Dr. Krzysztof Nawratek. Photo by Joanna Erbel
I am pleased
to interview Dr Krzysztof Nawratek who is lecturer in architecture, Master of
Architecture programme leader at the Plymouth University, UK, who would like to
describe himself as an urban theorist or meta-urbanist rather than architect.
Today, we
will focus on his book Holes in the Whole Introduction to the urban revolutions, a book on a new urban ontology, the
alternative vision of future cities development that combines subjects as
criticism, analysis, and helps us to reflect about the cities of today.
- Are you afraid that culture is
not produced any more in cities? In other words, did we become very
popular in our “cultural” tastes?
K. N. Culture
definitely is still produced in cities, my concern is that there is nothing
else produced in European cities. Most European cities are post-industrial, but
they are only 'post', because there is nothing industrial about them anymore.
For last 30 years urbanists and policy makers tried to fill the gap after
industry collapsed (empty factories and idle working class) with cultural
industry and services. I am afraid they failed. The other problem is, that –
obviously – culture increasingly could be (and is) produced out of the urban
context. Therefore, in my opinion, contemporary city (let's say – European
city) lost its reason to exist.
- Do you think that the last
developments based on New Urbanism theories have also failed?
K.N. Yes, I think so. New Urbanism was an interesting attempt to fix some
failures of Modern Movements, but to be honest, I have much more respect to
Modernism than to New Urbanism. New Urbanism created towns, not cities. This
movement is – in my opinion – just a naive and reactionary attempt to turn back
time. Obviously, I agree that humanistic agenda of New Urbanism still has
something to offer, something to be discussed, but New Urbanism is not able to
give an answer to the crisis of contemporary cities.
- In your opinion, which is the
best example of localities? Should we say “racial localities”?
K.N. I am very
suspicious about localities, especially any kind of ethnic districts or – even
more – lifestyle communities. I am a 'prophet' of a city as an universal
narrative, city as a polyphonic but coherent story, therefore I am against
fragmentation. However, I do respect the value of local identities, local
narratives but they must be in a dialog with others. Ghetto – it doesn't matter
if we have in mind ghetto of poor or rich people – it is always a tragedy for
the city.
- I see localities, fragmentations,
beginning at High School, as natural processes. Is there any way to avoid
fragmentations in cities with immigrants from around the world?
K.N.I think we
need to clearly define the difference between fragmentation and differentiation
in cities. There is nothing wrong with fragments of the city having different
identity, based on different values (ethnic, esthetic etc.). The problem starts
when these fragments are clearly separated from other parts of the city. In my
book I often talk about hybrid subject. I define it as an autonomous subject,
but strongly conditioned by external factors. So we need to see localities as
hybrid subjects – they have their own identity, but they are not separated from
the rest of the city.
- What’s your own definition on
Zygmunt Bauman’s liquid city?
K. N. My main
concern is a diminishing of cities subjectivity – contemporary cities are
mostly pools of labour, they are fields to be exploited by global corporations,
they are not political subjects, they are not able to govern their own
territory. There is an obvious conflict between fluidity of deterritorialised
global capital and locally fixed cities. They can't go anywhere – people can
migrate (however in many cases they don't want to) but buildings, roads,
infrastructure - can't. It makes cities a potential frontier of anti-capitalist
struggle.
.jpg)
Above: Dr Nawratek with students. Photos by Plymouth University.
- What’s the role of social
networks in the liquid city?
K. N. It is a very
interesting issue, because I see social networks (I mean social networks in
much wider meaning than just facebook or any online community) in some kind of
contrast to social capital. Social capital is based on traditional, strong
social bonds, social networks are much more flexible. Being member of any
church or trade union really strongly define who you are and with what kind of
people you interact. Social capital is often very exclusive. Social networks
are in general more inclusive and 'weaker'. But I think they provide a similar
to social capital safety net in contemporary liquid city. I think it is too
early to say, but maybe our future society will be much more flexible and
fluid, based on weaker, more inclusive social connections. If so, we will need
probably much stronger institutions to support this society – as we need
facebook to support a particular set of social networks.
- Sometimes I feel that we,
architects do not have enough freedom for our creativity, so restricted we
are under the “design guidelines.”
How do you feel about it?
K. N. I do love
restrictions! I do believe norms and guidelines could play extremely positive
role. It is an illusion that guidelines are architects 'enemies'. Architects
are first of all slaves of clients, very often of 'shark-developers'. Design
guidelines could help architects to defend a fundamental quality of their
design. Design guidelines or norms are also part of our modernism's legacy,
they represent the belief in universalism. I am an universalist, so I like
them.
- There are many cases where
planners do not work with architects as a team. Should planners restrict
architects’ criteria?
