Our common futures in cities
- Seminar: Cradle of Diversity
- 736, Dec, 2020: p.64-70
How can we imagine our common futures in cities? Is it possible to create cities that provide space for all to realize their interests and with respect to nature? Does the idea of urban commons hold the possibility of creating such a future?
Both urban commons and urban futures are open categories imbued with political overtones. The term common/commoners connote different meanings such as ‘typical’, ‘confirming to rule’, normal, ordinary, and ‘belonging to all’. The paradoxical tendencies of normalization, homogenization, control as well as possibilities of sharing, collaboration and openness that can benefit all, are inherent in the meaning of the term. Similarly, a list of terminologies is in circulation about our urban futures such as sustainable cities, equitable, and smart cities. The idea of smart cities for example, is dominantly conceptualized as a futuristic technological city, ordered by a homogenous grid that can be monitored and disciplined. Alternatively, a smart city could be imagined as a city of freedom where multiplicity of activities and actors can flourish.
While the idea of urban commons holds a promise for creating a just and equitable city, its potential lies in the political possibility of building our cities where multiple tendencies can flourish. A city is inhabited by people with competing interests and needs and it manifests as contestation over the claims to the city’s land, water, and built environment. Who has the right to the city’s land and infrastructure? Who are the legitimate users of our parks, streets, and lakes? In these struggles the rhetoric of commons and legality are often mobilized to enclave nature and protect it from some groups in society, as exemplified by the collective action to defend lakes and parks in our cities. The elite and middle class often appropriate the role of custodians of nature, which is to be protected from the riff-raff and poorer groups in society.1 The urban commons conceptualized as a homogenous resources or a city with a singular future may be exclusionary.
An understanding of commons as threshold spaces provides an opening for reclaiming the commons for creating city spaces where multiple tendencies can flourish. The urban commons is not an apriori object,3 but a constructed space, constituted through everyday interaction of individuals and groups who come together for a shared purpose or interest. Its production is geared towards achieving a political effect.4 As threshold spaces, commons can facilitate the flows of inside and outside. The flow of people and ideas made possible by threshold spaces allow for collaborative work and creativity to thrive. Threshold spaces have the potential to erode boundaries, albeit slowly, to connect and compare adjoining areas.- Reproduced