Regina Bittner
Regina talked mainly about urban development and the shrinking city in the context of case studies. What is it that shrinkage means, for the people, etc? How are politicians coping? How can we understand this development? She talked of a town on the German/Polish border, and how they dealt with the issue of a shrinking city. Mentioning the strong lack of confidence in the city; and a growing disillusionment with the local, especially as unemployment steadily rises. In such places there is a strong relationship to the past, and a certain psychological construct of living in a shadow of possibly greater times. When the income of a city begins to become dependent on tourism, there is a binding to this past that leaves out a future and further compounds this disillusionment. Combined with the decline of industrialization, the imbalance of global forces, the conflicting patterns of relocation, and the overall lack of control in the larger system, people feel an absence of possibilities. One of the most striking ways in which this feeling comes home is in the loss of the young, who move to other cities. When they leave, upon seeing no value in the current place, it leaves those who stay feeling abandoned in a place without a future. To quote a section “children are the future, but as the children leave it feels like there is no future here.” There is a longing for stability and normality, while at the same time strong defensive feelings. A feeling of being misunderstood and threatened by the “other”. Cities like this feel like they are searching for their own future, but lacking a vision.
On the other side, she discussed some interesting projects that people have done in coordination with the initiatives for those that stay. How one can develop something with the resources that are there. For example, the artist/entrepreneur with an abandoned brewery, who created a space for entrepreneurship and engagement. Opportunities create in some sense utopias, or at the very least a vision of possibility. Re-urbanism, what city, whose city? Challenges us to think of urbanism in a different way.

Stefano Boeri
Stefano talked about the magazines Domus and Abitare, and maintaining an architectural magazine. The points he laid out where as follows.

1. Represent reality by replacing it, literature as the narrative form of architecture.
2. Analyze the lives of buildings when the architects have gone, through direct experiences (especially with the people that inhabit these famous place through cleaning etc.)
3. Deconstruct Images
4. Architecture and daily life. The way in which buildings take part in events and crime reporting as the city’s unconscious.
5. The challenge of advertising. 3 rules. 1. co-existence is necessary 2. Oversee ambiguities that arise. 3. Reduce confusion to a minimum.
6. Inform and tell stores. Giving more levels of reading.
7. The correction and harsh critique of projects as a technically important form of architectural criticism.
8. Magazine as a horizontal media platform, tv, website etc.
9. A magazine linked to events and as a promoter of events.
10. A magazine which creates a social and political processes.
And finally he spoke about Sustainable Dystopias

Of the points he spoke about, the ones I found most interesting were four, ten, and sustainable dystopias. The idea of understanding an architectural space through the daily life of its inhabitants is an interesting participatory creation of a different image of an architectural work. That we would construct a view of a space not by its plans, but by its inhabitation. Similarly point ten talked about the forum of creating social and political processes, and I think the role of the architectural magazine plays a part in the dialog utopian or dystopian, of our perceived goals and visions which we seek to construct around us. The magazine and other horizontal media platforms are useful for thinking about and dialoging with the utopian ideas, events, goals, and their realization. They are a forum for the creation of social and political processes. And finally on the issue of sustainable dystopia. Sustainability has clearly been the largest utopia oriented movement of late. This section was the most directly relevant portion of his talk to this lecture series’ themes. Regarding sustainability, he talked of recent manifests for architects to imagine the construction of buildings as growing forms, that produce energy, centered around this goal of sustainability. I enjoyed that he pointed out that in a general technocratic society, such as one in which such buildings exist. There is a strong risk of a removal of freedom with the removal of space for unpredictable behavior. Later, he discussed the movements of re-agriculturalization of the cities, and finally the allowing of nature to co-exist and inhabit our cities. In the end he called to question a vision of a city that can host the diversity of animals/nature without abandoning our anthropocentric point of view. However, with all of these discussions and visions he is quick to point out that the distopia/utopia difference is extremely thin.

Bartolomeo Pietromarchi
Bartolomeo’s talk focused mainly on the cultural vision of the future. He began by discussing the famous “this is tomorrow” exhibition from which this series was greatly influenced. His talk mostly focused on the relationship between our cultural vision of technological utopian dreams and the actual existence. How do architects and artists deal with the technological innovation? His talk juxtaposed the movements of the 50’s and 60’s with those going on today. What is the most compelling element of the man machine relationship, there is the potential of technological advancement, with the realization that machines are simply extensions of human nature. His talk also focused on the work of J.G. Ballard, and the effects of technologically advanced surroundings on the human psyche. Later it moved into an example of work with abandoned nuclear power plants in Italy, exploring our collective obsession with nuclear power and the fear of the apocalypse. Taking note of the emotional tone around the technological advances. Often with the utopian vision one is impressed with the technological achievement but fails to see the social and environmental impact of said technological innovation. There is a disconnect between the vision of the future, and our presumed domination of the environment; we must subsequently place ourselves in the present along a future path. He ended with a project called “Slave City”, which explored again this current utopian dream of sustainability. This project, however dealt with a more satirical vision of what that ultimate sustainable city could be, used as a critical reflection on one of our current utopian goals.