Beyond recent years, human beings 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” is a prime example.
The American “city of the future” more famously known as Telosa and the Dutch Rotterdam, Netherland’s city of the future, are both associated with the futuristic ideal urban life despite their many differences. I aim to break down what these cities entail through an analysis of their respective websites and discuss whether the title given to them is fitting.
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” is a prime example.
The American “city of the future” more famously known as Telosa and the Dutch Rotterdam, Netherland’s city of the future, are both associated with the futuristic ideal urban life despite their many differences. I aim to break down what these cities entail through an analysis of their respective websites and discuss 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 basis of equitism as a new model for society and driven by innovation, inclusiveness, and sustainability. Simply the city of our imagination. (Junto Group LLC, 2021)
Upon searching ‘Telosa’ the first site to come up is that of the official city website, which is rather convenient. “Telosa” in a white bolded font centralized before a dark background with a faint moving globe. This light on dark composition highlights the text and media, and artistically adopts the cool tone of modern color palettes: classic blues, greys, and touches of green.
The Telosa icon is similarly distinct, the "o" at the center is of a green hue that contradicts with the blue undertone of the dark background, the green color could symbolize the relatively ‘green’ future implied through the excessive greenery in the pictures of the city. The "o" is designed in a peculiar manner where the curves create a star in the center, to be exact the Northern star- a star that holds great significance in our history in navigation and that plays a part in much of our scientific and general evolution. The official Telosa Twitter account solidifies this; “The star at the center represents the meaning behind the name Telosa — “highest purpose.” It is our North Star, a never-wavering guide on our mission to create a more equitable and sustainable future”. (City of Telosa, 2021) The positioning of the earth in the background below the title and as a result below the Northern star is thus relevant, hinting at the peculiar shape being a star without obnoxiously stating it. (Junto Group LLC, 2021)
An illustration of the city or a notable place like the city port on the homepage of Rotterdam’s city website (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021) would have been more conventional yet we are welcomed with moving earth. This is not necessarily absurd, but it allows the website to stand out. Similarly, it pays homage to this mission being a global one, evoking a certain unity in the cause and implementing the prioritized emotional approach to persuasion used throughout the website.
Under the name of the city is a short caption: “Creating a more equitable and sustainable future” here it clearly states the purpose behind Telosa and the main concepts that align with their vision of the future; equity and sustainability.
As you scroll through the site the photos tend to zoom in (earth, large landscape, towers and buildings, public spaces, streets and residence, people, etc.), we are growing more and more familiar, and in a way, this imagined idea becomes more concrete and peculiar. A future city is a foreign concept - even with all the likely models we are provided - thus beginning with a grand image as that of the earth and then slowly zooming into the detailed depictions of everyday life in a specific corner of the city allows for a familiarity to develop alongside a smooth continuity through the media present in the site.
The website’s ability of maintaining a smooth flow of both ideas and media is admirable, moreover, it is capable of catering to a wider audience due to the sheer number of media in comparison to the concise text. 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 artistic use of the website to get points across is not limited to visual aspects 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 inland and as the economy of the city boosts, they receive a 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 a 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. Nick Dunn and Paul Cureton wrote, “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 stem from the unconservative mentality of its people. Rotterdam was one of the worst-bombed cities during WWII, leaving much of its structure destroyed 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 as an opportunity to start a blank slate, this provided the citizens with intellectual freedom. (Frearson,2016)
Unlike Telosa, Rotterdam was not built on the promise of a new standard for future cities, at the very least it was not originally advertised as so. The alleged title was given to the city recently with the architectural craze following the creative and innovative designs of newly added buildings. The Atlantic - a credible American magazine - published under “The Possibility Report” an article with the title “the city of the future” where they discussed Rotterdam, sealing the correlation between the city and this title. (Atlantic Media Company, 2017)
This title has not been adopted by the official city website yet, but the taps provided by the site support the innovative takes on sustainability and equity that other sources applaud Rotterdam for. (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021)
For instance, the website has a clear horizontal menu with Home, Living, Working & learning, Thinking along & doing, and Governance & organization. Each of these opens a page that has respective boxes with an icon, a topic, a small caption, and a link to a page discussing the topic. The design of the website is well organized and convenient. The white background is a classic and common factor in many websites, but it has a certain professionalism and minimalism to it, which any other color may not be well suited for. Green and black are similarly common in many city websites. The green accents are installed in both Rotterdam and Telosa’s websites and icons. Perhaps green is universally acknowledged as interchangeable with sustainability, or it could simply be due to its comforting nature on the eyes. (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021)
Like the equity Telosa aims to achieve, Rotterdam’s government took an initiative to sell off 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 were 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 than what would have been on the market.
The homogeneity in the city goes beyond the personalization of one’s home, this shared experience allowed the citizens to adopt the city as their own. In the “Meedenken & Doen” tab which means “Thinking along & Doing”, the picture in the background is of a white flag saying “de stad is van ons” directly translating to “the city is ours”. Here a clear connection is established between the future of the city and its residents.
Furthermore, upon clicking on “How we involve you”, I was astonished by the peculiar methods the city government approaches this issue that Telosa promises to solve through equitism. For example, Resident’s evening, Referendums, Neighborhood service desk 010, and the Children’s Mayor where a child signs up to represent other children in their neighborhood, these events ground the government with the people. Individual Rotterdammers feel heard and have a say in minor changes alongside major ones. It perpetuates their statement; the city is their own and thus they should have a say in it, and it adds to the ethos of the website.
Per the accessibility; The website can only be found when the viewer searches for Rotterdam’s website otherwise it can only be found on the second or bottom of the first page in the search results. Moreover, the site is in Dutch- the native language- making its audience far more limited. However, on the top right corner of the menu bar is a translate icon that allows the viewer to translate the site making it more accessible to a wider audience. The website also has an English page with information on international studies, residence permits, transportation, etc. The average audience of the website are likely pre-existing citizens or potential ones, thus the website is accommodating to its relative audience and with the added translation icon it can accommodate a wider audience than Telosa. (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2021)
I recognize that the two websites do not have identical purposes making the ground for a fair comparison narrow; Telosa's website is meant to draw in viewers, inform on this future project, and hopefully retain some potential residents, whereas the Rotterdam city website is made by the government for the people, it accommodates to tourist and foreigners but mainly focuses on the existing residents and helping them in their everyday life in the city. However the similarities and differences between two cities that fall under the same title is far too appealing.
What really drew me into Rotterdam 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 strive.
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 it is the younger sister to Amsterdam commonly known as “the city of the past”. Beyond this, the accessible resources and simple straightforwardness of the city website resonates with the younger generation, it feels like a city built by the youth which could have impacted the modern openness and creativity the city is often applauded for.
I still beg to question the intrigue behind the title "The city of the future", 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 - an ironic pride in starting over with a clean slate.
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 allow 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. But this might be the very reason it fits this title; the future is in many ways an extension of the present so why not treat it as such?
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 in 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-racking. 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” - a city that is already built or one that is in the process of existing - the term loses its aggravation and we become in control, therefore anything that is slightly innovative is titled futuristic. Not to say Telosa or Rotterdam are not deserving of this title, but there is a reason they both became such a hot topic. In my opinion Futuristic is the new Revolutionary, just as generations before us adored that term, we joyously flaunt this one.