Redevelopment Projects in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes

Journal of Urban Affairs ISSN: 0735-2166 (Print) 1467-9906 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujua20 Cities as story: Redevelopment projects in authoritarian and hybrid regimes Dorina Pojani To cite this article: Dorina Pojani (2017): Cities as story: Redevelopment projects in authoritarian and hybrid regimes, Journal of Urban Affairs, DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2017.1360737 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360737 Published online: 22 Nov 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujua20 Download by: [UQ Library] Date: 24 November 2017, At: 23:27 JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360737 Cities as story: Redevelopment projects in authoritarian and hybrid regimes Dorina Pojani The University of Queensland ABSTRACT In the past decade, so-called hybrid regimes—authoritarian regimes in the guise of democracy—have emerged in Europe. Similar to the authoritarian or totalitarian regimes of 20th-century Europe, the association between urban design and politics is evident in the capital cities of hybrid regimes. This article recounts the stories of the recently proposed and/or completed redevelopment projects in the centers of Istanbul (Turkey), Skopje (Macedonia), and Tirana (Albania). In all 3 capitals, the interventions have been rather contentious, and have produced violent protests in the case of Turkey and Macedonia. The author has collected and presented the stories of the users of these three city centers and their reactions to these spaces before and after redevelopment. Users’ narratives bring to light elements of the situations and the characters involved that have so far been implicit. Conceptualizing urban planning through storytelling is meant to bring an element of Balkan magic realism into this field, which historically has been dominated by theories produced in the Anglosphere. In the past decade, so-called hybrid regimes—authoritarian regimes in the guise of democracy—have emerged in European countries, including Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, much of the Western Balkans, and Turkey. These regimes are engaged in a remake of their place identity in order to legitimize their new political trajectories (Traynor, 2013). The association between urban design and politics is clearly evident in capitals or other major cities. This article recounts the stories of the recently proposed and/or completed redevelopment projects in the centers of Istanbul (Turkey), Skopje (Macedonia), and Tirana (Albania). In all three cities, the interventions have been rather contentious, and have produced violent protests in the case of Turkey and Macedonia. Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 23:27 24 November 2017 However, the article goes beyond the discussion of the political forces propelling forward certain designs and the spatial outcomes of those designs—a task already carried out by other scholars, as well as journalists and reporters. The author has collected and presented the stories of the users of these three city centers and their reactions to these spaces before and after redevelopment. Their narratives bring to light elements of the situations and the involved characters that have so far been implicit. Users report those features of these events that are relevant according to their perspectives on the world. Given that different social groups have different perspectives, this compilation is crucial to comprehend the full dynamic of the events surrounding the redevelopment of these three centers. It might also speak to the experiences of people in other European hybrid states. Perhaps it could act as a catalyst for change. Conceptualizing “the urban” through storytelling is meant to bring an element of Balkan magic realism into this field, which historically has been dominated by theories produced in the Anglosphere. CONTACT Dorina Pojani [email protected] School Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia Campus 35 (Chamberlain), 4th Floor, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujua. © 2017 Urban Affairs Association 2 D. POJANI The article opens with a discussion of city center design issues in authoritarian and hybrid regimes. This is followed by a historical overview of the three case study cities and the events surrounding the redevelopment projects of their centers. The third part discusses the theoretical conceptualization of the study and the data collection method, which consists of a specific technique, called narrative interviewing. The remainder of the article presents the analysis of the interview data, which is placed in the context of literary theory, in particular as it relates to Balkan folklore. City centers in authoritarian and hybrid regimes Throughout history, urban design has served the causes of political leaders, whether monarchs, premiers, or mayors (Tuan, 1989; Jenkins, 1999). In recent history (i.e., the 20th century), the association between urban design and politics was evident in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes from both sides of the political spectrum. Like dictatorship itself, totalitarian urban design was set to dominate over the masses. As such, dictatorships attached a great degree of ideological significance to the built environment. Substantial political propaganda surrounded all construction. A common thread was the effort to emphasize the iconic significance of capital cities, especially their centers, as foci of state power and national unity. Another common thread was an obsession with sheer size, symmetry, and literal iconography: five-point stars, swastikas, axes. Idolatry was another device used to frighten the public into submissiveness (e.g., the Nazi Blutfahne in Nurenberg or the mummified corpse of Lenin in Moscow). Through awe-inspiring symbols, the “masses” were induced to fuse into a single, colossal, and homogeneous human (Arendt, 1958). The destruction of built tissue associated with preceding political regimes was also de rigueur (Abensour, 1997; Arendt, 1958; Miller Lane, 1968; Nizan, 1934; Sudjic, 2005; van der Wusten, 2000). Notwithstanding these common features, the aesthetic codes adopted by 20th-century authoritarian regimes varied. Modernized neoclassicism—logical, heroic, sanitized, permanent—was employed for the official buildings and public spaces of the Third Reich as a reminder of Aryan racial superiority. Symmetry, austerity, and monumentality were meant to intimate discipline and author- ity (Dick, 1984; Miller Lane, 1968). Even building materials were loaded with symbolism. Spanish Falangists favored stone, granite, and concrete. Spanish dictator Francisco Franco associated these materials with the perceived historical sources of the New Spain, the Roman and Hapsburg empires, and the ideal of a technically functional nation (Muoz-Rojas, 2009). Italy’s Benito Mussolini, on the other hand, adopted avant-garde rationalism as the official style of fascist Italy, with the intention of liberating people from the bonds to a traditional past (Baxa, 1968; Millon, 1978). Glamorous socialist classicism (an eclectic combination of neoclassicism and Art Deco) was adopted in the Soviet Union and its satellites during Joseph Stalin’s rule (Colton, 1995; McKernan, 2009; Popescu 2009). Stalinist Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 23:27 24 November 2017 style was later condemned by Nikita Khrushchev as excessive and anachronistic, and was replaced by massive functional modernism. Communist countries independent from the Soviet Union showed a similar monomania. In the early 1980s in Bucharest, Communist leader Nicolae Ceauşescu razed an entire neighborhood to build a 1,000-room People’s House (Sudjic, 2005). After the fall of the Berlin Wall, much of Europe remained haunted by the specter of totalitarian pasts. The “transition” that ensued was marked by corruption, economic polarization, and privatiza- tion. Hopeful posttotalitarian societies turned increasingly cynical and disillusioned. For many, religion and its absolutist discourse were the only available recourse at this apocalyptic, meaningless time (Kolozova, 2015). Urban design in many capitals showed signs of lingering ideologies. The case of Berlin, which saw substantial construction in the late 1990s, is illustrative. In the words of one commentator (Marcuse, 1998, pp. 333–334): What is being constructed in Berlin can certainly be called meaning; but it can also be called by its short name: power. [. .] Framing the issues in architectural, or in representational terms, concedes the ball game before it is begun. The issues are power and its uses, wealth and its uses; framing the debate as one about form trivializes the issues, trivializes the history, serves to distract attention (perhaps deliberately?) from the underlying decisions. JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS 3 In the new millennium, it became apparent that a number of European states had settled into so- called hybrid regimes, as noted. Labels applied to hybrid regimes include electoral authoritarianism, market-based autocracy, neopatrimonialism, patronal presidentialism, and illiberal democracy. Russia represents the paradigmatic model of the European hybrid regime. At various degrees, the model is present in countries that are already part of the union, including Hungary, the Czech Republic, and

Load more