71

FADI SHAYYA

THE REAL VERSUS THE IMAGINED CITYA TRAVELER'S NOTES ON IMAGINING PUBLIC SPACE

…(W)hat makes a space public is democratic control over that space, and therefore the willingness to allow a space to host sometimes contentious publics.1

In their critical text on the finalist design proposals for the Downsview Park competition in Toronto,2 Don Mitchell and Richard Van Deusen argue that most modern, Western public spaces are planned to control public interaction, as they are “open,” rather than “accessible.” For many of us, this argument shakes the foundations of our belief in public space as a place of meeting, cohesion, and freedom, even though television and movies already propagated plots of conspiracy theory and public power abuse. Mitchell and Van Deusen’s argument may seem radical to some, as it views the state and its bodies as a police force. However, it is the state’s homogenizing authority as a product – and maybe a base – of control that molds a monochrome social interaction within the framework of laws and regulations, both products of the same authority. Imagination becomes what laws and regulations allow for, which

72 Shayya / The Real Versus the Imagined City

may or may not be what people imagine. The product is open, public space that is not necessarily accessible.

> SELF-ALERTED IN DELFT

During an international conference on public space in Delft,3 the Netherlands, I was self-alerted to a constant tendency in my head – and probably in the minds of many citizens of my country – to compare the progress of our cities and lifestyles to those of the prominent cities of the West. In discourse analysis, one might contend that this practice of comparison is an effect of globalization and postcolonial aspirations, exacerbated by visual media and the promotion of consumerism. Such comparisons make people fall into the trap of criticizing everything: the contextual and the imported, the necessary and the extra, and the good and the bad. In theory, if one criticizes what she/he considers regressive (for example public space in Beirut) relative to what she/he considers advanced (for example public space in the West), the outcome will be a constant disappointment with what one has. In Delft, researchers from different parts of the world discussed public space and illustrated an array of case studies of authoritative control, political contestation, and user appropriation in metropolitan and urban areas of Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Asia. Common among these case studies was the dichotomy between the openness versus the accessibility of a public space – a challenge even in the so-called “advanced countries,” where the integration of people and place is not always an easy endeavor. Disappointment with public space is not geographically bound to certain areas of the world, but rather covers a vast jurisdiction, such that it delivers a sense of the real (what is) instead of the imagined (what should be).

> CONTROVERSY IN ROTTERDAM (20 MARCH 2009)

The international conference concluded with a visit to the Municipality of Rotterdam and its South Park (Zuiderpark), where representatives presented an overview of public space in Rotterdam, and the new design of the South Park. The large park is situated near a culturally mixed residential area, but does not seem to attract people, despite its design and self-proclaimed slogan of “the people’s park of the 21st century.”4 It was explained that apparently the public space of the park – and its regulations – did not accommodate the practices of some groups in the area. For example, public space regulations in the Netherlands do not allow for public barbecues and family celebrations, whereas these practices represent a key component of popular culture for some people with Turkish origins.

The Municipality of Rotterdam contends that they understand the cultural diversity of many (immigrant) groups in the Netherlands. However, as a public authority, the Municipality could not allow for any group’s unique practices to harm the liberty and freedom of other groups. The Municipality then asked the conference participants – as “experts” in the field – to comment on the problems of South Park and to suggest governance or design alternatives. Many participants found this request controversial. The intent of the Municipality of Rotterdam was to provide a park for its citizens, but the practice revealed an underlying fear for personal liberty and freedom, resulting in the consequent practice of control. One participant cynically exclaimed that he had always thought of the Netherlands as the “bastion of liberality;” another participant claimed that the problem always stemmed from, “trying to define the perfect public space.” This discussion in Rotterdam reminded me of what was happening in Beirut, although I doubted that the Municipality of Beirut (MoB) had considered the liberty and freedom of the public, nor defined a perfect public space. The MoB was simply incapable of managing and maintaining the new design of the large park, a governance incompetency in intent, vision, and concept.

