Sara Zaman

At first glance, attaching the word “imaginary” to the urban, and as a consequence, to the concrete notions of macro-level urban planning and micro-level architecture, may seem like unwieldy theoretical jargon at best. At worst, it risks that we do not take urban planning seriously, as practical design of land use is perceived as a fantastical worldbuilding exercise. And yet, it is exactly in the realm of the imaginary that individuals and communities envision their future, based on experiences that are shared (or critically, sometimes not shared).

The development and popularization of the imaginary as relevant for urban planning took place over the course of the 20th century, during which time urban theorists such as Michel de Certeau noted the disparities between the goals of urban planners and those of everyday residents of urban spaces (Linder and Meissner, 2019). Citing that urban planners focused heavily on the visual of the city, and what remains visible from a top-town perspective, de Certeau (and later Lefebvre) argued that this privileged position stifles the senses and perspectives of everyday street life, such as sounds and smells (ibid.). The urban imaginaries in these cases have the power of defining which shared memories take precedent when deciding upon shared goals for the future.

Some argue that we indeed suffer from a limit to modern social imagination, and that society’s ability to envision a better future is constrained by crisis narratives (Mulgan, 2020). Mulgan presents some practical consequences of not nourishing the ability of people to envision a better future, as individuals’ perceived and real lack of agency circumscribes the critical mass necessary for positive change to take place. In the context of urban planning, this often means that certain powerful discourses fill gaps where bottom-up movements do not take place (for example, that of the techno-centric utopian smart city, or the ability of businesses to mend urban social problems) (Cardullo and Kitchin, 2019; Grossi and Pianezzi, 2017).

What means do we have to move forward, as researchers and individuals both urban and rural? On top of the Sisyphean task of transforming our relationships with nature in the face of ongoing climate disasters, a global pandemic, local and international inequality, the urban and social imaginary also seems to be a keystone that cannot be ignored. However, the potential for the urban imaginary to radically alter the way cities unfold, while addressing justice, social inequalities, and environmental degradation, is too great an opportunity to pass up. Social representations are at once imaginative and performative (Zanoni et al., 2017); the perception of the academic as someone focused on scholarly output limits the potential for alternative practices. Expanding the boundaries of how urban residents perceive themselves in the city and their autonomy to create change can aid in a co-created urban future. It is hoped that we can begin to re-imagine a city, and world, that operates based on community needs.

References

Cardullo, Paolo, and Rob Kitchin. “Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’smart cities in Europe.” Environment and planning C: politics and space 37.5 (2019): 813-830.

Grossi, Giuseppe, and Daniela Pianezzi. “Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology?.” Cities 69 (2017): 79-85.

Lindner, Christoph, and Miriam Meissner. “Introduction: Urban imaginaries in theory and practice.” The Routledge Companion to Urban Imaginaries. Routledge, 2018. 1-22.

Mulgan, G. “The Imaginary Crisis (and how we might quicken social and public imagination).” UCL Science, Technology, Eengineering & Public Policy Working Paper Series (2020).

Zanoni, Patrizia, et al. “Post-capitalistic politics in the making: The imaginary and praxis of alternative economies.” (2017): 575-588.