Articulating visions of the city as a rationalized and civilizing
system, master plans often constitute visual artifacts made sticky with the affective
excesses of top-down modernist imaginaries. As Le Normand shows, these “plans”
extended beyond the normally limited visibility of planning documents and maps
themselves, as images of modernity circulated through public exhibits and
advertisements of domestic modernity; first with moderate depictions of “living
within our means” designed to inculcate collectivism, and following the
transition to market socialism in 1965, with steadily more luxurious depictions
of larger houses.
Le Normand’s examination of historical documents covering
the reconstruction of Belgrade as the dust began to settle from World War II is
a case study in contradiction. Urban planners were motivated to materialize
conditions of more egalitarian living standards immediately following the war
through infrastructural redevelopment (following the Athens Charter, whose
primary architect Le Corbusier was tirelessly devoted to the fantasy of
capitalism as a force for egalitarianism). For instance, Le Normand notes that
New Belgrade is perhaps the only city in the Eastern bloc that had envisions
worker’s housing at the center. However, Le Normand argues that, where other
scholars attributed the failure of modernist urban planning to materialize
egalitarian conditions of better living to an inherently alienating quality in
the architectural forms themselves (e.g. towering residential areas, “functional”
divisions that instantiate and literally concretize hierarchies, apparatuses
designed to render subjects “legible”), Le Normand argues instead that the
failure to realize the utopian visions of New Belgrade was a consequence of a
loss of support among “decision makers” (pg. xiii). Where Le Normand frequently
takes Scott (1998) to task for an overly dichotomous view of the state, Designing Tito’s Capital gives a more
mundane and rhizomatic account of modernist imaginaries that appear to simply
succumb to exhaustion, that never entirely “get off the ground” as sources of political
support and funding frequently fail to materialize.
With the final chapter, I grew increasingly curious as to
the extensions of cybernetics theory as a foundation in civilizing technologies.
Le Normand suggests that the asymmetrical collaboration with Wayne State U to
model more effective and decentralized infrastructural approaches to
transportation infrastructure with increasingly dense traffic was primarily “window
dressing,” a technological transfer used to firm up political support for an entirely new master plan under a façade of “science.” Anthropologist Michael Fisch (2013) similarly
examined the decentralized restructuring of commuter train networks in Japan
via cybernetics and systems theories. Amidst rising rates of suicide and
suicide-by-train under protracted conditions of socio-economic precarity, Fisch
demonstrates the techno-social logics by which engineers deploy cybernetics to
construct “smart” train network infrastructures guided by a self-regulating
state of “emergence” and able to effectively predict and adjust for delays as a
consequence of suicides, to normalize and to regulate the irregularity of
suicide (announced over train intercoms as jinshin
jiko – delays as a consequence of “[human] body accidents”). Fisch suggests
that the “corporealization” of the “smart” train network potentially “encourages
the experience of commuter suicides as a necessary and recursive process of
metabolic renewal within a totalizing system” (Fisch 2013:340).
Connecting this theme back to Le Normand’s discussion of rogue
builders in “Planning Undone” (and recognizing that influence from cybernetics
came several years later) I want to consider more deeply how imaginaries of modernity
were mobilized in New Belgrade to configure particular modes of “habitation” as
systemically incompatible with the materialization of a “modern” city – despite
claims to egalitarianism. Is this process of ideological exhaustion something that we feel, after reading the text, like Le
Normand feels is in some ways endemic to the process by which “modernity” moves
from design to implementation?
OMG! Planning on suicide...that paints a very different picture of urban planning
ReplyDeleteAlso the idea that suicide is a predicted outcome of the economic system/situation--it really drives home the original idea for urban design to maximize productive and economic flow
Deletehttp://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-base-jumpers-dead-big-sur-bridge-20160126-story.html
ReplyDeleteAs per our conversation today, Infrastructure as adventure turns deadly: BASE jumping from bridges
On another kind of jumper (story about the GG Bridge from the New Yorker -- apologies for the gruesome topic!):
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers