--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Technifying the public and publicizing infrastructures: exploring new urban
political ecologies through the square of General Vara del Rey
Fernando Domínguez Rubio, Marie-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow, Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural
Change, at The Open University & Uriel Fogué, Elii Architects
Abstract: The aim of this article is to explore, through a case study (Plaza del General Vara del Rey, a
public square planned for Madrid’s historic district) new ways of integrating technology, nature and
infrastructures into urban public spaces. The design of General Vara del Rey will be offered here as a
model to explore a novel urban political ecology that calls into question dominant definitions of public
spaces as self-contained sites operating independently of natural and infrastructural spaces. Through the
double movement of the technification of public space and the publicization of infrastructures the square
aims to rethink the political ecology of urban public spaces by enabling the effective incorporation and
participation of infrastructural and natural elements as active actors into the public and political life of the
community. The transformation of infrastructures and nature into fully visible, public and political worlds,
it will be argued, provides a useful model to address the growing proliferation of infrastructural and
technological elements onto contemporary urban surfaces and to open up the possibility of new forms of
civic participation and engagement.
I. Introduction
Fig. 1. Haussmann’s renovation of Paris. Left: ‘Grand ègout collecteur’, Engraving, 1863. Joanne, Adolphe
(Joanne, 1870, p.368). Right: “Rue de Paris, Temps de Pluie”, Gustave Caillebotte. Oil on canvass, 1877.
The illustration above is one of the most well-known and powerful examples of a novel
way of conceiving urban space that emerged around the second half of the nineteenth
century. In this conception, urban space is organized around a clear discontinuity
between, on the one hand, public urban surfaces, defined as the spaces of human
exchange, commerce, leisure and domesticated nature, and, on the other, an invisible
subterranean city populated by different technological inhabitants, like water pipes,
wires, conducts, passages, culverts, as well as water and energy flows. Historically, the
1
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
emergence of this segregated urban system can be seen as a logical response to the
problems that had afflicted European cities after the first and second industrial
revolutions. The rapid development of heavy industries and the massive flows of rural
migrants had resulted in dramatic urban growths that transformed urban centers into
chaotic, heavily polluted and insalubrious environments. This is the time of the Big
Smoke in England, of endemic infectious diseases, like cholera, typhus, and tuberculosis,
decimating urban populations, and of the social revolts that repeatedly swept European
cities between 1820 and 1848. It is against this backdrop of insalubriousness,
uncontrolled urban growth and social unrest that reformers like Haussmann posed the
ideal of a new model of urban cohesion based on a peaceful integration of nature,
technology and society in a renewed, well-ordered and sanitized urban environment.
Haussmann’s Plan for Paris is not only important because it helped to develop a novel
conception of urban space that sought to “regularize the disordered city” (Choay, 1969:
15), but also because it inscribed and enacted a novel urban political ecology, that is, a
new way of conceiving, organizing and governing the relations between the different
inhabitants of the city. As we will define it here, urban political ecology starts with the
recognition that the inhabitants of the city are not only social—e.g. individuals,
collectives, institutions, etc.—, but also natural—e.g. physical environment, climate,
etc.— and technological—e.g. infrastructures, architectures, etc. From the perspective of
urban political ecology, therefore, the traditional concern of political theory with the
governance of human relations is expanded to include the natural and the technological
into the governance of the city (Graham & Marvin, 2001; Kaika, 2005; Keil, 2005;
Robbins, 2004; Swyngedouw, 2006).
Haussmann’s Plan for Paris represents a key event in the development of a novel
political ecology, of a new regime of cohabitation, based on the separation of the human,
natural and technological inhabitants of the city into two distinct spheres of governance:
the political sphere of urban surfaces designed by architects and urban planners,
governed by politicians, and open to public debate and accountability; and a largely
2
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
invisible ‘subpolitical’ sphere1 hosting multiple cities (hydropolis, informational city,
electropolis) engineered by different forms of expert knowledge and operating largely
beyond the democratic control and accountability of citizens (see Fig. 2).
Fig.2 The modern urban political ecology
The development of this urban political ecology must be seen in conjunction with the
emergence of a specific technology of governance centered around the attempt to
1
Our use of the term ‘sub-political’ differs from Ulrich Beck’s (1997) original use, which Beck employed
to describe all those political forms located outside formal institutions of the nation state. As Holzer and
Sørensen (2003:80) point out, for Beck’s sub-politics is mainly about “the re-politicization of areas outside
the iron cage of bureaucratic politics in the face of new challenges brought about by the process of
reflexive modernization”. While we agree with Beck that politics cannot be restricted to the formal
structures of the state, we differ in his (tacit) restriction of politics to human agents. In this article, we will
extend Beck’s use of the term ‘sub-political’ to include all those technological, natural and material
elements and processes that have been traditionally excluded from the formal sphere of politics, but which
nonetheless act as “a tacit, constituting force in the organization of political collectives” (Marres & Lezaun,
2011: 491).
3
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
increase the moral and political control of the population through the rationalization of
space (Foucault, 1977; Scott, 1999). Indeed, many urban reformers of the day saw urban
planning and architecture as powerful instruments for the design of new moral and
political orders. This is evident in Haussmann’s Plan for Paris, which was explicitly
designed “to regularize the disordered city, to disclose its new order by means of a pure,
schematic layout which would disentangle it from its dross” (Haussman, in Choay, 1969:
16) and to enable, in so doing, a greater and more efficient police and military control
over the city (Jordan, 1996; Weeks, 2000: 52).
This Haussmannian urban political ecology, based on the segregation of the city into two
distinct functional compartments, has constituted a powerful normative ideal to organize
and govern the relations between the different inhabitants of the city. Indeed, much of the
urban planning between the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century
can be seen as a prolonged effort to achieve the Haussmannian ideal of sanitized, wellordered, public urban surfaces through the domestication of nature and the ‘blackboxing’
of large infrastructural networks (Desfor & Vesalon, 2008; Fishman, 1982; Gandy, 2002;
Hall, 2002; Jacobs, 1996; Kaika, 2005; Le Corbusier, 1987). As the twentieth century
marched along, water and waste systems, communication networks, energy and industrial
infrastructures were gradually buried underground or slowly displaced to the peripheries
of the city, as nature was integrated into urban centers in the form of carefully
domesticated environments designed to create large “pleasure grounds” for the rapidly
developing urban bourgeois population (Cranz, 1982)2.
Needless to say, the domestication of nature and the blackboxing of infrastructure
resulted in a radical improvement in the salubriousness and livability of urban
environments. The gradual substitution of small and fragmented infrastructural networks
by large-scale, centralized and integrated infrastructures not only contributed to the
liberation of great swaths of urban space for different activities, like leisure, recreation,
consumption and commerce, but also enabled the gradual universalization of access to
2
An exception to this rule are transport and telecommunication infrastructures, which not only remained
visible over the twentieth century but were quite often fetishicized and spectacularized as part of different
political projects (Caro, 1974; Larkin, 2008).
4
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
basic services like water, electricity or the phone and, through them, to the
standardization and cohesion of urban spaces and populations (Graham & Marvin, 2001).
However, and despite the achievements of this dual model, it has become increasingly
evident over the last decades that this Haussmasian political ecology has outlived its
usefulness as a way of conceiving and organizing contemporary urban life. The
unrelenting effort to bury, integrate and standardize infrastructures has been outpaced by
a number of interrelated factors, like the unprecedented growth of urban populations, the
ever-growing needs of capitalist expansion and its associated demands for greater
interconnection between markets and urban centers, the seemingly unceasing revolution
in communication, information and energy technologies, or the rapid motorization of
culture with the subsequent need for large-scale transport infrastructures (Altshuler &
Luberoff, 2003; Castells, 1992; Featherstone, et. al., 2005; Sassen, 2001, 2002; Urry,
2007).
As a result of the ever-growing demands emerging from these interrelated processes,
some of the infrastructures that were once confined to a subterranean or peripheral
existence have slowly re-emerged from the ground invading and reconfiguring
contemporary urban landscapes. Thus, the idyllic landscapes of urban civility imagined
by Haussmann—perhaps nowhere better exemplified than in the Parisian boulevard—,
are giving way to new ‘infrastructurescapes’ defined by new formats of infrastructural
visibility and a new economy of the visible. The development of large-scale transport
networks and hubs (Flyvbjerg, et. al., 2003), the creation of technological and
informational hotspots, or the emergence of new forms of ‘green urbanism’ (Swilling,
2011), are giving way to novel forms of infrastructural monumentality that are
reconfiguring the material and symbolic fabric of the city.
It will be our contention in this article that the abrupt irruption of the sub-political world
of infrastructures onto urban surfaces is not merely transforming the aesthetic or
symbolic landscape of contemporary cities but it is also giving way to a novel urban
political ecology. By actively re-shaping urban environments, creating new borders,
channeling and regulating the flows of exchanges between people, values, things and the
5
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
built environment, contemporary infrastructures have become powerful elements
redefining the ways in which urban spaces and populations are constituted, connected and
disconnected. The development of mega-transport projects connecting global hubs and
users, the rapid emergence and proliferation of differentiated, small-scale, privatized, and
customized infrastructures catering for specific customer needs—like gated communities
with its own infrastructural networks (De Duren, 2006; Glasze, 2006), or hyperconnected financial centers with exclusive access to communication and transport
infrastructures—, are producing increasingly segmented urban spaces and segregated
publics with unequal access and rights to the city (Harvey, 2003; Mitchell, 2003). In this
process, as Kirkpatrick and Smiths (2011: 480) point out, “many cities have ceded many
of their infrastructural responsibilities, and a significant amount of authority, to extralocal entities” thus locating infrastructures further beyond public control and
accountability (see also Mustafa & Reeder, 2009; Siemiatycki, 2005; Torrance, 2008). As
a result of these developments, the old Hausmannian ideal of homogenous urban spaces
and cohesive publics unified by large-scale integrated infrastructures is being rapidly
replaced by a novel urban cartography defined by new physical, symbolic and
socioeconomic boundaries and uneven forms of citizenship. This is perhaps nowhere as
evident as in the rapidly growing urban environments of the global south where
infrastructures have become crucial elements in the re-production of highly segregated
spaces of privilege and wealth (Dupont, 2011; Gandy, 2006; Kooy & Bakker, 2008;
McFarlane, 2008; Mustafa & Reeder, 2009; Silva, 2000).
In this context, infrastructure planning and provision have resurfaced over the last
decades as key sites of public political debate and contestation (Altshuler & Luberoff,
2003; Flyvbjerg, et.al., 2003).The crisis of the Haussmannian model makes it
increasingly urgent to rethink contemporary urban spaces alongside a novel political
ecology, one that is able to deal with the challenges posed by the new technological and
infrastructural inhabitants redefining contemporary urban landscapes and politics. This
article aims to be a first step towards imagining a novel urban political ecology emerging
from the ongoing process of ‘technological and infrastructural invasion’. We will contend
that the ‘invasion’ of infrastructures and technologies should not be seen in purely
6
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
negative terms, as an inescapable neo-liberal process leading to urban fragmentation, a
widening gap in socio-economic inequalities and to increasingly differential forms of
citizenship (Graham, 2000; Graham & Marvin, 2001; Swilling, 2011; Torrance, 2008).
