Homoginator Part 3

31 01 2013

Image

Over time the people of of the city adapted to the new way of life and no longer used the Homogenous Zones. Their new lives had meaning and the people were connected with each other and with their city. They were proud of who they were and where they lived.

The Homoginator tried to feed on the new programs of the city but found them difficult to quantify. There were so many activities and people operated independently from one another but with one another. The Homoginator was unable to find a foothold in this new dynamic milieu. This lack of control infuriated the Homoginator. No city had been able to circumvent its control before.

The power it wasted trying to convert each new unique part of the city was draining the Homoginator, it began to control less of the city and started losing power. More gaps appeared that were then filled with newer, more dynamic programs further reducing the stranglehold of the Homoginator. The Homoginator soon shut down, its irrelevance complete. The people had regained their city.

The city had been unbuilt in the time of the Homoginator, requiring a social change on a city wide scale to rebuild the city[1]. The urban form became more a part of its society, not a product of society to be sold, the city changes with society over time. The city now has more layers, not a fixed location, the urban form as well as the people are included. The city is no longer just a small group of hyped up surface differentiations from other ‘competitor’ cities[2].

The newly re-found city has no singular branding plan with the sole purpose of bringing people and money to the city as it had under the influence of the Homoginator. The city though has become known for its depth of character, its unwillingness to be defined.

People the world over began to be drawn to the new and evolving urban spaces of the new city. With new urban space available, new programming options are sought and found in societies traditional ‘other’. Ideas and programs succeed and fail; there are challenges, differences of opinion, the perception of change has changed.

Opening itself up to all people and redefined what it is to be an urban society, reinstating meaning into the cities urban form. A city of collaboration, a people and city truly engaged with each other. The narrative of place in the reclaimed city became open ended.

The draw of the city became the ability of residents and visitors to be part of a new evolving vision every day, to imagine the city in new and dynamic ways. As had happened in Rio years before, the streetscapes of the city were activated and became continuous artistic elements, the space in between became its own attraction.   The abandoned refinery, overgrown with plant life, was given new life as a giant maze and hiding place for children. Place making in the city involved storytelling as much as any physical alteration made by its inhabitants. The act of creation and re-creation of spaces into places then enhanced people’s association with those places[3].

The turning back of the Homoginator was the start of a new age of cities, cities retaken by the people, freed from the encroachment of corporatised banality and meaningless urban spaces. The city had come to stand alone at the vanguard of future cities, iconic, comfortable in its skin. Its dynamic sense of identity and place is understood by its inhabitants, a beacon to what a city can be.

By breaking free of the Homoginator, the city had broken away from traditional, generic urban concepts of space and form that only reinforce out-dated, historical power structures. The new city embraced the other. The city had become truly unique.

By reclaiming the city, an alternate vision of a modern city was spread throughout the world, inspiring other people to rise up and take ownership of their urban space. The city became known as a place of the people, a people who had retaken control over their urban space and valued their unique city.

The Homoginator’s attempt to Homogenise the city had failed. Junkspace was reprogrammed and became a monument to the time of the Homoginator. The people wanted to remember the presence of the Homoginator, it had given them so much. Without its intervention the people would never have begun to truly engage with their city and to accept difference and understand each other. Though no single defining Iconic object had been built, through the engagement of the people with their city the city had become Iconic.

 

References:

•             Baltan Laboratories. (2009, 09 21). Retrieved 04 17, 2011, from Baltan Laboratories: http://www.baltanlaboratories.org/?p=1186

•             Carr, E. H. (2008). What is History? London: Penguin Books.

•             De Botton, A. (2010). The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

•             Friends of the High Line. (n.d.). Retrieved 04 17, 2011, from The official Web site of the High Line and Friends of the High Line: http://www.thehighline.org/news

•             Holt, D. B. (2004). How Brands Become Icons. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

•             Keller, K. L. (2008). Best Practice Cases In Branding: Lessons from the worlds strongest brands. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

•             Kennedy, J. F. (1963). Ich bin ein Berliner. Speeches that changed the world. (S. S. Montefiore, Ed.) London: Murdoch Books.

•             Klingmann, A. (2007). Marketing without Marketeers. Cambridge Massachusets & London: MIT Press.

•             Koolhaas, R. (1995). The Generic City. In R. Koolhaas, & B. Mau, S, M, L, XL (pp. 1248-1257, 1260-1264). New York: The Monacelli Press.

•             Koolhaas, R. (2002, Spring). Junkspace. Obsolescence, October, Vol. 100, pp. 175-190

•             moderndesigninterior. (2011, 03 06). Modern Design Interior. Retrieved 04 17, 2011, from http://www.moderndesigninterior.com/2011/03/copacabana-beach-boardwalk.html

•             Philo, C., & Kearns, G. (1993). Culture, History, Capital: A Critical Introduction to the Selling of Places. In G. Kearns, & C. Philo (Eds.), Selling Places: The City as Cultual Capital, Past and Present (pp. 1-29). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press Ltd.

•             Saieh, N. (2010, 03 21). Retrieved 04 17, 2011, from Arch Daily: http://www.archdaily.com/53348/indemann-maurer-united-architects/

•             Shane, G. (2004, Fall-Winter). The Emergence of Landscape Urbanism. Harvard Design Magazine, pp. 1-8.

•             Tudor, B. (2008). Local Lookouts as Places of Belonging and Escape. In F. Vanclay, M. Higgins, & A. Blackshaw (Eds.), Making Sense of Place (pp. 221-227). Canberra: National Museum of Australia.

•             Vanclay, F. (2008). Place Matters. In F. Vanclay, M. Higgins, & A. Blackshaw (Eds.), Making Sense of Place (pp. 3-12). Canberra: National Museum of Australia.


[1] Shane, G. (2004, Fall-Winter). The Emergence of Landscape Urbanism. Harvard Design Magazine, pp. 1-8. p 7. Shane raises the idea that social change cannot be achieved through design mantras and interventions into the urban form alone. Social justice and equity need to be part of any solution to any true improvement in urban society.

[2] Philo, C., & Kearns, G. (1993). Culture, History, Capital: A Critical Introduction to the Selling of Places. In G. Kearns, & C. Philo (Eds.), Selling Places: The City as Cultual Capital, Past and Present (pp. 1-29). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press Ltd. p 20.

[3] Vanclay, F. (2008). Place Matters. In F. Vanclay, M. Higgins, & A. Blackshaw (Eds.), Making Sense of Place (pp. 3-12). Canberra: National Museum of Australia.

Advertisements







%d bloggers like this: