Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:30 am
-
9:30 am
EDT (GMT -04:00)
Of
the
thesis
entitled:Ideologies
ofMedellín’s
Miracle:
A
critique
of
architecture’s
new
utopia
Abstract:
Once
considered
the
most
violent
city
in
the
world,
the
city
ofMedellín,
Colombia
has
more
recently
received
global
notoriety
as
a
model
ofarchitecture
and
urban
planning
for
social
development.
This
notorietyoriginates
with
the
city’s
Social
Urbanism
programme(2004–2011):
adevelopmental
model
positioned
on
ideas
of
social
inclusion
throughterritorial,
aesthetic,
and
symbolic
strategies
of
transformation.
During
theadministrative
terms
of
Sergio
Fajardo
and
Alonso
Salazar
(both
members
of
thenew
Left
partyCulturaCiudadana)
an
impressive
number
ofaesthetic
buildings
and
public
spaces
were
built
in
informal
communities
acrossthe
urban
periphery,
in
a
political
climate
praised
for
its
inclusivestrategies
of
development.
“The
most
beautiful
for
the
most
humble,”
wasFajardo’sfamous
adage.
Since this period, Medellín has continued to receive significantnotoriety. Medellín was named “Innovative City of the Year” by theWallStreet JournalandCitiBank in 2013, and was host to UN- Habitat’s World Urban Forum 7 (2014)entitled “Urban Equity inDevelopment.” However, development in the city hasrecently departed from the Social Urbanism model, transitioning from smallscale architecture and public space as points of community intervention, to theimplementation of large-scale urban development projectsthat bear significant resemblanceto more conventional Neoliberal models of urban restructuring. At the sametime, evidence of chronic violence and forced displacement are raisingquestions about what current development might hide about everyday realities initsproduction of a new Global city.
Many critics concerned with this new direction identify a breakin priorities and strategies between the administrative era of theCulturaCiudadanaandthe current administration; however, a more critical investigation into theactors and stakeholders involved inMedellín’s recovery process reveal the wayby which today’s development might actually be a logical and intended outcomeof the success of Social Urbanism. This analysis requires a broadening of thepolitical and historical analysis, to investigate the dynamics of localpowerthat extend through the 20thcentury. It also requires a criticalinvestigation of Social Urbanism as a programme that, while perhaps possessingsome transformative and dignifying agency at the local scale, was treated as aniconic spatial “object” that produced avery specific meaning for the city bothlocally and globally through aesthetic strategies.
Founded on Henri Lefebvre’sidea of social space as being actively produced, the thesis investigates towhat degree Social Urbanism could be seen as a socially-transformative andpolitical project based on the actors involved and the distribution (or centralization)ofpower in its recovery process. By framing the city’s urban development asthe product of a much longer transformation – articulated by underlying social,political, and economic conditions of production – it seeks a more criticalunderstanding of the way SocialUrbanism’s urban spaces have actually affectedeveryday life in the city.
Since this period, Medellín has continued to receive significantnotoriety. Medellín was named “Innovative City of the Year” by theWallStreet JournalandCitiBank in 2013, and was host to UN- Habitat’s World Urban Forum 7 (2014)entitled “Urban Equity inDevelopment.” However, development in the city hasrecently departed from the Social Urbanism model, transitioning from smallscale architecture and public space as points of community intervention, to theimplementation of large-scale urban development projectsthat bear significant resemblanceto more conventional Neoliberal models of urban restructuring. At the sametime, evidence of chronic violence and forced displacement are raisingquestions about what current development might hide about everyday realities initsproduction of a new Global city.
Many critics concerned with this new direction identify a breakin priorities and strategies between the administrative era of theCulturaCiudadanaandthe current administration; however, a more critical investigation into theactors and stakeholders involved inMedellín’s recovery process reveal the wayby which today’s development might actually be a logical and intended outcomeof the success of Social Urbanism. This analysis requires a broadening of thepolitical and historical analysis, to investigate the dynamics of localpowerthat extend through the 20thcentury. It also requires a criticalinvestigation of Social Urbanism as a programme that, while perhaps possessingsome transformative and dignifying agency at the local scale, was treated as aniconic spatial “object” that produced avery specific meaning for the city bothlocally and globally through aesthetic strategies.
Founded on Henri Lefebvre’sidea of social space as being actively produced, the thesis investigates towhat degree Social Urbanism could be seen as a socially-transformative andpolitical project based on the actors involved and the distribution (or centralization)ofpower in its recovery process. By framing the city’s urban development asthe product of a much longer transformation – articulated by underlying social,political, and economic conditions of production – it seeks a more criticalunderstanding of the way SocialUrbanism’s urban spaces have actually affectedeveryday life in the city.
The
examining
committee
is
as
follows:
Supervisor:
CommitteeMembers:
Adrian Blackwell, University of ݮƵ
Lola Sheppard, University of ݮƵ
Rick
Haldenby,
Universityof
ݮƵ
External Reader:
Sue Ruddick, University of Toronto
The
committee
has
been
approved
as
authorized
by
the
Graduate
Studies
Committee.
The
Defence
Examination
will
take
place:
Wednesday
April
6,
2016
9:30AM
ARC
Loft
A
copy
of
the
thesis
is
available
for
perusal
in
ARC
2106A.