Although these negative processes are undeniably taking place, we will contend that the
new formats infrastructural visibility and the development of new technologies also offer
an opportunity to think anew the integration of technology and infrastructures into the
city as well as its relationship with public and natural spaces. Specifically, we will claim
that these developments open up the space for a novel urban political ecology, one whose
main concern is not to domesticate, control or blackbox natural and infrastructural
elements, but rather to enable their effective incorporation and participation into the
public and political life of the community. As we will argue, the transformation of the
sub-political worlds of infrastructures and nature into fully public and political worlds not
only offers a new understanding of urban space but also the possibility of new forms of
civic participation and engagement.
We will approach this novel political ecology through the lenses of architectural design,
which has become over the last century one of the fundamental tools responsible for
organizing the ‘invasion’ and incorporation of infrastructures into the surfaces of the city.
As we shall argue, the irruption of infrastructural worlds onto urban surfaces demands an
urgent repoliticization of architectural design. For the most part of the past century, the
architectural design of public spaces has been largely confined to a merely cosmetic or
ornamental function dealing with the decorative aspects of public surfaces and urban
furniture thereby abdicating to engineers the control over the increasingly vast
subterranean world of infrastructural technologies. In so doing, architects have acted as
silent witnesses wittingly or unwittingly helping to secure and re-inscribe the separation
between culture, nature and technology implicit in Haussmann’s modern political
ecology. There is a need for another architectural program, one that takes the integration
and articulation of nature, culture and infrastructure into new hybrid urban neighborhoods
as its main design and political problem (Gandy, 2005; Swyngedouw, 1996). The first
necessary step towards this new architectural program is to reclaim infrastructural and
natural elements as sui generis architectural elements in the design of public spaces. We
7
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
will exemplify how this can be done through a particular urban intervention: the design of
General Vara del Rey, a public square in the center of Madrid’s historic district, designed
by the architectural office Elii3. The aim of the paper will not be to provide a thorough
description of this project, but to offer it as a possible model to re-think contemporary
urban political ecology. More specifically, we will discuss the design of this square as a
possible model for reimagining urban public spaces by bringing the sub-political world of
infrastructures and nature into the broad light of public urban surfaces. We will use Elii’s
model to explore how to disrupt the modern separation between infrastructural spaces and
political surfaces through two distinct but symmetrical operations, namely: the
technification of public space and the publicization of infrastructures. The technification
of public space will be described here as the process of recovering the social, political
and aesthetic capacities of natural and infrastructural elements by turning them into active
elements in the design and composition of public urban spaces. This process, we will
argue, must be accompanied by a symmetrical publicization of infrastructures aimed at
replacing the traditional understanding of infrastructural and natural processes as 'matters
of fact' located outside the realm of public discussion with an understating that deals with
them as matters of public concern, that is, as subjects open to public scrutiny, discussion
and accountability (Latour, 2004a, 2004b)4. The paper will conclude with a call to rethink
architectural design as a form of material politics rather than as a simple material means
for politics. As we shall claim, the political valence of design does not reside in its ability
to spatialize and materialize political programs and ideologies, but in its capacity to
generate spaces of political discussion and civic engagement.
II.- Technifying public space: from containers to interfaces
3
Elii Architectural office was established in 2006 by Uriel Fogué, co-author of this paper, Eva Gil and
Carlos Palacios. Its activity has focused on the development and construction of architectural and urban
projects dealing with public space, infrastructures, industrial construction, ephemeral architecture, and
exhibition design (For more information see www.elii.es). This paper emerges from a series of critical
discussions held between the two authors about the potential contributions that the design of General Vara
del Rey can have for contemporary urban and architectural theory.
4
Although we borrow these terms from Latour (2004a, 2004b), we will employ them in a slightly different
way. Specifically, while Latour defines ‘matters of fact’ as those facts established by reference to an
incontrovertible Nature, we will understand them here as those tacit and commonly accepted truths that
organize our daily life without ever entering into political debate and scrutiny.
8
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
General Vara del Rey is a well-known square in Madrid, both for its strategic location in
one of the city’s historic districts and for becoming, each Sunday, one of central sites of
El Rastro, Madrid’s largest and most populous flea market. The square constitutes an
archetypical example of contemporary urban public spaces and a powerful illustration of
the kind of pressures these spaces face in most contemporary urban environments.
General Vara del Rey has become over time a patchwork of different architectural styles,
functions and memories. Initially, the square was designed as a private space belonging
to the slaughterhouse that once existed in the area and was later transformed into a public
space. The contemporary square emerged in 1928, when it was separated from the nearby
Plaza de Cascorro. In its present form, the square is organized around a central
recreational space, punctuated by some trees, benches and lampposts. With the exception
of Sundays, when the square becomes a bustling site of economic and social transactions
and exchanges, the square’s main function is to offer a restful place to seat, talk or take
shelter from the heat during Madrid’s sultry summer months. However, and as it is the
case with many public spaces in large urban centers, the untroubled environment the
square aspires to create is constantly thwarted by the incessant rumbling of the traffic that
clogs the narrow cobbled streets surrounding the square, as well as by the scores of cars
that each day invade its perimeter in search of a much-coveted parking spot. The square
can be thus characterized as a ‘fragile’ public space, increasingly confined and
endangered by the unrelenting demands and growth of the infrastructural and transport
networks of the city.
In 2007 Madrid’s city council launched an ambitious plan called Proyecto Madrid
Centro. The first phase of this plan consisted in the elaboration of a strategic plan
commissioned by the city council to different architectural offices to modernize the
highly congested and increasingly pauperized historic district of the city and to define the
basic guidelines for its future development. Elli was selected to elaborate a Strategic Plan
to explore the integration of photovoltaic energy in the city. Elli’s plan proposed
transforming the entire historical district into a huge energy infrastructure through the
massive incorporation of solar panels. In 2009, the city council commissioned Elli to put
9
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
into practice some of the main ideas proposed in this plan through a small pilot project in
General Vara del Rey that would explore the integration of smart technologies into the
historic district of the city5.
Elii’s proposed plan for General Vara del Rey aimed at challenging the traditional
Haussmannian understanding of public spaces as spatial ‘containers’ for human
interaction, debate and exchange. This model has traditionally defined squares as key
elements for the everyday civic life of a participatory democracy, as well as powerful
sites for the representation of public demands and for the articulation of different publics
(Low, 2000). Following this ideal, architectural interventions have been focused for the
most part in attempting to construct pure and self-contained 'social' spaces by eliminating
or domesticating all those infrastructural and natural elements that could interfere with
the processes of human interaction through which publics are constituted and mobilized.
This understanding of public spaces as empty 'containers' is evident in the design of many
contemporary urban public squares, which tend to be organized around large voids in
which infrastructural and natural elements are normally reduced to merely functional or
decorative functions or are blackboxed into invisible infrastructural spaces.
General Vara del Rey represents Elii’s attempt to move away from the hegemonic
understanding of public spaces as self-contained spaces operating independently of
natural and infrastructural spaces. The aim of this project, however, is not so much to
criticize this traditional model, but to extend the existing repertoire of public squares in
ways that enable the public representation of some of the elements that have been
typically neglected from traditional public spaces, like nature and infrastructures. To
achieve this, Elii took as its starting point a particular ‘socio-material’ understanding of
the public that has been developed over the last years in different fields, like sociology,
social studies of science, political theory, or geography (Barry 2001; Bennett 2009; Braun
et al. 2010; Latour 2004; Latour and Weibel 2005; Law and Mol 2008; Lezaun 2011;
Marres and Lezaun 2011). This body of work has emerged as a powerful reaction to those
5
For further information and images see 037 PNS (Premium Network Square) General Vara del Rey at
http://www.elii.es/eng/index.php?/work/037--pns-general-vara-del-rey/
10
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
traditional understandings that have sought to describe publics as a simple collection of
human actors, discourses and practices (Arendt, 1998; Habermas, 1991). As the
proponents of this socio-material view argue, the traditional equation of publics with
people has unduly relegated material, technological and natural elements to extra- or subpolitical spheres (Marres and Lezaun, 2011; Serres, 1995). Thus, in contrast to traditional
'anthropocentric' understandings of the public, the proponents of this socio-material view
foreground the constitutive role that different materials play in constraining, allowing and
informing the ways in which publics are drawn together and separated. In this view,
therefore, publics are heterogeneous constituencies of human, technological and natural
elements, rather than a simple collection of human actors, actions and discourses. Publics,
it follows, cannot be disassociated from the specific material and natural environments,
technologies and infrastructures in and through which they are constituted and mobilized,
for without them, they would be reduced to a ghostly, spectral existence.
This socio-material approach not only offers an opportunity to redefine the dominant
notions of the public in philosophy and social sciences but also opens up a different
course of action for the architectural design of public spaces. Contrary to the
Hausmannian program of purification, and its attempt to produce and secure the borders
of the public sphere against infrastructural and natural worlds, this socio-material view
invites us to imagine a radical process of technification that reintegrates into public life
those elements hitherto relegated to the extra- or sub-political worlds of nature and
infrastructure. This process of technification, however, should not be understood as a
simple process of ‘undoing’ the Haussmannian model. That is, by technification we do
not mean simply resurfacing and scattering over urban surfaces those natural and
technological elements that had been hitherto excluded from them. Such process would
merely reproduce and exacerbate the negative effects of the infrastructural invasion
affecting many contemporary urban public spaces. Nor should this process of
technification be understood as another exercise in vacuous high-tech architectural
rhetoric (Solà-Morales, 1992). As we will understand it here, this process of
technification constitutes an opportunity to articulate a different political ecology: a novel
regime of cohabitation that conceives of the city as single socio-technical continuum
11
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
(Kaika, 2005), rather than as a space composed of different spatial registers operating
according to different logics of expertise and governance. Thus, the paramount question
is no longer how to separate, contain or ‘blackbox’ natural or infrastructural elements, but
how to integrate them as fully-fledged participants into the constitution of public space as
well as to explore the new conditions of citizenship the this integration entails. General
Vara del Rey constitutes an attempt to respond to this question.
The main idea guiding the design of Vara del Rey (see Fig.3) was to develop a project
that made it possible to re-integrate into public life different infrastructural processes, like
energy production and water collection, while at the same time retaining the usability of
the square for the human users. To accomplish this, Elli proposed a project in which
different technological and natural elements would have to perform three distinct tasks in
the square, namely: 1) to establish a continuity between infrastructural, natural, socioeconomic elements and processes; 2) to create a regime of collaboration and coproduction between these elements and processes; and 3) to establish a livable and
comfortable space for human users. Let us explore each of these tasks in detail.
12
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Fig 3. General Vara del Rey, general view.
