Passage Two

On the Abstractness and Inwardness of Modern Urban Space(continued)

1．We will get back to Lefebvre's and Sennett's conceptions of the city to fight for，but before that let us look at the diagram．

2．The Abstract Space/Differential Space dimension can be seen as an axis of spatial production，the Inward/Outward dimension as an axis of spatial orientation．The crossing gives us four quadrants:the first quadrant of the diagram can be interpreted as the“City of History”in a double sense—both as the historical pre-modernist city of streets and squares，which is as old as the preserved history of human societies(about 10，000 years)—and as the city，where time makes a difference．This is the city of human encounter of other humans in real life，and the encounter of culture of different times．

3．The third quadrant—the diametrically opposite—can be interpreted as the“Modernist City”．This is the city of advanced capitalism:an urban antispace of isolated and inwardly oriented built objects sprinkled in a technological landscape，interwoven with distance-keeping lawns to look at，simulating naturalness and simple countryside pleasures．Although this city is heavily focused on time—trying to catch up with time all the time—it kills time，as it can only develop through the destruction of history and through repetition．This is the reason，why Berman's book on modernity got its title from Marx'and Engels'Communist Manifesto:All that is solid melts into air．Modernity is the new as ever the same．In this“City of modernity”，there is not much encounter of real and different human beings．On the contrary it becomes increasingly clear，although Lefebvre and Sennett do not say much about it，that the ultimate“Modernist City”is an electronic network．Skyscraper areas are still being built in the image of downtown Chicago，Manhattan and le Corbusier's“Plan Voisin”^[6]，but the true modernist city of today is the electronic portable office of combined mobile-phones and portable computers，including portable fax-machines and networked modems，connected to satellite-based world wide services 24 hours a day．If you want to，you can even include global satellite navigation systems with a guarantied accuracy of 18 meters．If you have the right equipment，it does not matter where on the globe you are，and at the same time you can be sure that you cannot get lost，except in the electronic networks themselves．We now begin to see that the ultimate modern city is made up of virtual realities located in cyberspace:the antispace of real experiential space．Maybe，it is the almost invisible technological basis of this modern city that makes it so difficult for architects to find a new aesthetic representation of contemporary space，although they try so hard．

4．The second quadrant of diagram can be interpreted as the“Indoor Private Home”，where we can escape to the safety of the familiar，our personal things and the shallow depths of spatially and socially contained intimacy．This is not to say that we do not need homes，or that the heavy focus on housing in the modernist city has been all wrong．On the contrary:the home is necessary for the development of individual human beings．At the same time though，it is to state that the home is a trap，if it is not complemented by a city of encounter．Today，the threat to the family is not located as much in the streets，as it is in homes of isolation．(In Denmark in the 1990s most murders take place within the family，and if we look back we will see that in the period when we built the homes of the modern city，the number of people in Denmark with a psychiatric record grew to comprise 1/5 of the total population．This might be sheer coincidence，but there probably is some kind of relation between the different phenomena．)

5．The fourth quadrant can be interpreted as the“City of Homelessness”—in the double sense of an outside world that we do not care about，and a home for the really homeless—the backside of the coin of the modern City，exploding in the face of us all over the Western industrialised world，includingintheScandinavianwellfarestates．Whydo abstractness and inwardness contradict urban possibilities and urban life? This should be a little more clear by now:abstract space is intended to generalise exchange value．As a consequence space is planned in a way that contradicts the promotion of difference．Town planning and building codes contribute to enforce homogeneity to a large extent．As for inwardness:as long as we focus too much on inwardness，people are separated from the differences of other people，and in the end they get alienated to themselves．We get lack of solidarity and psychological problems．If we do not experience ourselves in direct relation to others，the others get unreal to us and we get unreal ourselves too．It is a big problem，that our society has been extremely afraid of difference in real life．At the same time the large need for difference is shown by the obsessive focus on difference in entertainment and sports through various kinds of media．

6．Lefebvre wrote on“everyday-life”already in the 1950s．From 1968 to 1974 he took up questions of the city—not only in relation to different modes of production as seen from a Marxist“systemic”point of view，but also as an urban experience of humans living in the city—the city as lived space．He even claimed the city a human right．Later he had to focus on the role of the modern state．In his last book on the city—The Production of Space—Lefebvre heavily states the human need of difference as counter-weight to everyday routine，and the decisive role of difference in opening up new social and political opportunities．As capitalism creates contradictions in urban space，spaces of difference emerge，that can be transformed into counter-spaces of new human possibilities．If we cross-read his books on the city and on space thoroughly，we will find that the important qualities of differential space and counter-space have to do with aspects like:social and other human differences，the meeting of strangers，play and eroticism，human works as unique objects，possibilities for the unplanned，unpredictability，inter-change and inter-active communication，as well as the use of all senses．All this should be human rights in urban space，according to Lefebvre!

7．There is not much to learn about an urban design of difference in Lefebvre's books，though．He also thinks that architects and especially urbanplannersnormallydomoreharmthangood．Sennett's characteristics of his urban spaces of interest resemble those of Lefebvre's in many ways—including the encounter of strangers—but Sennett explicitly mentions the street，as the most important general aspect of the city．When it comes to the question of urban design，Sennett is also as negative about the professionals involved，as is Lefebvre．Although Sennett tries to find the keys to an urban design that makes a difference，he does not come up with very much of direct practical use either．He clearly is in favour of discontinuities and non-linearities in social space as well as in physical space，but nobody can learn how to build cities from his book．

Questions for Understanding

1．What might be the supposed differences between the“City of History”and the“Modernist City”?

2．What can one enjoy at one's home according to paragraph 4?Why does home become a trap for people?

3．Why do abstractness and inwardness hamper(contradict)urban possibilities and urban life?

4．From what perspective do you think that Lefebvre conduct hisresearch on urban space?What impresses you most of his thoughts?

5．What does the last paragraph intend to say about the two scholars?