> ON THE TRAIN FROM LEIDEN TO SCHIPOL (21 MARCH 2009)

I had used the tramway in Geneva and Istanbul, but it was in the Netherlands that I first used trains. I noticed that many people brought books or magazines to entertain themselves during the long train trips. A wonderful idea; but one that could not work for me, as I was observing this new country and the train cabins. While on the train from Leiden to Schipol Airport, the practice of reading on trains triggered a question: Could the train be a perfect public space? One has her/his own seat (space dimension); the trip is affordable (money-wise); solitude or interaction is possible (social aspect); the trip is geographically mobile (entertainment aspect). In comparison, Horsh Al-Sanawbar does not have many of these qualities, despite being an open public space. The park does not have seating for everyone – or at least for many visitors; the park is not affordable, as visitors are not benefiting from the tax money they pay; solitude or interaction is limited, since a major section of the park is fenced-off and closed; and, the park does not promote entertainment, as many local, social practices are banned. The train in the Netherlands is not a park, but it is accessible for people – primarily to commute on, but also to read, nap, interact, and so on.

73Shayya / The Real Versus the Imagined City

A space with a public use: Students’ bicycles in front of TU Delft, The Netherlands (Shayya, 2009)

74 Shayya / The Real Versus the Imagined City

> AT THE AIRPORT IN LARNACA (21 MARCH 2009)

On the way back to Beirut, I had a lay-over in Larnaca International Airport. Passengers – from different transiting flights – had to wait in the airport lounge before their next flight took off. People were chatting, eating, napping, and observing. Where I was sitting, a group of young men arrived and occupied the lounge. One, wearing headphones, sat quietly in his own world; another occupied three chairs and laid down for a nap; still others nearby chatted so loudly that I could not hear the flight calls. These practices triggered another question: Could the airport be a perfect public space? Places like airports and trains attract people for a particularly functional reason: commuting. It is within the transitory and functional qualities of these places that people coexist. People do not choose to go to the airport or to travel by train for fun; they do so because they have to be somewhere, at sometime. Moreover, their tenure at the airport or on the train will only last for a specific, short period of time. If Horsh Al-Sanawbar were accessible, as well as open, to people and their practices, then it might be as busy and vibrant as airports and trains.

> BACK TO BEIRUT

Authoritative control concerns not only the material policing of a place, but also the policing of the imagination and the spontaneity of social interaction, or what one could call “accessibility.” When the Lebanese civil war ended in 1989, the Lebanese people did not have enough space to rise above their tragedies –

and maybe initiate reconciliation – until international reconstruction aid entered the country. Among other endeavors, the regional council of Île-de France was interested in providing Lebanese authorities with financial and technical aid to rehabilitate Horsh Al-Sanawbar, which, “deserved to be on the list of areas in urgent need of reconstruction.”5 The report of the French regional council suggested that the Horsh could act as a meeting place for people from the different neighborhoods and factions surrounding it, besides being of historic and natural value within municipal and metropolitan Beirut.6 The Horsh was rehabilitated into a modern park, and part of it was made open to the public in 1999. This was the new imagined public space in Beirut. In an interview, Dr. Riad Alaili7 of MoB claimed that, “Horsh Al-Sanawbar is a symbol; it should be the most beautiful.”8 Dr. Alaili, a member of the Municipal Council, supports a vision for a green plan for Beirut, based on a socioeconomic assessment of the different neighborhoods. There is a Green Master Plan,9 currently under development with the help of Île-de France; the pilot project of this master plan will be a green, pedestrian and cyclist-friendly link between Horsh Al-Sanawbar and the central district of Beirut. Nevertheless, Dr. Alaili argues that people should have civic responsibility when it comes to public places, or else all efforts will be wasted. Currently, a major section of the park is currently closed, “for fear of rapid deterioration of greenspace,” and for the scarcity of maintenance and monitoring financial resources.10

Inside sources claim that the Municipal Council voted to close the major green section of the Horsh to everyone; however, they claim, the Administrator of Beirut issues entry permits under political pressure. In an e-mail conversation with the representative of Île-de France in Lebanon, I received the following confirmation.

Accessible public spaces: Bicycle lanes in Delft, The Netherlands (Shayya, 2009) Discussion at the Municipality of Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Shayya, 2009)

75Shayya / The Real Versus the Imagined City

Infrastructure as a vibrant space of appropriation and free expression, Delft, The Netherlands (Shayya, 2009)