Continuity and redistribution
The first of the tasks entrusted to these different devices will be to establish a spatial
continuum between traditionally separated infrastructural, natural and public spaces and
functions (Kaika, 2005; Swyngedouw, 2006). To do so, infrastructural processes, like
energy production or water collection and distribution, will take place in the public space
alongside other social functions, like recreation or commerce. To accomplish this, the
square will be populated by a series of hybrid urban trees equipped with a combination of
photovoltaic panels and grid-tie inverters that will produce energy by converting DC into
usable AC (See Fig. 4). In addition to these infrastructural functions, the hybrid trees will
be equipped with different recreational artifacts, like swings, slides, carrousels, and a
wide array of exercise devices, that will transform these infrastructural devices into
recreational devices.6
6
For further information about these hybrid Urban Trees see: http://www.elii.es/eng/index.php?/work/048-urban-trees/
13
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Besides the hybrid urban trees, a network of small water hills covered with vegetation
and scattered all around the square will collect, recycle and redistribute rainwater. An
especially designed permeable pavement will help in this process by allowing rainwater
to filter and enrich the soil. The rainwater thus collected will be treated and distributed by
the hybrid urban trees to sustain the biodiversity of the square (see Fig.4). Through these
devices the square emerges as a socio-technical continuum in which different
technological elements, like DC/AC converters and photovoltaic panels, natural elements,
like solar paths and radiations, will be woven together with different social processes,
like energy consumption, or recreation, thus making impossible any reading of the social,
the natural or the technological per se.
Collaboration and co-production
The second task entrusted to these devices will be that of creating a regime of
collaboration and co-production between socio-economic, natural and infrastructural
spaces. One of the ways in which this will be accomplished will be through the
collaboration of natural and technological elements in the infrastructural network of the
city. Specifically, the task of the square will be to invert the parasitical relation which has
traditionally defined public spaces as passive consumers of infrastructural resources.
General Vara del Rey will invert this relation by transforming the square into a
‘productive agent’ actively contributing to the infrastructural fabric of the city. The
project proposes to use solar photovoltaic power to cover the cost of the construction
works as well as the future maintenance of the square. Thanks to the photovoltaic panels
installed on the trees, the square will produce an average of 57,973KWH per year,
yielding an average of 748,836€ over the first 25 years.7
7
This calculation is based on Spanish legislation, which obliges energy companies to buy all the surplus
electricity produced by photovoltaic infrastructures that is dumped to the network through a connection
point. In the case of the square, this strategy will be used to cover the costs of the project by selling the
energy generated by the photovoltaic panels. During the first phase of ten years, the profit obtained from
this will be used to cover the overrun costs derived from the photovoltaic infrastructure, which will be paid
off in 10.5 years. From the eleventh year onwards, the square will generate an average of 30,000 € per year
in profits.
14
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Besides this energy production, and thanks to the collection of the rainfall, the square will
be able to get an ‘off-the-grid’ water supply which will enable the square to become
independent from municipal water supply during the cold months of the year. In this way,
the square will help to economize public water consumption in a city subjected to cyclical
droughts. Through these devices, therefore, a hitherto passive public space will become
an active urban power plant fully integrated into the infrastructural network of the city.
Fig 4. The working logic of urban trees at General Vara del Rey.
Climatic intervention
Finally, the square aims to act as a device to improve the ‘ergonomics’ of democracy and
public action (Lezaun, 2011) through different climatic interventions. This will be
accomplished through the combined action of different devices. For example, a
diagrammatic pavement has been carefully designed according to the varying solar
15
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
incidence angles to work as an energy script to configure environments compatible with
the current distribution of the flea-market stands and other recreational activities. In
addition to this, a series of the deciduous and evergreen trees will work with the hybrid
urban trees to regulate temperatures through the use of pulverized water, the strategic
production of shades according to the varying paths and intensities of winter and summer
suns and through the production and channeling of wind drafts across the square (see
Fig.4). This combination of technological trees and highly efficient natural deciduous
species (Persian Lilac) will also work as a CO2 drain system that will filter and recycle
air in the square. The combination of different technical layers with the ‘natural’ species
populating the square will generate livable and comfortable micro-environments for the
existing social and economic activities taking place in the square (i.e. leisure, or the fleamarket that takes place every Sunday) as well as promote the development of new ones.
From containers to interfaces
In contrast to traditional approaches to the design of public squares, in General Vara del
Rey technological devices and natural elements have not been reduced to a mere
cosmetic, symbolic or decorative functions. Rather, they have been designed to work as
active interfaces enacting a specific regime of cohabitation which connects and makes copresent in the space of the square seemingly disconnected social, natural and
technological agents. As a result of this, solar radiation, rainwater, energy demands,
economic transactions or recreational activities will be woven together in the square into
a single socio-technical continuum. It is important to underline here that Elii's proposed
design is just one among a potentially indefinite number of possible designs. Other
designs could have prioritized energy production over leisure, thus devoting more space
to hybrid trees or to water hills. Or they could have taken the opposite route, prioritizing
leisure over energy production, thus redistributing space in favor of recreational spaces.
The selection of one design over another is, necessarily, a balance reached as a result of a
political decision. Within the practice of design, each decision, like the position of the
hybrid trees, the colors of the pavement, the position of the water hills or the selection
16
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
and strategic display of evergreen and deciduous trees, is inescapably a question of
material politics, that is, a question of selecting between different ways of being and
living together by generating a constellation of relations, hierarchies, and patterns of
reciprocity and participation amongst hitherto disparate entities.
Through the process of technification explored in this section, General Vara del Rey
emerges as a hybridized urban ecosystem which disrupts the modern political ecology by
making impossible any reading of the social, the natural or the technological per se. In so
doing, the design of this square invites us to depart from the modern definition of public
spaces as empty and passive ‘containers’ existing independently from other natural and
infrastructural spaces, and to move in the direction of an understanding of public space as
an interface that enables the creation of a novel system of participation and collaboration
amongst disparate infrastructural, social and natural elements and processes.
III. Publicization of infrastructures: from matters of fact to matters of concern
In the previous section, we have described the process of technification as a first step
towards the reintegration of natural and technological elements into urban public space.
The aim of this section is to complete this reintegration by transforming these new
technological inhabitants into active participants in the public sphere. As we shall claim,
this transformation can only be achieved if the technification of public spaces is
accompanied by a symmetrical publicization of infrastructures. By publicization we do
not simply mean to render infrastructures visible in public, but to transform them into
genuine matters of public concern, that is, into subjects open to public scrutiny,
discussion and accountability (Latour, 2004a). As we will contend, to accomplish this
transformation it is necessarily to rethink the relationship between citizens and
infrastructures.
Most citizens living in developed urban environments relate to infrastructural processes
as unproblematic 'matters of fact'. That is, for them, infrastructures like energy or water
supplies exist ordinarily as taken for granted resources that can be easily called upon by
the simple flip of a switch or by opening a tap. The complex networks of technologies,
experts and political actors lying behind those mundane actions are rarely spared a
17
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
thought. They exist as part of largely invisible ‘subpolitical’ worlds organized and
managed by different forms of expert knowledge operating largely outside public debate
and accountability (Marres & Lezaun, 2011). It is only when infrastructures fail, when
the lights do no turn on or when water fails to emerge from the tap, that these
infrastructural worlds emerge as matters of public concern, as problems to be solved
(Giglioli & Swyngedouw, 2008; Graham, 2009; Graham & Thrift, 2007; Klinenberg,
2003; Star, 1999). It is at these moments when infrastructures become visible, and occupy
the centre of public debate. However, the publicity of these infrastructural worlds is
rarely, if ever, durable. When failures are fixed, these infrastructural worlds silently
recede back into the background of ordinary urban life to become again matters of fact
outside the public sphere8. This blackboxing of infrastructures as matters of fact not only
precludes the participation of citizens into the decisions involving the design of these
infrastructures but also reduces them to undifferentiated and abstract ‘users’ (Graham &
Marvin, 2001). The publicization of technologies that we will describe in this section
constitutes an attempt to prevent this process of blackboxing by sustaining the publicity
of these infrastructural worlds as matters of public concern. The key question, of course,
is how this condition of publicity can be accomplished and sustained over time.
One of the best strategies to publicize infrastructural processes as matters of public
concern are some of the initiatives emerging over the last few years to ‘unblackbox’
domestic energy consumption patterns through the use of different monitoring tools, like
smart energy meters, thermostats, light bulbs or boilers. By providing real-time readings
of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, kilowatts in use, or the monetary equivalence of
energy consumption, these devices aim to raise awareness of the energetic and economic
costs involved in mundane activities, like boiling a kettle of watching TV and to induce,
in so doing, ecologically-conscious consumption behaviours9. Different authors,
however, have criticized these initiatives as a part of a growing trend towards the
aestheticization and privatization of politics (Bauman, 1999; Clarke, 2007; Leighton,
8
This is not the case in many of the rapidly developing urban centers of the global south where recurrent
infrastructural failure turn infrastructures into perennial matters of public concern (McFarlane, 2008; Kooy
& Bakker, 2008).
9
For a domestic application of this devices see Elii’s work 057 – Insider
(http://www.elii.es/eng/index.php?/work/057--insider/).
18
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
2003). For these critics, although the use of these technologies may well induce a change
in individual behaviors, they do so by dangerously conflating political involvement to
individual patterns of consumption, thus reducing political action to minimal and largely
ineffectual scales of private action, with little real impact beyond comforting guilty
consciousnesses of the middle-class or making some savings in the electricity bill.
Contrary to this view, different authors have argued that far from operating a reduction or
banalization of the political, these technologies can be seen as promising and effective
‘technologies of citizenship’ through which the private space of the home can be
transformed into a site of political choices and action, that is, a place in which it is
possible to engage with large political projects, like sustainable societies or low-carbon
economy, through seemingly mundane everyday practices (Hobson, 2006; Jaque, 2011;
Lovell, 2004; Macnaghten, 2003; Marres, 2009, 2008;). From this perspective, private
domestic spaces emerge as complementary political spaces in which political intervention
takes place at the micro-scale of daily-life and choices. In this sense, these authors argue
that, by blurring the distinction between public and private spaces or between political
actions and everyday practices, these technologies offer the opportunity to extend the
sphere of the political beyond its traditional formats and sites.
General Vara del Rey constitutes an attempt to take one step further the process of
publicization operated by these domestic technologies. Specifically, the square has been
conceived as an experimental device to extend the process of publicization from the
private space of the home to public urban spaces. Trapped within the spiraling growth of
infrastructural and technological demands, most urban public spaces have been gradually
divested of their political character as spaces of civic discussion, action and involvement.
This is evident in the case of contemporary urban squares, which have reduced to mere
functional nodes articulating urban traffic, or to leisure spaces where busy citizens can
momentarily evade from the hustle and bustle of contemporary urban life. The project of
General Vara del Rey aims to revert this trend by reformatting an urban public square
into a site of political engagement. This will be accomplished through a radical
publicization of infrastructures that will render some infrastructural processes both visible
19
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
and legible for citizens through a series of visually accessible spatial codes and
indicators.
