resonates strongly with howpeople make the city theirs or urbanize what might be an individual initiative(…) Recovering the incompleteness of cities means recovering a space where thework of open sourcing the urban can thrive’.