Ideology is messing up with Urbanism

Walking around countless cities around the world, you can see what kind of systems and forces influence decisions and determine actions.

Currently, there is a cultural and social diversity in the city that has been explored by authentic professionals of ideology and indoctrination.

The enormous problems and challenges we all (some more than others) experience on a daily basis, whether in transportation, employment, housing, security, etc., are mediatic scenarios for influencers and other urban intelligence gurus who assume without discussion that they are the only truth holders and the solution providers for them.

Although there is no debate outside the political-parties context on most of the above, there is still a superbly arrogant pseudo-ownership of those who use them as ideological and doctrinal positioning tools.

When in 2015 Richard Florida launched his essay on the Creative Class, countless followers rejoiced at this “relevant” condition of mixing creative with intelligence but neglecting (as Florida overlooked) the endemic cultural, social and human aspects of this boom-driven movement that turned into liberal and wild sharing economy.

There is a plan in town that doesn't work within the rules. The plan of the city itself as a vibrant organism of life, desire, success, decay, exaggeration, and death. When sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, historians, and other experts on human constraints in the dynamics of progress and decline analyze and observe a city, they are eventually influenced and conditioned by their own ideological genetics. The same happens when urban planners, architects, and engineers assume themselves as preponderant in the design of solutions and strategies for cities. Much of what they shred is neither neutral nor independent. Nor could it be otherwise. There are humans thinking, designing, observing, and deciding cities, so mixing with politics is inevitable, and it is up to governments to carry out the electoral suffrage program.

In the opposite direction are the citizens who are confronted with the usual setbacks I mentioned at the outset. If a family can't afford decent housing in the city center where they work and eventually has to move to the suburbs, everyone shrugs their shoulders and resign themselves to justification with “the market” that works and gives chances all the same. The "investor" market or the city of Ferrari and Lamborghinis, golden Visas and other resident-money-driven-schemes.

The recent measures taken by the city of Barcelona to limit Airbnb-based tourist accommodation to tackle mass and wild tourism; Berlin's recent move to set a housing rent ceiling are just examples of measures by two cities ruled by the "left", but in fact, all the others (of whatever ideology they are) are also announcing. And announcing is very different from doing. The truth is that Barcelona has exchanged action centered on technological development for the rhetoric of rights that has so far been ineffective. In Portugal, for example, millions of investments are announced to create more affordable housing for citizens, students, etc. But we still are in the basic prelaminar and the gift is already quite dramatic for families. So why not solve the problem once and for all?

Buzzwords are ruining our cities

Because there is the blame, the political cycles and the perpetual debates in favor of the oppressed and now also climate change.

We want our cities to be competitive, environmentally sustainable and inclusive. Cities that foster the cultural, social and economic progress of those who inhabit them. But the challenges are immense because this ideal of development is always accompanied by the other side of the coin: insecurity and violence, poverty, inequality, stress and other “bad” symptoms of liberal prosperity.

But the analysis of the present is also limiting, and history indicates that change occurs, cycles renew themselves even if the problems remain more or less the same.

The biggest challenge for cities today is maintaining the ideological balance in order to ensure equal opportunities among citizens. A city like Lisbon, for example, where practically only tourists, wealthy classes, foreign millionaires middle-high classes can live in it, has the great challenge of preventing the ideological doctrine that originates precisely in privileged classes and flourishes in exactly the opposite quadrant that can be effective actions in reducing inequalities and approaching extremes.

For now, we see around the world that larger cities end up having shorter cycles, while smaller ones have a longer ruling.

In both situations, the city planners are the same. The class dedicated to evangelizing and indoctrinating a more cultural, environmentally sustainable, creative and participatory city is provided with ideology and promotes indoctrination. Cities cynically accept this detail because of media agendas and political marketing, but unfortunately, the problems aren’t being solved and where solutions are sought outside the ideological sphere we succumb to political and partisan conflict.

The ideal development of the city involves abdicating ideological urbanism and taking responsibility for leading disruptive projects. It also involves the transparent integration of investors and inclusive projects of all kinds, but without brands or labels. Projects that are actually participated by more diverse and diverse groups that are very different from the current ones in which “usual” are left for sessions and meetings and, finally, for photography.

The ideal city is not "the most luxurious one". It is not "the most creative" or happy. It is neither the most solidary nor the prosperous. The ideal city is the one that fronts its weaknesses and ensures that its citizens are able to overcome them without losing identity or quality of life. (To be continued)