From Smart to Rebel City? Worlding, Provincialising and the Barcelona
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Special issue article: Worlding smart cities: Towards global comparative research Urban Studies 1–20 From smart to rebel city? Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2019 Article reuse guidelines: Worlding, provincialising sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0042098019872119 and the Barcelona Model journals.sagepub.com/home/usj Greig Charnock The University of Manchester, UK Hug March Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Ramon Ribera-Fumaz Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Abstract This article examines the evolution of the ‘Barcelona Model’ of urban transformation through the lenses of worlding and provincialising urbanism. We trace this evolution from an especially dog- matic worlding vision of the smart city, under a centre-right city council, to its radical repurposing under the auspices of a municipal government led, after May 2015, by the citizens’ platform Barcelona en Comu´. We pay particular attention to the new council’s objectives to harness digital platform technologies to enhance participative democracy, and its agenda to secure technological sovereignty and digital rights for its citizens. While stressing the progressive intent of these aims, we also acknowledge the challenge of going beyond the repurposing of smart technologies so as to engender new and radical forms of subjectivity among citizens themselves; a necessary basis for any urban revolution. Keywords citizenship, place branding, policy, politics, provincialising, technology/smart cities Corresponding author: Greig Charnock, Department of Politics, The University of Manchester, 4.058 Arthur Lewis Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Email: [email protected] 2 Urban Studies 00(0) ᪈㾱 ᵜ᮷Ӿц⭼ѫѹ઼ൠᯩѫѹᐲॆⲴ䀂ᓖᇑ㿶Ҷᐤຎ㖇䛓⁑ᔿⲴ╄ਈDŽӾѝਣ㘬ᐲ䇞Պ ⢩࡛ᮉᶑॆⲴц⭼ѫѹᲪភᐲᝯᲟˈࡠ2015ᒤ5ᴸਾ⭡ᐲ≁㓴㓷Āޡ਼Ⲵᐤຎ㖇䛓ā(Ba rcelona en Comu) 亶ሬⲴᐲ᭯ᓌሩᲪភᐲⲴᖫᓅ䟽ᯠᇊੁˈᡁԜ䘭ⓟҶ䘉а╄ਈ䗷〻DŽᡁԜ⢩࡛ޣ⌘ᯠ ᢰᵟѫᵳ઼ᮠᆇᵳ࡙Ⲵ䇞≁ޜ؍⺞᭯ᓌ࡙⭘ᮠᆇᒣਠᢰᵟ࣐ᕪ৲оᙗ≁ѫⲴⴞḷˈ৺ަ 〻DŽ൘ᕪ䈳䘉ӋⴞḷⲴ䘋↕മⲴ਼ᰦˈᡁԜҏ䇔䇶ࡠҶ䘉ṧⲴᡈ˖ণ䎵䎺Ც㜭ᢰᵟ Ⲵ䟽ᯠᇊੁˈԕ൘ޜ≁㠚䓛ѝӗ⭏ᯠⲴ઼◰䘋Ⲵѫ㿲ᙗᖒᔿ˗䘉ᱟԫօᐲ䶙ભⲴᗵ㾱 สDŽ ޣ䭞䇽 ޜ≁䓛ԭǃൠᯩ૱⡼ॆǃ᭯ㆆǃ᭯⋫ǃൠᯩॆǃ、ᢰ/Ცភᐲ Received December 2018; accepted August 2019 Introduction More recently, however, Barcelona has become a referent for a radically different Long before the ascent of the smart city vision of urban governance – as the quintes- agenda, the city of Barcelona was a widely sential ‘rebel city’ (Graham, 2018; Shea acknowledged referent for global urbanism. Baird, 2015). Under the leadership of the cit- From the early 1990s onwards, the so-called izens’ electoral platform Barcelona en Comu´ ‘Barcelona Model’ encapsulated the sup- (‘Barcelona in Common’, henceforth posed virtues of top-down strategic urban BComu´) since May 2015, the city’s leader- planning; the ability of city planners to adapt ship has been touted by the international left urban policy according to changes in the as an example of the reinvigoration of wider landscape of inter-urban competition municipal feminist-socialism in times of cri- and dominant understandings of urban sis, popular anxiety and the draw of right- growth; and citizen-focused urban policies wing populism (Russell, 2019; Shea Baird, (Garcia-Ramon and Albet, 2000; McNeill, 2017), and not merely in terms of its ‘pro- 1999; Marshall, 2004). In the 2000s, how- gressive local policies’ in crucial areas such ever, the Barcelona Model underwent a as housing and energy provision (Roth transformation. In the context of the global et al., 2018: 133; Rubio-Pueyo, 2017). fascination with the ‘knowledge-based econ- Rather, it has also been heralded as a signifi- omy’, and with the determinants of urban cant experiment in radical democracy competitiveness in an ever more ‘digital age’, (Gessen, 2018), in which the smart city successive local governments pursued more agenda in particular is being fundamentally entrepreneurial strategies in which the inter- re-purposed for citizens through the ests of global corporations, financiers and advancement of the right to information and real estate developers seemed very clearly to guarantees to open, transparent and partici- eclipse those of the city’s residents. This tra- patory decision-making through new digital jectory only seemed to be complete after and platform technologies (Postill, 2016). 