One of the main focuses of this project will be to publicize the process of energy
production, a process that has been removed from urban public spaces and confined to
power plants located in the peripheries of urban centers. This removal has resulted in the
attenuation of the causal relation existing between individual and collective patterns of
energy consumption and the large infrastructural resources and processes required to
sustain them. One of the results of this disconnection is the prevailing image of energy
production as a seemingly effortless and unproblematic activity. For most citizens,
electricity is considered and consumed as an endless resource always at hand to meet
individual and collective needs. The square aims to counter this dominant view by
visualizing the effort and time that goes into producing energy. This will be accomplished
through a series of visual indicators allocated in the urban trees and that will become
more or less illuminated depending on the energy collected by the square during the day.
In so doing, the square will convert the expert language of energy production into a
readable code, thus transforming energy production into a publicly accessible issue.
Moreover, by making visually accessible the variations of energy production throughout
the day, the square will unsettle the public image of energy as a constant. Energy will
emerge in the square as a variable resource that depends on a number of variable sociotechnical factors, like the changing intensities of sunlight or the efficiency of the
technological infrastructures required to transform solar sun into usable energy.
A similar strategy has been designed to ‘unblackbox’ the processes of water collection
and consumption. Both processes are critical issues in a city like Madrid, which suffers
periodical droughts but in which water supply levels are ordinarily unknown to citizens.
As in the case of energy consumption, the disconnection between small-scale individual
actions and large-scale infrastructural processes has prevented the creation of a sustained
individual commitment towards responsible patterns of water consumption in the city.
The square aims to intervene in this political debate by thematizing water supplies as
matters of public concern through two sets of devices. The first set of devices will be
20
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
attached to the water tanks and will act as large public pluviometers indicating the
amount of water collected by the square over each hydrologic year, thus making public
the square’ water resources. The aim of these devices is to call into question the
predominant image of water as an inexhaustible resource by representing it as a finite and
measurable public good. As the square consumes the collected water, the pluviometers
will become a publicly accessible index of the amount of hydrological resources required
to sustain the square, thus acting as a measure of the enormous amount of water required
to feed even small-scale urban ecosystems.
The aim of the second set of water-related devices will be to publicize the often hidden
large infrastructural networks upon which water distribution and consumption depends.
This will be accomplished through a network of thirteen ponds scattered around the
square replicating the thirteen water reservoirs from which Madrid collects its potable
water. Each of the square ponds will be filled in the same proportion as the water
reservoirs it mirrors, thus providing a real-time reading of Madrid’s water supplies.
Furthermore, by linking the local scale of the square and the larger regional scale of
water-reservoirs, the ponds will help to visualize the square as an element within a larger
set of infrastructures, challenging in so doing the image of public squares as selfcontained and discrete spaces within the urban fabric.
While energy indicators and pluviometers have been designed to thematize the largescale territorial implications of water and energy production, another series of indicators
will focus on visualizing the relationship between individual behaviors and collective
ones. This will be done through a series of indicators focusing on publicizing recycling
processes. In contrast to traditional recycling indicators, based on tightly defined
protocols, instructions and prohibitions, the recycling indicators of the square will focus
on translating individual recycling behaviors into readable energetic equivalences. Thus,
rather than making the link between individual and collective actions through rules, these
devices aim to establish this connection through the visualization of the effect that
individual actions have in collective processes.
21
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Finally, another series of indicators will concentrate on ‘unblackboxing’ the process of
public investment in infrastructures. In contemporary Western democracies, citizens
typically delegate the control of public investment in infrastructures to the State through
taxes and, increasingly, to private companies subcontracted by the State (Kirkpatrick &
Smith, 2011; Torrance, 2008). Public investment thus remains unaccountable and hidden
behind the state apparatus and different forms of expert and technical decision-making
processes. The aim of the square will be to render public investment visible and
accountable by informing citizens in real-time about the extent to which the initial public
investment required to build the square has been repaid. Over the duration of this process,
which will expand over some decades, the urban trees will be changing their color as the
gradually repays the initial investment. In so doing, the square will render visible and
accountable the process of public investment and will also help to understand the time
and economic effort involved in investing on green technologies (see Fig.4).
Thematization and political participation:
Thanks to the combined action of these indicators the square aims to perform a double
function. First, it will perform a civic function acting as a publicizing device through
which citizens can learn about the often hidden socio-technical ecosystem lying beneath
the seemingly autonomous fabric of urban life. This process of visualization is not aimed
at solving political problems, but at thematizing some infrastructural processes, like
electrical and water consumption, recycling behaviors, or public investment, as matters of
public concern. In other words, the square does not aim to provide political solutions to
existing infrastructural problems (i.e. excessive energy or water consumption), but as a
device to publicize these infrastructural problems as political problems open to public
scrutiny and debate. Second, and as a consequence of the former, by enabling citizens to
relate to these issues as matters of concern rather than as matters of fact, these indicators
aim to transform the square into a possible site for political involvement. That is, they
aim to transform the square into a polemical space by opening up different themes for
political participation and discussion. This, however, does not preclude other recreational
or economic uses of the square. Those citizens who wish to enter the square and use it as
22
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
a space of leisure and recreation can do so, without needing to participate or engage in
political discussions about public investment or water management. The square does not
enforce participation in these debates. Quite the opposite, the square requires a civic
effort on the side of the individual citizen as the prerequisite to participate in these
debates. The spatial and color codes thematizing the different infrastructural processes
are only readable from specific points of the square. Thus, the citizen willing to know
how much energy the square has collected has to move to one of the specific points to
make this political reading of the square. From any other point, the square emerges as
standard recreational space. Additionally, the codes employed to convey infrastructural
information have been deliberately designed not to be self-evident; they demand an effort
to understand what they mean. For example, the citizen must learn that the different
intensities of the light refer to the amount of energy collected on the day, or that the
changing colors of the square over the years are an index of the process of repayment of
the initial public investment. Thus, to re-format the square into a space of political
involvement, does not imply transforming it into a space of enforced citizenship and
participation, but rather to transform it into a space in which political discussion and
engagement is an option for those willing to participate.
Conclusion: the modest material politics of architectural design
General Vara del Rey has been designed as an experimental device to re-think the nature
of public spaces in contemporary urban environments. Specifically, it is an attempt to call
into question the dominant definition of urban public spaces as spaces segregated from
other natural and infrastructural spaces. Through the double movement of technifying
public space and the publicization of infrastructures the square aims to redefine an
existing public space by enabling the integration and participation of some of the
infrastructural and natural elements that have remained veiled in the modern political
ecology of the city. In so doing, General Vara del Rey aims to disrupt or suspend some of
the dichotomies dominating modern urban environments like, for example, the opposition
between public and infrastructural spaces, the confrontation between technology and
society, the disconnection between individual behaviors and collective good, or the
23
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
spatial and functional segregation of technology, nature and society. The disruption of
these dichotomies can be seen as a first step towards a novel urban political ecology that
recovers infrastructural and natural elements from the sub-political worlds wherein they
have been typically confined, and that incorporates them into the public and political life
of the community.
Yet, as we have argued, the re-politicization of urban infrastructure and nature can only
be achieved through a re-politicization of architectural design itself. General Vara del
Rey constitutes a vivid reminder of the fact that when we design, we are not merely
sorting or arranging different elements into a system of spatial positions; we are also
generating and defining a very particular system of relations, hierarchies, and patterns of
reciprocity and participation between those elements. In short: we are defining ways of
being and living together. It is for this reason that we would like to define architectural
design as a form of ‘material politics’ (cf. Law and Mol 2008), rather than as a simple
material means for politics. To define architectural design as a form of material politics
implies acknowledging that not every practice of architectural design enables the same
‘material politics’, that is, not every way of designing enables the same ways of dwelling
and being together. Each architectural design lets us generate—and, crucially, imagine—,
different ways of being and dwelling together, that is, different ecologies of togetherness.
The traditional and seemingly neutral tree-lined squares populating our cities are no less
political than the proposed design for General Vara del Rey. Indeed, in spite of their
apparent innocence as mere decorative elements, these ‘traditional’ squares spatialize a
very particular grammar of relations and hierarchies that reinforces the separation
between the human, natural and technological inhabitants of the city. The difference
between General Vara del Rey and these squares, therefore, does not reside in the fact
that General Vara del Rey has a political project while traditional squares do not, but
rather in the kind of material politics they promote and enact. General Vara del Rey has
been specifically designed to thematize some processes and relations as political—like
water or energy consumption—but not others. In this sense, the project consciously
implodes the distinction between aesthetics and politics as it understands that each design
decision is always the inscription and materalization of a specific political ecology. In
this sense, the critical questions we need to ask ourselves in the process of design are:
24
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
what ways of living and being together are made possible and enacted by each specific
design? And, more importantly, what designs do we need to pursue to construct a
common world?
Both questions have become increasingly urgent in a world in which the modern ideal of
cohabitation imagined by Haussmann and other reformers at the close of the nineteenth
century has been short-circuited by the unparalleled growth of infrastructural worlds and
a spiraling ecological crisis that question the sustainability of inherited urban models and
ways of living. In this context, there is a critical need to create urban political ecologies
that re-imagine the relationships between infrastructures, nature and society. General
Vara del Rey aims to contribute to this process by opening up a new urban political space
in which the relationship between these elements becomes a central matter of public
concern and debate. Yet we should very careful not to overstate the case. General Vara
del Rey has been explicitly designed against those grand utopian modernist models that
entrusted to urban and architectural design the task of social change. In contrast, General
Vara del Rey emerges as a plea for modest design. By this we mean an architectural
design practice whose aim is not to prescribe a script for specific political actions or
programs (Jones, et. al., 2011), but rather to generate spaces in which political discussion
and civic engagement can take place, and where democratic conflict and controversy can
emerge (Mouffe, 2006). From this modest perspective, therefore, architectural design
does not emerge as a form of political engineering but rather as a form of political
rhetoric, a practice that attempts to seduce rather than to oblige, to propose rather than to
prescribe, to persuade rather than to instruct, to nudge rather than to force (Thaler &
Sunstein, 2008). In this sense, the political function of architectural design is not
pedagogical: its aim is not to teach or inculcate certain values, codes or modes of
behavior. Instead, its political function is to be polemical: its aim is to render visible and
public a series of problems qua political problems. This is, precisely, the aim of General
Vara del Rey: to propose a series of topics, such as energy consumption, as matters of
public concern and to invite and persuade citizens to engage with them. The political
importance of architectural design, it follows, does not reside in an illusionary power to
change behaviors or consciousness, but in its power to propose new models of
25
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
cohabitation, novels matters of concern, as well as to enable new spaces for political
participation and engagement. Needless to say, how such engagement takes place is
something that will be ultimately defined by the different ways in which its different
users appropriate the square.