76

> REAL VS. IMAGINED, ACCESSIBLE VS. OPEN

Civic responsibility is essential, and social interaction is favored. However, public space is about the real, as much as it is about the imagined. The real Beirut city – 20 years after the war – is a mixed landscape of trauma, hope, fear, reconciliation, conflict, pragmatism, and imagination. Its public space is already loaded with meanings and signifiers of control, conflict, and appropriation. As such, the closure of a major section of its park can only signify an imagined space for the responsible authority, a vision of control. This control is further emphasized when a few people are privileged with entry permits to the closed section. The real public place becomes a distant hope in the horizon. For Markus Miessen, the assembling of humans leads to spatial conflict, and spatial planning becomes the management of this conflict. Miessen accepts the real (conflict) that is part of the process of spatial production; he further contends that, “Participation is war. Any form of participation is already a form of conflict… However, it seems that this role [of the participant] is rarely understood as a critical platform of engagement, but rather based on romantic conceptions of harmony and solidarity.”13 What is needed in Beirut is an admission of the complex and complicated reality – through practicing less control over public space. Authority, by definition, will always have control; it is the type and level of control that will grant either access or entry to the park, to the imagination of public space, and to the production of the city.

The official position of Île-de-France towards the closure of the park is: the closure is not acceptable since the park is aimed at being open to the public like any other public park. Nevertheless as the French partner of the Municipality of Beirut, the Île-de-France Region, of course, cannot go beyond the decisions taken by the Lebanese authorities. (24 July 2009)

Not far away, in Egypt, the transformation of a huge landfill into Al-Azhar Park was experiencing a similar view of control and how society “should be.” The massive undertaking by the Aga Khan Foundation certainly introduced positive effects into the life of the landfill area, including environmental upgrading, spatial aesthetics, and expelling the resident drug dealers.11 Issandr El Amrani, in her description of the transformation of the huge landfill site, depicts the following conversation:

Seif Rashidi, an Egyptian Urban Planner who has worked on the park’s al-Darb al-Ahmar project since the late 1990s, told me that one of the ideas for the park was that it should be a place where all social classes could mix but there was also a concern that entry should not be free to help foster the idea that the park was a valuable site worth preserving… But one gets the sense that the park’s creators are protective after all the effort made to create such a magnificent site. Egyptians tend to have a low opinion of their ability to maintain order; the chaotic quality of life in their capital has in particularly convinced the polished elite that the masses are undeserving of green areas.12

Shayya / The Real Versus the Imagined City

Zuiderpark in Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Shayya, 2009) Zuiderpark in Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Shayya, 2009)

77Shayya / The Real Versus the Imagined City

Zuiderpark in Rotterdam: Open, wide, and empty, The Netherlands (Shayya, 2009)

78 Shayya / The Real Versus the Imagined City

1. Mitchell, Don and Richard Van Deusen. “Downsview Park: Open Space or Public Space?” Case: Downsview Park Toronto. Ed. Julia Czerniak. Munich: Prestel and Harvard GSD, 2001. 102-115. P.113.

2. Ibid.3. The PhD Seminar on Public Space. 19-20 March 2008. Delft University of Technology,

The Netherlands.4. Masterplan Zuiderpark Rotterdam. Pamphlet. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam,

n.d.5. Thibault, Christian. “A Competition for the Pine Wood [Un Concours pour le Bois des

Pins].” Cahiers de l’IAURIF #106. Trans. Mary Pardoe. IAURIF, n.d. 167-177. P.167.6. Ibid. P.168, 170.7. Member of the municipal council since 2004; President of The Gardens, Health, and

Environment Committee8. Alaili, Riad. On Green Areas in Beirut Fadi Shayya. 01 July 2009.9. See Interscène. Elaboration du Plan Vert de la Ville de Beyrouth: Analyse Historique

et Audit de l’Existant. Study. Beirut: Région Île-de-France, 2000 and Interscène. Elaboration du Plan Vert de la Ville de Beyrouth: Esquisse de Plan Vert. Study. Beirut: Région Île-de-France, 2000.

10. Feuillet, Christian. “Mandature 1998-2004: Bilan et Perspectives.” March 2004. Fédération des Élu-es Écologistes. Région d’Île-de-France. 2 December 2007 <http://www.elus-ecologistes.org/IMG/doc/BilanAIMandature_03-041.doc>. P.57.

11. El Amrani, Issandr. “From Trash Heap to Emerald Lung.” With/Without: Spatial Products, Practices and Politics in the Middle East. Ed. Shumon Basar, Antonia Carver and Markus Miessen. Dubai: Bidoun & Moutamarat, 2007. 40-49. P.48-49.

12. Ibid.13. Miessen, Markus. “Conflict as Practice.” Al Manakh. Ed. Ole Bouman, Mitra Khoubrou

and Rem Koolhaas. Amsterdam: Stichting Archis, 2007. 464-469. P.464.