2011, when – in the context of a profound For the critical smart city scholars Cardullo and protracted economic and social crisis – and Kitchin (2019: 11), Barcelona has today the city’s municipal government committed become the referent for ‘presently attempt- itself to making Barcelona the world’s lead- ing to formulate and implement a different ing smart city (March and Ribera-Fumaz, vision of a smart city and smart citizenship’, 2016). Charnock et al. 3 and for its attempt to ‘repoliticise the smart practice of smart city transformation; from city and to shift its creation and control a corporate-driven, top-down model to a away from private interests and the state citizen-centric, bottom-up one. toward grassroots, civic movements and Our contribution begins with a brief ela- social innovation’ (original emphasis). boration on what we find to be most instruc- While the case of Barcelona may stand tive about the worlding and provincialising out from a range of other examples in which literatures, as well as some preliminary com- the corporate-friendly, technologically deter- ments about why it is appropriate to adopt minist and essentially neoliberal vision of the ‘rebel city’ concept as a heuristic for urban transformation has been questioned reflection on the recent repurposing of the (Hollands, 2015; March, 2018), we suggest Barcelona Model of urban transformation. that it is worthy of deeper critical reflection We then turn, in the second section, to and elaboration. This, after all, is the intent reflect upon the version of the Model that of this special issue which, rather than focus- was explicitly aligned with the theory and ing on the politics of ‘actually existing’ smart practice of smart city transformation before city projects, asks critical questions of domi- 2015. We do accept that this was an espe- nant epistemological forms of knowing cially doctrinaire and dogmatic version, the smart city. In drawing upon the two which explains to some extent why its subse- approaches of ‘worlding’ and ‘provincialis- quent repudiation by BComu´has attracted ing’ to reflect on our own experiences of over so much attention (see, for instance, Kitchin a decade’s worth of fieldwork in Barcelona et al., 2019). We also make clear, in the third (including interviews with activists and section, that the ‘actually existing’ smart city municipal department leaders, and participa- in Barcelona was by 2015 already a product tion in initiatives aimed at repurposing the not only of worlding flows but also of a pro- smart city), our contribution explains how liferation of socially innovative practices and the Barcelona case evinces that: forms of contentious politics within the city itself. Seen in this light, it becomes less easy worldings that emerge from subordinated to narrate the arrival of the BComu´-led experiences, cutting across distinctive loci of council and its citizen-focused agenda as a enunciation, can (indeed) be productive of clean rupture with the smart city status quo alternative theoretical perspectives with the ante. We then examine the content of two potential to speak back against those theories important initiatives that have been at the underwriting global urbanism, thereby decen- centre of the new municipal government’s tring current geographies of knowledge and approach to repurposing digital technologies theory production. (Sheppard et al., 2013: 897; emphasis in original) for the citizen under the rubric of demo- cratic and participative ‘techno-politics’ and However, heeding the suspicion of any emer- ‘technological sovereignty’. We highlight the gent urbanism that draws upon or makes progressive intent of these projects, but con- ‘universalist’ claims, as well as the caution- clude the discussion by posing critical ques- ing by Henri Lefebvre (a primary influence tions of them. on Roy, 2011) against being uncritical of forms of ‘urbanism of the left’ (Lefebvre, On worlding and provincialising 2003: 163), we also want to resist taking at the rebel city face value the evidence that Barcelona’s recent experience signals a straightforward The two concepts of ‘worlding’ and ‘provin- sea change in the conceptualisation and cialising’ are gaining traction among 4 Urban Studies 00(0) researchers of planning, urbanism and urba- 2015. Once criticised both for being ‘over- nisation, while also being subject to multiple referenced’ among worlding urbanisms – and, at times, dissonant – interpretations, (McCann et al., 2013: 582), and also as the foregroundings and modes of analytical paragon of how strategic planning based on deployment (see the Introduction to this spe- stridently entrepreneurial forms of urbanism cial issue). It is worth, therefore, us provid- leads to ‘opportunities to pocket monopoly ing a brief explanation of what we find most rents galore’ and lures ‘more and more relevant and instructive in the two literatures homogenising multinational commodifica- for our own research on the Barcelona tion in its wake’ (Harvey, 2012: 104–105), Model. this repurposed Barcelona Model now circu- Having previously drawn on the work of lates as a referent for those looking for Henri Lefebvre in order to critique how ‘transformative political mobilisation to cre- representational models for knowledge- ate . a humanising urbanism’ (Kitchin based urban transformation have been culti- et