26
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Bibliography:
Altshuler, A.A. & Luberoff, D. (2003) Mega-projects: the changing politics of urban
public investment. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago
Barry, A. (2001) Political machines: governing a technological society. Athlone Press,
London
Bauman, Z. (1999) In Search of Politics. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Bennett, J. (2009) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Duke University Press
Books, Durham, NC.
Braun, B., Whatmore, S.J., Stengers, I., Bennett, J., et al. (2010) Political Matter:
Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life. University Of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Caro, R.A. (1974) The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York,. Knopf,
New York
Castells, M. (1992) The Informational City: Economic Restructuring and Urban
Development. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Choay, F. (1969) Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century. George Braziller, New
York.
Clarke, N. (2007) Globalising the consumer: Doing politics in an ethical register.
Political geography 26. 3, 231-49
Le Corbusier (1987) The City of To-morrow and Its Planning. The Architectural Press,
London
Cranz, G. (1982) Politics of Park Design, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Desfor, G. & Vesalon, L. (2008) Urban Expansion and Industrial Nature: A Political
Ecology of Toronto’s Port Industrial District. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 32.3, 586–603.
Dupont, V. (2011) The Dream of Delhi as a Global City. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 35. 3, 533–54.
De Duren, N. (2006) Planning à la Carte: The Location Patterns of Gated Communities
around Buenos Aires in a Decentralized Planning Context. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 30. 2, 308–27.
Featherstone, M., Thrift, N. & Urry, J. (2005) Automobilities. Sage, London.
27
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Fishman, R. (1982) Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank
Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. & Rothengatter, W. (2003) Megaprojects and risk : an
anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge & New York.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books, New
York
Gandy, M. (2002) Concrete and Clay. Reworking Nature in New York City. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Gandy, M. (2005) Cyborg Urbanization: Complexity and Monstrosity in the
Contemporary City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29.1,
26-49.
Gandy, M. (2006) Planning, Anti-Planning and the Infrastructure Crisis Facing
Metropolitan Lagos. Urban Studies 43.2, 371-96.
Giglioli, I. & Swyngedouw, E. (2008) Let’s Drink to the Great Thirst! Water and the
Politics of Fractured Techno-natures in Sicily. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 32.2, 392–414.
Glasze, G. (2006) Private cities : global and local perspectives. Routledge, London
Graham, S. (2000) Constructing premium network spaces: reflections on infrastructure
networks and contemporary urban development. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 24.1, 183–200.
Graham, S. (2009) Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails. Routledge, London.
Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,
Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Routledge, London.
Graham, S. & Thrift, N. (2007) Out of Order. Theory, Culture & Society 24.3, 1 –25.
Habermas, J. (1991) The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hall, P. (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and
Design in the Twentieth Century. Wiley-Blackwell, London
Harvey, D. (2003) The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 27.4, 939–41.
Hobson, K. (2006) Bins, Bulbs, and Shower Timers: On the `Techno-Ethics’ of
Sustainable Living. Ethics, Place & Environment 9.3, 317–36.
28
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Holzer, B and Sørensen M.P. (2003) Rethinking Subpolitics: Beyond the ‘Iron Cage’ of
Modern Politics?. Theory, Culture and Society 20.2, 79-102
Jacobs, J. (1996) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. W.W. Norton & Co, New
York.
Jaque, A. (2011) Eco-Ordinary. Codes For Everyday Architectural Practices.
Lampreave, Madrid.
Joanne, A.L. (1870) Diamond guide for the stranger in Paris. Hachette, Paris.
Jones, R., Pykett, J. & Whitehead, M. (2011) The Geographies of Soft Paternalism in the
UK: The Rise of the Avuncular State and Changing Behaviour after
Neoliberalism. Geography Compass 5.1, 50–62.
Jordan, D.P. (1996) Transforming Paris: The Life and Labors of Baron Haussmann.
University Of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kaika, M. (2005) City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City. Routledge, London.
Keil, R. (2005) Progress report—urban political ecology. Urban Geography 26.7, 640–
51.
Kirkpatrick, L. & Smith, M.P. (2011) The Infrastructural Limits to Growth: Rethinking
the Urban Growth Machine in Times of Fiscal Crisis. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 35.3, 477–503.
Klinenberg, E. (2003) Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. University
Of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kooy, M. & Bakker, K. (2008) Technologies of government: constituting subjectivities,
spaces, and infrastructures in colonial and contemporary Jakarta. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32.2, 375–91.
Larkin, B. (2008) Signal and noise : media, infrastructure, and urban culture in Nigeria.
Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Latour, B. (2004a) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Latour, B. (2004b) Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to
Matters of Concern. Critical inquiry 30.2, 225-48
Latour, B. & Weibel, P. (2005) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Law, J. & Mol, A. (2008) Globalisation in practice: On the politics of boiling pigswill.
Geoforum 39.1, 133–43.
29
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Leighton, D. (2003) Happy days? Freedom and security in a consumer society. Renewal:
A Journal of Labour Politics 11.2.
Lezaun, J. (2011) Offshore Democracy: Launch and landfall of a socio-technical
experiment. Economy and Society 40.4, 553-81
Lovell, H. (2004) Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning 6.1, 35–55.
Low, S.M. (2000) On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Macnaghten, P. (2003) Embodying the environment in everyday life practices. The
Sociological Review 51.1, 63–84.
Marres, N. (2009) Testing Powers of Engagement: Green Living Experiments, the
Ontological Turn and the Undoability of Involvement. European Journal of
Social Theory 12.1, 117–33.
Marres, N. (2008) The making of climate publics: Eco-homes as material devices of
publicity. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 9.1, 27–45.
Marres, N. & Lezaun, J. (2011) Materials and Devices of the Public: An Introduction.
Economy and Society 40.4. 489-509
McFarlane, C. (2008) Governing the Contaminated City: Infrastructure and Sanitation in
Colonial and Post-Colonial Bombay. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. 32.2, 415–35.
Mitchell, D. (2003) The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space.
The Guilford Press, New York.
Mouffe, C. (2006) The Return of the Political. Verso, London.
Mustafa, D. & Reeder, P. (2009) ‘People Is All That Is Left to Privatize’: Water Supply
Privatization, Globalization and Social Justice in Belize City, Belize.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 33.3, 789–808.
Pinon, P. & Des Cars, J. (1991) Paris-Haussmann : ‘le pari d’Haussmann’. Picard, Paris.
Robbins, P. (2004) Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, London.
Sassen, S. (2002) Global Networks, Linked Cities. Routledge, London
Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Scott, P.J.C. (1999) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
30
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
Serres, M. (1995) The Natural Contract. University of Michigan Press, Minneapolis.
Siemiatycki, M. (2005) The making of a mega project in the neoliberal city. City:
analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action 9.1, 67–83
Silva, R. (2000) The connectivity of infrastructure networks and the urban space of São
Paulo in the 1990s. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 24.1,
139-164
Solà-Morales, I. (1992) High-Tech: Functionalism or Rhetoric. In Functionalism: Utopia
or the Way Forward?: The 5th International Alvar Aalto Symposium. AvarAalto
Symposium.
Star, S. (1999) The Ethnography of Infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43.3,
377–91.
Swilling, M. (2011) Reconceptualising urbanism, ecology and networked infrastructures.
Social Dynamics 37.1, 78–95.
Swyngedouw, E. (2006) Metabolic urbanization: the making of cyborg cities. In M.
Kaika, N. Heynen, & E Swyngedouw (eds.). In the Nature of Cities: Urban
Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. Routledge, London.
Swyngedouw, E. (1996) The City as a Hybrid. On Nature, Society and Cyborg
Urbanisation. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 7.2, 65–80.
Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge : improving decisions about health, wealth, and
happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Torrance, M.I. (2008) Forging glocal governance? Urban infrastructures as networked
financial products. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32.1,
1–21.
Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. London, Polity.
Weeks, W. (2000) The Man Who Made Paris: The Illustrated Biography of GeorgeEugene Haussmann. Allison & Busby, London.
31
--Please do not quote or circulate without the authors’ permission. This version may differ from the final published
version--
32
bs_bs_banner
Volume 37.3 May 2013 1035–52
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
DOI:10.1111/1468-2427.12052
Technifying Public Space and Publicizing
Infrastructures: Exploring New Urban
Political Ecologies through the
Square of General Vara del Rey
FERNANDO DOMÍNGUEZ RUBIO and URIEL FOGUÉ
Abstract
The aim of this article is to explore new ways of integrating technology, nature and
infrastructures into urban public spaces. This is done through a case study, the design of
General Vara del Rey, which is offered here as a model to explore a novel urban political
ecology that calls into question dominant definitions of public spaces as self-contained
sites operating independently of natural and infrastructural spaces. Through the
double movement of ‘the technification of public space’ and ‘the publicization of
infrastructures’, the square aims to rethink the political ecology of urban public spaces
by enabling the effective incorporation and participation of infrastructural and natural
elements as active actors into the public and political life of the community. It is argued
that the transformation of infrastructures into fully visible, public and political agents
provides a useful model to address the growing proliferation of infrastructural and
technological elements onto contemporary urban surfaces and to open up the possibility
of new forms of civic participation and engagement.
Introduction
The illustration shown in Figure 1 is one of the most well known and powerful examples
of a novel way of conceiving urban space that emerged around the second half of
the nineteenth century. In this conception, urban space is organized around a clear
discontinuity between, on the one hand, public urban surfaces, defined as the spaces of
human exchange, commerce, leisure and domesticated nature, and on the other, an
invisible subterranean city populated by different technological inhabitants, like water
pipes, wires, conduit pipes, passages, culverts, as well as water and energy flows.
Historically, the emergence of this segregated urban system can be seen as a logical
response to the problems that had afflicted European cities after the first and second
industrial revolutions. The rapid development of heavy industries and the massive flows
of rural migrants had resulted in dramatic urban growths that transformed urban centers
into chaotic, heavily polluted and insalubrious environments. This is the time of the Big
Smoke in England, of endemic infectious diseases, like cholera, typhus and tuberculosis,
decimating urban populations, and of the social revolts that repeatedly swept European
cities between 1820 and 1848. It is against this backdrop of insalubriousness,
uncontrolled urban growth and social unrest that reformers like Haussmann posed the
ideal of a new model of urban cohesion based on a peaceful integration of nature,
technology and society in a renewed, well ordered and sanitized urban environment.
Haussmann’s Plan for Paris is not only important because it helped to develop a novel
conception of urban space that sought to ‘regularize the disordered city (Choay, 1969:
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited. Published by John Wiley & Sons. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA
1036
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
Figure 1 Haussmann’s renovation of Paris: left — ‘Grand Ègout Collecteur’, engraving, 1863
(source: Joanne, 1870: 368); right — ‘Rue de Paris, Temps de Pluie’, Gustave Caillebotte, oil
on canvas, 1877 (© Arts Institute of Chicago, reproduced with permission)
15), but also because it inscribed and enacted a novel urban political ecology, that is, a
new way of conceiving, organizing and governing the relations between the different
inhabitants of the city. As we define it here, urban political ecology starts with the
recognition that the inhabitants of the city are not only social (e.g. individuals,
collectives, institutions, etc.), but also natural (e.g. physical environment, climate, etc.)
and technological (e.g. infrastructures, architectures, etc.). From the perspective of
urban political ecology, therefore, the traditional concern of political theory with the
governance of human relations is expanded to include the natural and the technological
into the governance of the city (Graham and Marvin, 2001; Robbins, 2004; Kaika, 2005;
Keil, 2005; Swyngedouw, 2006).