K. N. Yes and no.
The tension between different actors during design process could be helpful,
it could make design stronger and
better. But as I said, I would rather prefer universal guidelines over strong
planners. Planners and architects should work together, as equal members of a
team.
- Is it a real advantage for
planners and architects to work with participative design?
K. N. Participative
design is a very difficult and challenging way of work, but if we believe that
democracy is better than authoritarian system, then we should work towards
fully participative design model.
- And what is your solution to help
in each other’s understanding in participative design?
K. N. In my book I
introduce an idea of 'border/institution'. It is a special type of institution,
defined solely by its function which is to – in the same moment – to protect
and support a local subjectivity and to negotiate between different subjects,
different interests, different needs. This type of institution has power and is
absolutely powerless in the same time. I do trust people but I strongly believe
that an institutional context must exist to support (sustain) mutual
understanding needed in participative design.
- Can we isolate ourselves and have
our own private space in the public space? I mean, in a psychological
context?
K. N. In my book I
challenge the idea of public (and also private) space. This idea is too
strongly connected with the idea of ownership. Our existence in space is based
on different principles – we are using a space, we are attached (also
emotionally) to certain spaces. Ownership is not fundamental here. I prefer to
talk about space or interaction and intimate space. When you sit in a park on a
bench (public park and public bench) the space you occupy at this particular
moment is your own intimate space. So where are you? In public or private
space? Or if you in your own bedroom browsing an internet and breathing fresh
air from the park nearby – are you really in absolute private space? I think
this typology of private-public spaces is just useless to really understand
contemporary urban condition.
- In this context, what’s the
function of the body in the city?
K. N. Well... First
of all we, as humans, exist in our bodies, therefore any city, as a material
entity, must be designed to fulfill our bodies' needs. But there is something
more about bodies in a context of knowledge based economy and city – I think
that bodies produce and transfer knowledge. Production is obvious, but I think
it is interesting to see human body as media
– like newspapers or internet – to transfer information. In a context of
'smart city' idea, I think it would be an interesting direction to investigate.
- You remind me of a Bradbury’s
story, “ No particular night or morning,”
where the main character wanted too much space, nothing above,
nothing on top, that’s why he travels to the outer space; for him, cities
were not real if he couldn’t live in them, and when he thinks his body is
the only proof of his existence, he decides he won’t exist anymore… So, do
we need proof of our existences in the material cities? Or our memories
and information are enough?
K. N. As long as we
have bodies we need the material cities. In this story the main character is
rejecting his body as he is rejecting cities, stars, other people. It is kind
of solipsistic fixation, it is interesting and sometimes could be
intellectually inspiring, but for urbanists it is rather useless or even
dangerous. It doesn't mean of course, that our memories are not important – on
the contrary, they are, but they are also, very often, connected with material
artifacts, with other bodies... We are not angels, we need roads, buildings,
sewage systems...
- Would you briefly explain the
metaphor of “Holes in the Whole” ?
K.N. Firstly, it
refers to the intuitive understanding of space without clearly defined purpose,
a left-over space, an in-between space like belt of grass by the roadside,
remnants of an unfinished investment, abandoned amusement park, bankrupt mall,
etc. It also refers to potentiality of these spaces.
Secondly, it
refers to the Emil Cioran's understanding of 'void' as a no-being interrupting
the continuity of existence. For Cioran 'void' has rather functional than
ontological significance – it is important what void does (it interferes,
interrupts and blocks) rather than what it is.
Thirdly,
'hole' refers to the idea of 'void' within the meaning of Alain Badiou, as the
Real beyond Representation.
Therefore the
'hole' is an excess, not an absence. Excess/surplus without a language to be
described – included into any narrative. 'Hole in the whole' is then
(partially) virtual space awaiting for its actualization. This 'hole' is a very
real space, no one could call it the hole until the new language is able to
include it into the urban narrative. However, we are not dealing with a passive
waiting for the event, which we will be able to 'entrust', but rather with the
challenge of 'creative freedom' – the language for which must be created.
Excess/surplus of the 'hole in the whole' is therefore the task of finding a
new narrative and the new application. One can imagine the 'hole' as a limited
territory - a special economic (or social or political) zone, or maybe a city -
as an experiment.
- Which are your best expectations
for a “good city” ?
K. N. Good and full
life for everybody! It should have elements of security (also economic security
– I do believe in right to accommodation/house as a basic human right) and
excitement, it must help people to be together but in the same time it must
protect their privacy. It should be a territory where different subjects are in
constant dialog, territory open for experimentation. Good city is a polyphonic
universal narrative and all its inhabitants are part of it.
M. Thank you
so much Dr. Nawratek, it’s been a pleasure.
