A city of the future: our society’s obsession?
Beyond recent years human being have always had this infatuation with the future, a desire to uncover the unknown. As technological advancement reaches new limits our understanding of this unknown becomes more plausible, the future becomes within reach and slowly we develop these mere infatuations into solid ideas, sketches, blueprints, models and later into something tangible.
Following this logic, it is within our human nature to strive for the further development of our species, when an individual or nation achieves new limits, it is not their achievement alone but the achievement of all human beings. The reality is something far more arduous, we are self-interested, indulged in the bettering of ourselves and our secluded nation or group. Thus, this achievement becomes more group specific and suddenly every nation wants to be the first to achieve the impossible. The concept of a “city of the future” being a prime example.
The American “city of the future” more famously known as Telosa and the Dutch Rotterdam, Netherland’s city of the future, both associated with the futuristic ideal urban life despite their many differences. I aim to breakdown what these cities entail and whether the title given to them is fitting.
To begin let’s dive into the world renown Telosa; a city that claims to set a global standard for urban living, and Marc Lore’s (American businessmen and Walmart E-commerce ex-CEO and president) vision of an ideal city. Constructed on the bases of equitism as a new model for society and driven by innovation, inclusiveness, and sustainability. Simply the city of our imagination.
The official project website is predominantly visual (Junto Group LLC, 2021), the sheer number of media in comparison to the concise text is fitting when attempting to reach a wider audience. With the fast-paced nature of the internet, being able to catch and keep your viewers’ attention is difficult, but the website seems to do that well.
The moving earth photo in the background of the homepage implies unity, this is our first glance at the official Telosa website, yet we are welcomed with a moving earth, it almost pays homage to this mission being a global one, which seems to be their ideal. Likewise, this insinuated feeling of unity sheds light on the website’s ability to use pathos to its advantage; evoking a certain longing or attachment to this city, which reoccurs throughout the site.
As you scroll through the site the photos tend to zoom in (earth, large landscape, towers and buildings, public spaces, streets and residence, etc.), we are growing more and more familiar, and in a way, this imagined idea becomes more concrete and peculiar.
The artistic use the website to get points across is not limited to media only, the statistics and numeric data (logos) are similarly used to either provide input and quantifiable information to raise credibility (ethos) or place the limelight on a present devastation such as climate change to perpetuate the importance of their mission. For many, numeric data makes a source more credible, but in this case, it falls short due to the general exaggerated idealistic presentation of the site, it begs a question for the accuracy of the data.
Moreover, this picturesque ideology of what the city will be portrays it as utopian and unreal, and the mention of inclusiveness for example as a set concrete factor without recognizing that not everyone will abide by this fair openness seems more ignorant and doesn’t help their case. Perhaps they aim to achieve that through equitism rather than the promise of equality, but even that has unresolved problems. (Junto Group LLC, 2021)
To put it simply equitism is the notion of achieving what one earns, in Telosa’s case they follow the idea that “as the city does better, the resident’s do better”, residents have stakes in land and as the economy of the city boost, they receive great return on their investments. Great in theory but in practice it has many flaws; it contradicts with the allegation that Telosa is for everyone (it is for everyone with enough savings to invest and purchase stake on land), it brings to question the effect of classism (the upper class is more likely to purchase greater land and benefit more from a booming economy), and the possibility of loss (what happens if the economy of the city fails?).
Furthermore, equitism provided through land ownership insinuates a possible hierarchy, which again contradicts the idea of even equality in the society within Telosa. To motivate citizens in land investment it is likely certain benefits will be provided to higher investors, alternatively, benefits may be provided to those who give back to the society, doctors, nurses, engineers, bank workers, officers, etc. Providing these benefits is not bizarre, it makes sense to acknowledge the input of these individuals in the bettering of society, but it certainly does not abide by their portrayal of equitism.
Setting my prejudice aside the city intrigues me, it recognizes the social context often left undermined during discussions of an ideal city. “recent research has suggested that we need to significantly rethink the way we imagine future cities, and move our focus from an overarching technological vision to other priorities, such as environmental sustainability and the need to tackle social inequalities” (Dunn & Cureton, 2020) and this is something that Telosa does well – or will do well based on the execution of its claims.
This approach of futurism through the social context is similarly executed in Rotterdam, this openness and inclusiveness of the people stems from the unconservative mentality of its people. Rotterdam was one of the worst-bombed cities during WWII, leaving a much of its structure destructed and into ashes. Beyond the lost history, residents must have experienced the nuanced loss of place, bringing them together as a community. They did not succumb to this tragedy but viewed it an opportunity to start a blank slate, this provided the citizens with intellectual freedom. (Frearson,2016)
Like the equity Telosa aims to achieve, Rotterdam’s government took an initiative to sell of old destroyed houses at a lower price, allowing people to purchase homes with an extremely low price and innovated to become their own. This meant old builds where being recycled, money was being saved and a newly developed homogeneity evolved since both the homeowner and their neighbors would’ve had to innovate their homes. In truth this also means living there was not for everybody since a decent amount of savings would be required to renovate a home, nevertheless a dilapidated one, still the price being paid is rather less that what would have been on the market.
The website I came across for Rotterdam (Frearson,2016) is very informative and well rounded, it uses less media and focuses more on inputting and elaborating on insight rather than concise ideas. The utter length of the site limits its audience in comparison to the Telosa website’s versatility, considering this is written by a reporter and not the parent corporation or government the truthfulness and honest breaking down of the city is predictable.
What drew me into this city is the attitude towards something that is lost, instead of melancholically reminiscing on what it was, experiment with it, for “there’s not that much you can ruin”. (Frearson,2016) This mindset allowed for great freedom, there was no fear of ruining a piece of the past, any preciousness towards centuries of reserved history did not apply. In an atmosphere of expressive freedom with no ties innovation and creativity strives.
When creativity is allowed to roam free and the sky becomes the limit, architectural and technological advancement becomes second nature. Thus, it is not surprising when architects call it “The city of the future”, especially when its larger sister is Amsterdam formally known as “the city of the past”.
I still beg to question the intrigue behind this title, surely it is not just to guarantee a great future, for the damage made during the construction of a city like Telosa would prove energy consuming and harmful, guaranteeing sustainability after the damage is inflicted when that time and financial investment could have been used to improve already existing cities undermines their message.
Furthermore, there is not much that is revolutionary about Rotterdam, it is technologically at the same level as many other European cities, but the decision and initiative made by the government which recognized the citizens needs and wants allows it to become an inspiration to other nations. Rotterdam is an existing city that works for the people living in it, in this case it remains a city of the present not the future, for it does not uncover something new, it recycles the old and does not make a global promise of creating the new ideal.
So why is it that both these cities are promoted as cities of the future?
I believe it to come from this obsession that has fostered I us as a society. We have long feared the inevitable, death is the endpoint but whatever comes in between is similarly obscure. We have no control of it and this lack of control is angering and nerve wrecking. We are owned by a future we have no control over, thus having the least bit of knowledge of the oblivious is liberating and slowly but surely, we come focused on knowing more, we want to own our future and not be owned by it.
Once we name something that is within reach a part of the “future”, the term loses its aggravation and we become in control, therefore anything that is slightly innovative is titled futuristic. Not to say Telosa is not deserving of its title, but there is a reason it is such a hot topic.