Haussmann’s Plan for Paris represents a key event in the development of a novel
political ecology, of a new regime of cohabitation, based on the separation of the human,
natural and technological inhabitants of the city into two distinct spheres of governance:
the political sphere of urban surfaces designed by architects and urban planners,
governed by politicians, and open to public debate and accountability; and a largely
invisible ‘subpolitical’ sphere1 hosting multiple cities (hydropolis, informational city,
electropolis) engineered by different forms of expert knowledge and operating largely
beyond the democratic control and accountability of citizens (see Figure 2).
The development of this urban political ecology must be seen in conjunction with the
emergence of a specific technology of governance centered on the attempt to increase
the moral and political control of the population through the rationalization of space
(Foucault, 1977; Scott, 1999). Indeed, many urban reformers of the day saw urban
planning and architecture as powerful instruments for the design of new moral and
political orders. This is evident in Haussmann’s Plan for Paris, which was explicitly
designed ‘to regularize the disordered city, to disclose its new order by means of a pure,
schematic layout which would disentangle it from its dross’ (Haussmann, in Choay,
1
Our use of the term ‘subpolitical’ differs from Ulrich Beck’s (1997) original use, which Beck employed
to describe all those political forms located outside formal institutions of the nation state. As Holzer
and Sørensen (2003: 80) point out, Beck’s subpolitics is mainly about ‘the re-politicization of areas
outside the iron cage of bureaucratic politics in the face of new challenges brought about by the
process of reflexive modernization’. While we agree with Beck that politics cannot be restricted to
the formal structures of the state, we differ in his (tacit) restriction of politics to human agents. In
this article, we extend Beck’s use of the term ‘subpolitical’ to include all those technological, natural
and material elements and processes that have been traditionally excluded from the formal sphere
of politics, but which nonetheless act as ‘a tacit, constituting force in the organization of political
collectives’ (Marres and Lezaun, 2011: 491).
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
1037
Figure 2 The modern urban political ecology
1969: 16) and to enable, in so doing, a greater and more efficient police and military
control over the city (Jordan, 1996; Weeks, 2000: 52).
This Haussmannian urban political ecology, based on the segregation of the city into
two distinct functional compartments, has constituted a powerful normative ideal to
organize and govern the relations between the different inhabitants of the city. Indeed,
much of the urban planning between the nineteenth century and the first half of the
twentieth century can be seen as a prolonged effort to achieve the Haussmannian ideal of
sanitized, well ordered, public urban surfaces through the domestication of nature and
the ‘blackboxing’ of large infrastructural networks (Fishman, 1982; Le Corbusier, 1987;
Jacobs, 1996; Gandy, 2002; Hall, 2002; Kaika, 2005; Desfor and Vesalon, 2008). As the
twentieth century marched along, water and waste systems, communication networks,
energy and industrial infrastructures were gradually buried underground or slowly
displaced to the peripheries of the city, as nature was integrated into urban centers in the
form of carefully domesticated environments designed to create large ‘pleasure grounds’
for the rapidly developing urban bourgeois population (Cranz, 1982).2
Needless to say, the domestication of nature and the blackboxing of infrastructure
resulted in a radical improvement in the salubriousness and livability of urban
environments. The gradual substitution of small and fragmented infrastructural networks
by large-scale, centralized and integrated infrastructures not only contributed to the
liberation of great swaths of urban space for different activities, like leisure, recreation,
2 An exception to this rule are transport and telecommunication infrastructures, which not only
remained visible over the twentieth century but were quite often fetishized and spectacularized as
part of different political projects (Caro, 1974; Larkin, 2008).
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1038
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
consumption and commerce, but also enabled the gradual universalization of access to
basic services like water, electricity or the phone and, through them, to the standardization
and cohesion of urban spaces and populations (Graham and Marvin, 2001). However, and
despite the achievements of this dual model, it has become increasingly evident over the
last decades that this Haussmannian political ecology has outlived its usefulness as a way
of conceiving and organizing contemporary urban life. The unrelenting effort to bury,
integrate and standardize infrastructures has been outpaced by a number of interrelated
factors, like the unprecedented growth of urban populations, the ever-growing needs of
capitalist expansion and its associated demands for greater interconnection between
markets and urban centers, the seemingly unceasing revolution in communication,
information and energy technologies, or the rapid motorization of culture with the
subsequent need for large-scale transport infrastructures (Castells, 1992; Sassen, 2001;
2002; Altshuler and Luberoff, 2003; Featherstone et al., 2005; Urry, 2007).
As a result of the ever-growing demands emerging from these interrelated processes,
some of the infrastructures that were once confined to a subterranean or peripheral
existence have slowly re-emerged from the ground, invading and reconfiguring
contemporary urban landscapes. Thus, the idyllic landscapes of urban civility imagined
by Haussmann — perhaps nowhere better exemplified than in the Parisian boulevard —
are giving way to new ‘infrastructurescapes’ defined by new formats of infrastructural
visibility and a new economy of the visible. The development of large-scale transport
networks and hubs (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003), the creation of technological and
informational hotspots or the emergence of new forms of ‘green urbanism’ (Swilling,
2011) are giving way to novel forms of infrastructural monumentality that are
reconfiguring the material and symbolic fabric of the city.
It is our contention in this article that the abrupt irruption of the subpolitical world of
infrastructures onto urban surfaces is not merely transforming the aesthetic or symbolic
landscape of contemporary cities but it is also giving way to a novel urban political
ecology. By actively reshaping urban environments, creating new borders, channeling
and regulating the flows of exchanges between people, values, things and the built
environment, contemporary infrastructures have become powerful elements redefining
the ways in which urban spaces and populations are constituted, connected and
disconnected. The development of mega-transport projects connecting global hubs and
users, the rapid emergence and proliferation of differentiated, small-scale, privatized
and customized infrastructures catering for specific customer needs — like gated
communities with their own infrastructural networks (De Duren, 2006; Glasze, 2006) or
hyper-connected financial centers with exclusive access to communication and transport
infrastructures — are producing increasingly segmented urban spaces and segregated
publics with unequal access and rights to the city (Harvey, 2003; Mitchell, 2003). In
this process, as Kirkpatrick and Smiths (2011: 480) point out, ‘many cities have ceded
many of their infrastructural responsibilities, and a significant amount of authority, to
extra-local entities’ thus locating infrastructures further beyond public control and
accountability (see also Siemiatycki, 2005; Torrance, 2008; Mustafa and Reeder, 2009).
As a result of these developments, the old Hausmannian ideal of homogenous urban
spaces and cohesive publics unified by large-scale integrated infrastructures is being
rapidly replaced by a novel urban cartography defined by new physical, symbolic and
socioeconomic boundaries and uneven forms of citizenship. This is perhaps nowhere as
evident as in the rapidly growing urban environments of the global South where
infrastructures have become crucial elements in the reproduction of highly segregated
spaces of privilege and wealth (Silva, 2000; Gandy, 2006; Kooy and Bakker, 2008;
McFarlane, 2008; Mustafa and Reeder, 2009; Dupont, 2011).
In this context, infrastructure planning and provision have resurfaced over the
last decades as key sites of public political debate and contestation (Altshuler and
Luberoff, 2003; Flyvbjerg et al., 2003). The crisis of the Haussmannian model makes it
increasingly urgent to rethink contemporary urban spaces alongside a novel political
ecology, one that is able to deal with the challenges posed by the new technological and
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
1039
infrastructural inhabitants redefining contemporary urban landscapes and politics. This
article aims to be a first step towards imagining a novel urban political ecology emerging
from the ongoing process of ‘technological and infrastructural invasion’. We contend that
the ‘invasion’ of infrastructures and technologies should not be seen in purely negative
terms, as an inescapable neoliberal process leading to urban fragmentation, a widening
gap in socioeconomic inequalities and to increasingly differential forms of citizenship
(Graham, 2000; Graham and Marvin, 2001; Torrance, 2008; Swilling, 2011). Although
these negative processes are undeniably taking place, we contend that the new formats
of infrastructural visibility and the development of new technologies also offer an
opportunity to think anew the integration of technology and infrastructures into the city
as well as its relationship with public and natural spaces. Specifically, we claim that these
developments open up the space for a novel urban political ecology, one whose main
concern is not to domesticate, control or blackbox natural and infrastructural elements,
but rather to enable their effective incorporation and participation into the public and
political life of the community. As we argue, the transformation of the subpolitical
worlds of infrastructures and nature into fully public and political worlds not only offers
a new understanding of urban space but also the possibility of new forms of civic
participation and engagement.
We approach this novel political ecology through the lenses of architectural design,
which over the last century has become one of the fundamental tools responsible for
organizing the ‘invasion’ and incorporation of infrastructures into the surfaces of the city.
As we argue, the eruption of infrastructural worlds onto urban surfaces demands an
urgent repoliticization of architectural design. For the most part of the past century, the
architectural design of public spaces has been largely confined to a merely cosmetic or
ornamental function dealing with the decorative aspects of public surfaces and urban
furniture, thereby abdicating to engineers the control over the increasingly vast
subterranean world of infrastructural technologies. In so doing, architects have acted as
silent witnesses, wittingly or unwittingly helping to secure and reinscribe the separation
between culture, nature and technology implicit in Haussmann’s modern political
ecology. There is a need for another architectural program, one that takes the integration
and articulation of nature, culture and infrastructure into new hybrid urban
neighborhoods as its main design and political problem (Swyngedouw, 1996; Gandy,
2005). The first necessary step towards this new architectural program is to reclaim
infrastructural and natural elements as sui generis architectural elements in the design
of public spaces. We exemplify how this can be done through a particular urban
intervention: the design of General Vara del Rey, a public square in the center of
Madrid’s historic district, designed by the architectural office Elii.3 The aim of the article
is not to provide a thorough description of this project, but to offer it as a possible model
to rethink contemporary urban political ecology. More specifically, we discuss the design
of this square as a possible model for reimagining urban public spaces by bringing the
subpolitical world of infrastructures and nature into the broad light of public urban
surfaces. We use Elii’s model to explore how to disrupt the modern separation between
infrastructural spaces and political surfaces through two distinct but symmetrical
operations, namely: the technification of public space and the publicization of
infrastructures. The technification of public space is described here as the process of
recovering the social, political and aesthetic capacities of natural and infrastructural
elements by turning them into active elements in the design and composition of
public urban spaces. This process, we argue, must be accompanied by a symmetrical
3 Elii was established in 2006 by Uriel Fogué, co-author of this article, Eva Gil and Carlos Palacios. Its
activity has focused on the development and construction of architectural and urban projects
dealing with public space, infrastructures, industrial construction, ephemeral architecture and
exhibition design (for more information, see http://www.elii.es). This article emerges from a series
of critical discussions held between the two authors about the potential contributions that the
design of General Vara del Rey may make to contemporary urban and architectural theory.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1040
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
publicization of infrastructures aimed at replacing the traditional understanding of
infrastructural and natural processes as ‘matters of fact’ located outside the realm of
public discussion with an understating that deals with them as matters of public concern;
that is, as subjects open to public scrutiny, discussion and accountability (Latour, 2004a;
2004b).4 The article concludes with a call to rethink architectural design as a form of
material politics rather than as a simple material means for politics. As we claim, the
political valence of design does not reside in its ability to spatialize and materialize
political programs and ideologies, but in its capacity to generate spaces of political
discussion and civic engagement.
