Redirecting the City?

Reinmuth, G

Redirecting the City?

Reinmuth, G

Permalink

Publisher:: Springer Nature
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Contemporary Urban Design Thinking, 2019, Part F9, pp. 95-117
Issue Date:: 2019-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Contemporary+Urban+Design+Thinking.pdf		26.77 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Reinmuth, G https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7234-0168
dc.date.accessioned	2024-01-14T23:15:18Z
dc.date.available	2024-01-14T23:15:18Z
dc.date.issued	2019-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	Contemporary Urban Design Thinking, 2019, Part F9, pp. 95-117
dc.identifier.isbn	9783319919492
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/174414
dc.description.abstract	In framing the inaugural Seoul Biennale of Architecture and Urbanism, Co-Curators Hyungmin Pai and Alejandro Zaera-Polo suggest “the cities of the world stand at a crossroads.” Calling for a new urban cosmology within which to think through the distribution of the “emerging commons” they suggest are imperative to fairly organise and distribute to avoid inequality and environmental decay. This call comes from an acute awareness of the incapacity of current political and economic systems to address fundamental risks to the planet such as climate change and ever-increasing inequity among its inhabitants. Debate rages between the assertion that engaging in current political and economic frameworks can only result in the reproduction of the inequities upon which they are based, and the alternate view that perhaps these current structures might be re-appropriated to different ends. The discipline of architecture can surely be called upon as a key instrument in this project, but for two conceptual barriers – a resolution on the matter of engagement with existing structures, and a rethinking of the discipline that might trigger new professional formations more suitable to this task than the profession of architecture as it is currently constituted. I will explore, by example, a specific apparatus that attempts to navigate the disciplinary and governmental impasse that sits before us. The context for thinking through the opportunities for and limitations of this apparatus is foregrounded by bodies of scholarship across two separate but interrelated themes: the replacement of politics by management (Ranciere, Zizek, Morton etc); and a consideration of the professional anxieties of the discipline of architecture as it pertains to this political condition (Harvey, Cunningham, Swyendouw, Lahiji, Deamer et al.).
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Springer Nature
dc.relation.ispartof	Contemporary Urban Design Thinking
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Contemporary Urban Design Thinking
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/978-3-319-91950-8_5
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	Redirecting the City?
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.citation.volume	Part F9
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Architecture
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCDP - Contemporary Design Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-01-14T23:15:14Z
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	Part F9

Abstract:

In framing the inaugural Seoul Biennale of Architecture and Urbanism, Co-Curators Hyungmin Pai and Alejandro Zaera-Polo suggest “the cities of the world stand at a crossroads.” Calling for a new urban cosmology within which to think through the distribution of the “emerging commons” they suggest are imperative to fairly organise and distribute to avoid inequality and environmental decay. This call comes from an acute awareness of the incapacity of current political and economic systems to address fundamental risks to the planet such as climate change and ever-increasing inequity among its inhabitants. Debate rages between the assertion that engaging in current political and economic frameworks can only result in the reproduction of the inequities upon which they are based, and the alternate view that perhaps these current structures might be re-appropriated to different ends. The discipline of architecture can surely be called upon as a key instrument in this project, but for two conceptual barriers – a resolution on the matter of engagement with existing structures, and a rethinking of the discipline that might trigger new professional formations more suitable to this task than the profession of architecture as it is currently constituted. I will explore, by example, a specific apparatus that attempts to navigate the disciplinary and governmental impasse that sits before us. The context for thinking through the opportunities for and limitations of this apparatus is foregrounded by bodies of scholarship across two separate but interrelated themes: the replacement of politics by management (Ranciere, Zizek, Morton etc); and a consideration of the professional anxieties of the discipline of architecture as it pertains to this political condition (Harvey, Cunningham, Swyendouw, Lahiji, Deamer et al.).

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/174414