Technifying public space: from containers to interfaces
General Vara del Rey is a well known square in Madrid, both for its strategic location in
one of the city’s historic districts and for becoming, each Sunday, one of the central sites
of El Rastro, Madrid’s largest and most populous flea market. The square constitutes an
archetypical example of contemporary urban public spaces and a powerful illustration of
the kind of pressures these spaces face in most contemporary urban environments.
General Vara del Rey has become over time a patchwork of different architectural
styles, functions and memories. Initially, the square was designed as a private space
belonging to the slaughterhouse that once existed in the area and was later transformed
into a public space. The contemporary square emerged in 1928, when it was separated
from the nearby Plaza de Cascorro. In its present form, the square is organized around a
central recreational space, punctuated by some trees, benches and lampposts. With the
exception of Sundays, when the square becomes a bustling site of economic and social
transactions and exchanges, the square’s main function is to offer a restful place to seat,
talk or take shelter from the heat during Madrid’s sultry summer months. However, and
as is the case with many public spaces in large urban centers, the untroubled environment
the square aspires to create is constantly thwarted by the incessant rumbling of traffic that
clogs the narrow cobbled streets surrounding the square, as well as by the scores of cars
that each day invade its perimeter in search of a much-coveted parking spot. The square
can be thus characterized as a ‘fragile’ public space, increasingly confined and
endangered by the unrelenting demands and growth of the infrastructural and transport
networks of the city.
In 2007 Madrid’s city council launched an ambitious plan called Proyecto Madrid
Centro. The first phase of this plan consisted of the elaboration of a strategic plan
commissioned by the city council to different architectural offices to modernize the
highly congested and increasingly pauperized historic district of the city and to define the
basic guidelines for its future development. Elli was selected to elaborate a Strategic
Plan to explore the integration of photovoltaic energy in the city. Elli’s plan proposed
transforming the entire historical district into a huge energy infrastructure through the
massive incorporation of solar panels. In 2009, the city council commissioned Elli to put
into practice some of the main ideas proposed in this plan through a small pilot project
in General Vara del Rey that would explore the integration of smart technologies into the
historic district of the city.5
Elii’s proposed plan for General Vara del Rey aimed to challenge the traditional
Haussmannian understanding of public spaces as spatial ‘containers’ for human
4 Although we borrow these terms from Latour (2004a; 2004b), we employ them in a slightly
different way. Specifically, while Latour defines ‘matters of fact’ as those facts established by
reference to an incontrovertible nature, we understand them here as those tacit and commonly
accepted truths that organize our daily life without ever entering into political debate and
scrutiny.
5 For further information and images, see 037 PNS (Premium Network Square) General Vara del Rey
at http://www.elii.es/eng/index.php?/work/037–pns-general-vara-del-rey/
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
1041
interaction, debate and exchange. This model has traditionally defined squares as key
elements for the everyday civic life of a participatory democracy, as well as powerful
sites for the representation of public demands and for the articulation of different publics
(Low, 2000). Following this ideal, architectural interventions have been focused for
the most part in attempting to construct pure and self-contained ‘social’ spaces by
eliminating or domesticating all those infrastructural and natural elements that could
interfere with the processes of human interaction through which publics are constituted
and mobilized. This understanding of public spaces as empty ‘containers’ is evident in
the design of many contemporary urban public squares, which tend to be organized
around large voids in which infrastructural and natural elements are normally reduced to
merely functional or decorative functions or are blackboxed into invisible infrastructural
spaces.
General Vara del Rey represents Elii’s attempt to move away from the hegemonic
understanding of public spaces as self-contained spaces operating independently of
natural and infrastructural spaces. The aim of this project, however, is not so much to
criticize this traditional model, but to extend the existing repertoire of public squares in
ways that enable the public representation of some of the elements that have been
typically neglected from traditional public spaces, like nature and infrastructures. To
achieve this, Elii took as its starting point a particular ‘sociomaterial’ understanding of
the public that has been developed over recent years in different fields, like sociology,
social studies of science, political theory or geography (Barry, 2001; Latour, 2004a;
Latour and Weibel, 2005; Law and Mol, 2008; Bennett, 2009; Braun et al., 2010;
Lezaun, 2011; Marres and Lezaun, 2011). This body of work has emerged as a powerful
reaction to those traditional understandings that have sought to describe publics as a
simple collection of human actors, discourses and practices (Arendt, 1998; Habermas,
1991). As the proponents of this sociomaterial view argue, the traditional equation of
publics with people has unduly relegated material, technological and natural elements to
extra- or subpolitical spheres (Serres, 1995; Marres and Lezaun, 2011). Thus, in contrast
to traditional ‘anthropocentric’ understandings of the public, the proponents of this
sociomaterial view foreground the constitutive role that different materials play in
constraining, allowing and informing the ways in which publics are drawn together and
separated. In this view, therefore, publics are heterogeneous constituencies of human,
technological and natural elements, rather than a simple collection of human actors,
actions and discourses. Publics, it follows, cannot be disassociated from the specific
material and natural environments, technologies and infrastructures in and through
which they are constituted and mobilized, for without them, they would be reduced to a
ghostly, spectral existence.
This sociomaterial approach not only offers an opportunity to redefine dominant
notions of the public in philosophy and social sciences but also opens up a different
course of action for the architectural design of public spaces. Contrary to the
Hausmannian program of purification, and its attempt to produce and secure the
borders of the public sphere against infrastructural and natural worlds, this
sociomaterial view invites us to imagine a radical process of technification that
reintegrates into public life those elements hitherto relegated to the extra- or
subpolitical worlds of nature and infrastructure. This process of technification, however,
should not be understood as a simple process of ‘undoing’ the Haussmannian model.
That is, by technification we do not mean simply resurfacing and scattering over urban
surfaces those natural and technological elements that had been hitherto excluded from
them. Such a process would merely reproduce and exacerbate the negative effects of the
infrastructural invasion affecting many contemporary urban public spaces. Nor should
this process of technification be understood as another exercise in vacuous high-tech
architectural rhetoric (Solà-Morales, 1996). As we understand it here, this process of
technification constitutes an opportunity to articulate a different political ecology: a
novel regime of cohabitation that conceives of the city as single sociotechnical
continuum (Kaika, 2005), rather than as a space composed of different spatial registers
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1042
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
Figure 3 P.N.S. (premium network square) General Vara del Rey, general view (design by
Elii, reproduced with permission)
operating according to different logics of expertise and governance. Thus, the
paramount question is no longer how to separate, contain or ‘blackbox’ natural or
infrastructural elements, but how to integrate them as fully fledged participants into the
constitution of public space as well as to explore the new conditions of citizenship this
integration entails. General Vara del Rey constitutes an attempt to respond to this
question.
The main idea guiding the design of Vara del Rey (see Figure 3) was to develop a
project that made it possible to reintegrate into public life different infrastructural
processes like energy production and water collection, while retaining the usability of the
square for humans. To accomplish this, Elli proposed a project in which different
technological and natural elements would have to perform three distinct tasks in the
square, namely: to establish a continuity between infrastructural, natural, socioeconomic
elements and processes; to create a regime of collaboration and coproduction between
these elements and processes; and to establish a livable and comfortable space for human
users. Let us explore each of these tasks in detail.
Continuity and redistribution
The first of the tasks entrusted to these different devices would be to establish a spatial
continuum between traditionally separated infrastructural, natural and public spaces and
functions (Kaika, 2005; Swyngedouw, 2006). To do so, infrastructural processes, like
energy production or water collection and distribution, should take place in the public
space alongside other social functions, like recreation or commerce. To accomplish
this, the square will be populated by a series of hybrid urban trees equipped with a
combination of photovoltaic panels and grid-tie inverters that will produce energy by
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
1043
Figure 4 The working logic of urban trees at P.N.S. General Vara del Rey (design by Elii,
reproduced with permission)
converting DC into usable AC (see Figure 4). In addition to these infrastructural
functions, the hybrid trees will be equipped with different recreational artifacts, like
swings, slides, carrousels and a wide array of exercise devices that will transform these
infrastructural devices into recreational devices.6
Besides the hybrid urban trees, a network of small water hills covered with vegetation
and scattered all around the square will collect, recycle and redistribute rainwater. A
specially designed permeable pavement will help in this process by allowing rainwater
to filter through it and enrich the soil. The collected rainwater will be treated and
distributed by the hybrid urban trees to sustain the biodiversity of the square (see
Figure 4). Through these devices the square emerges as a sociotechnical continuum in
which different technological elements like DC/AC converters and photovoltaic panels,
and natural elements like solar paths and solar radiation, will be woven together
with different social processes, like energy consumption or recreation, thus making
impossible any reading of the social, the natural or the technological per se.
Collaboration and coproduction
The second task entrusted to these devices will be that of creating a regime of
collaboration and coproduction between socioeconomic, natural and infrastructural
spaces. One of the ways in which this will be accomplished will be through the
collaboration of natural and technological elements in the infrastructural network of the
6 For further information about these hybrid urban trees, see http://www.elii.es/eng/index.php?/
work/048–urban-trees/
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1044
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
city. Specifically, the task of the square will be to invert the parasitical relation which has
traditionally defined public spaces as passive consumers of infrastructural resources.
General Vara del Rey will invert this relation by transforming the square into a
‘productive agent’ actively contributing to the infrastructural fabric of the city. The
project proposes to use solar photovoltaic power to cover the cost of the construction
works as well as the future maintenance of the square. Thanks to the photovoltaic panels
installed on the trees, the square will produce an average of 57,973 KWH per year,
yielding an average of €748,836 over the first 25 years.7
Besides this energy production, and thanks to the collection of rainfall, the square will
be able to get an ‘off-the-grid’ water supply which will enable it to become independent
from municipal water supply during the cold months of the year. In this way, the square
will help to economize public water consumption in a city subjected to cyclical droughts.
Through these devices, therefore, a hitherto passive public space will become an active
urban power plant fully integrated into the infrastructural network of the city.
Climatic intervention
Finally, the square aims to act as a device to improve the ‘ergonomics’ of democracy
and public action (Lezaun, 2011) through different climatic interventions. This will
be accomplished through the combined action of different devices. For example, a
diagrammatic pavement has been carefully designed according to the varying solar
incidence angles to work as an energy script to configure environments compatible with
the current distribution of the flea-market stands and other recreational activities. In
addition to this, a series of deciduous and evergreen trees will work with the hybrid urban
trees to regulate temperatures through the use of pulverized water, strategic production of
shade according to the varying paths and intensities of winter and summer suns, and
through the production and channeling of wind drafts across the square (see Figure 4).
This combination of technological trees and highly efficient natural deciduous species
(Persian Lilac) will also work as a carbon dioxide drain system that will filter and recycle
air in the square. The combination of different technical layers with the ‘natural’ species
populating the square will generate livable and comfortable microenvironments for
the existing social and economic activities taking place in the square (i.e. leisure or
the flea market that takes place every Sunday) as well as promote the development of
new ones.
From containers to interfaces
In contrast to traditional approaches to the design of public squares, in General Vara del
Rey technological devices and natural elements have not been reduced to mere cosmetic,
symbolic or decorative functions. Rather, they have been designed to work as active
interfaces enacting a specific regime of cohabitation which connects and makes
co-present in the space of the square seemingly disconnected social, natural and
technological agents. As a result of this, solar radiation, rainwater, energy demands,
economic transactions or recreational activities will be woven together in the square into
a single sociotechnical continuum. It is important to underline here that Elii’s proposed
design is just one among a potentially indefinite number of possible designs. Other
designs could have prioritized energy production over leisure, thus devoting more space
7 This calculation is based on Spanish legislation, which obliges energy companies to buy all the
surplus electricity produced by photovoltaic infrastructures that is dumped to the network through
a connection point. In the case of the square, this strategy will be used to cover the costs of the
project by selling the energy generated by the photovoltaic panels. During the first phase of 10
years, the profit obtained from this will be used to cover the overrun costs derived from the
photovoltaic infrastructure, which will be paid off in 10.5 years. From the 11th year onwards, the
square will generate an average of €30,000 per year in profits.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
1045
to hybrid trees or to water hills. Or they could have taken the opposite route, prioritizing
leisure over energy production, thus redistributing space in favor of recreational spaces.
The selection of one design over another is, necessarily, a balance reached as a result of
a political decision. Within the practice of design, each decision, like the position of the
hybrid trees, the colors of the pavement, the position of the water hills or the selection
and strategic display of evergreen and deciduous trees is inescapably a question of
material politics; that is, a question of selecting between different ways of being and
living together by generating a constellation of relations, hierarchies and patterns of
reciprocity and participation among hitherto disparate entities.
Through the process of technification explored in this section, General Vara del Rey
emerges as a hybridized urban ecosystem which disrupts the modern political ecology by
making impossible any reading of the social, the natural or the technological per se. In
so doing, the design of this square invites us to depart from the modern definition of
public spaces as empty and passive ‘containers’ existing independently from other
natural and infrastructural spaces, and to move in the direction of an understanding of
public space as an interface that enables the creation of a novel system of participation
and collaboration among disparate infrastructural, social and natural elements and
processes.
Publicization of infrastructures: from
matters of fact to matters of concern
In the previous section, we described the process of technification as a first step towards
the reintegration of natural and technological elements into urban public space. The aim
of this section is to complete this reintegration by transforming these new technological
inhabitants into active participants in the public sphere. As we claim, this transformation
can only be achieved if the technification of public spaces is accompanied by a
symmetrical publicization of infrastructures. By publicization we do not simply mean
to render infrastructures visible in public, but to transform them into genuine matters
of public concern; that is, into subjects open to public scrutiny, discussion and
accountability (Latour, 2004a). As we contend, to accomplish this transformation it is
necessarily to rethink the relationship between citizens and infrastructures.
Most citizens living in developed urban environments relate to infrastructural
processes as unproblematic ‘matters of fact’. That is, for them, infrastructures like energy
or water supplies exist ordinarily as taken-for-granted resources that can be easily called
upon by the simple flip of a switch or by opening a tap. The complex networks of
technologies, experts and political actors lying behind those mundane actions are rarely
spared a thought. They exist as part of largely invisible ‘subpolitical’ worlds organized
and managed by different forms of expert knowledge operating largely outside public
debate and accountability (Marres and Lezaun, 2011). It is only when infrastructures fail,
when the lights do not turn on or when water fails to emerge from the tap that these
infrastructural worlds emerge as matters of public concern, as problems to be solved
(Star, 1999; Klinenberg, 2003; Graham and Thrift, 2007; Giglioli and Swyngedouw,
2008; Graham, 2009). It is at these moments when infrastructures become visible and
occupy the centre of public debate. However, the publicity of these infrastructural worlds
is rarely, if ever, durable. When failures are fixed, these infrastructural worlds silently
recede into the background of ordinary urban life to again become matters of fact outside
the public sphere.8 This blackboxing of infrastructures as matters of fact not only
8 This is not the case in many of the rapidly developing urban centers of the global south where
recurrent infrastructural failure turn infrastructures into perennial matters of public concern (Kooy
and Bakker, 2008; McFarlane, 2008).
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1046
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
precludes the participation of citizens into the decisions involving the design of these
infrastructures but also reduces them to undifferentiated and abstract ‘users’ (Graham
and Marvin, 2001). The publicization of technologies that we describe in this section
constitutes an attempt to prevent this process of blackboxing by sustaining the publicity
of these infrastructural worlds as matters of public concern. The key question, of course,
is how this condition of publicity can be accomplished and sustained over time.
One of the best strategies to publicize infrastructural processes as matters of public
concern are some of the initiatives emerging over the last few years to ‘unblackbox’
domestic energy consumption patterns through the use of different monitoring tools, like
smart energy meters, thermostats, light bulbs or boilers. By providing real-time readings
of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere, kilowatts in use, or the monetary
equivalence of energy consumption, these devices aim to raise awareness of the energetic
and economic costs involved in mundane activities, like boiling a kettle or watching TV,
and to induce, in so doing, ecologically conscious consumption behaviors.9 Different
authors, however, have criticized these initiatives as a part of a growing trend towards the
aestheticization and privatization of politics (Bauman, 1999; Clarke, 2007). For these
critics, although the use of these technologies may well induce a change in individual
behaviors, they do so by dangerously conflating political involvement to individual
patterns of consumption, thus reducing political action to minimal and largely ineffectual
scales of private action, with little real impact beyond comforting guilty consciousnesses
of the middle class or making some savings in the electricity bill. Contrary to this view,
different authors have argued that far from operating a reduction or banalization of the
political, these technologies can be seen as promising and effective ‘technologies of
citizenship’ through which the private space of the home can be transformed into a site
of political choices and action; that is, a place in which it is possible to engage with large
political projects, like sustainable societies or low-carbon economy, through seemingly
mundane everyday practices (Macnaghten, 2003; Lovell, 2004; Hobson, 2006; Marres,
2008; 2009; Jaque, 2011). From this perspective, private domestic spaces emerge as
complementary political spaces in which political intervention takes place at the
microscale of daily life and choices. In this sense, these authors argue that, by blurring
the distinction between public and private spaces or between political actions and
everyday practices, these technologies offer the opportunity to extend the sphere of the
political beyond its traditional formats and sites.
General Vara del Rey constitutes an attempt to take the process of publicization
operated by these domestic technologies one step further. Specifically, the square has
been conceived as an experimental device to extend the process of publicization from the
private space of the home to public urban spaces. Trapped within the spiraling growth of
infrastructural and technological demands, most urban public spaces have been gradually
divested of their political character as spaces of civic discussion, action and involvement.
This is evident in the case of contemporary urban squares, which have been reduced to
mere functional nodes articulating urban traffic, or to leisure spaces where busy citizens
can momentarily evade the hustle and bustle of contemporary urban life. The project of
General Vara del Rey aims to revert this trend by reformatting an urban public square into
a site of political engagement. This will be accomplished through a radical publicization
of infrastructures that will render some infrastructural processes visible and legible for
citizens through a series of visually accessible spatial codes and indicators.
One of the main focuses of this project will be to publicize the process of energy
production, a process that has been removed from urban public spaces and confined to
power plants located in the peripheries of urban centers. This removal has resulted in the
attenuation of the causal relation existing between individual and collective patterns of
energy consumption and the large infrastructural resources and processes required to
9 For a domestic application of these devices, see Elii’s work 057 — Insider (http://www.elii.es/eng/
index.php?/work/057–insider/).
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
1047
sustain them. One of the results of this disconnection is the prevailing image of energy
production as a seemingly effortless and unproblematic activity. For most citizens,
electricity is considered and consumed as an endless resource always at hand to
meet individual and collective needs. The square aims to counter this dominant view
by visualizing the effort and time that goes into producing energy. This will be
accomplished through a series of visual indicators allocated in the urban trees that will
become more or less illuminated depending on the energy collected by the square during
the day. In so doing, the square will convert the expert language of energy production into
a readable code, thus transforming energy production into a publicly accessible issue.
Moreover, by making visually accessible the variations of energy production throughout
the day, the square will unsettle the public image of energy as a constant. Energy will
emerge in the square as a variable resource that depends on a number of variable
sociotechnical factors, like the changing intensities of sunlight or the efficiency of the
technological infrastructures required to transform solar sun into usable energy.
A similar strategy has been designed to ‘unblackbox’ the processes of water collection
and consumption. Both processes are critical issues in a city like Madrid, which suffers
periodical droughts but in which water supply levels are ordinarily unknown to citizens.
As in the case of energy consumption, the disconnection between small-scale individual
actions and large-scale infrastructural processes has prevented the creation of a sustained
individual commitment towards responsible patterns of water consumption in the city.
The square aims to intervene in this political debate by thematizing water supplies as
matters of public concern through two sets of devices. The first set of devices will be
attached to the water tanks and will act as large public pluviometers indicating the
amount of water collected by the square over each hydrologic year, thus making public
the square’s water resources. The aim of these devices is to call into question the
predominant image of water as an inexhaustible resource by representing it as a finite and
measurable public good. As the square consumes the collected water, the pluviometers
will become a publicly accessible index of the amount of hydrological resources required
to sustain the square, thus acting as a measure of the enormous amount of water required
to feed even small-scale urban ecosystems.
The aim of the second set of water-related devices will be to publicize the often hidden
large infrastructural networks upon which water distribution and consumption depends.
This will be accomplished through a network of 13 ponds scattered around the square
replicating the 13 water reservoirs from which Madrid collects its potable water. Each of
the square ponds will be filled in the same proportion as the water reservoirs it mirrors,
thus providing a real-time reading of Madrid’s water supplies. Furthermore, by linking
the local scale of the square and the larger regional scale of water reservoirs, the ponds
will help to visualize the square as an element within a larger set of infrastructures,
challenging the image of public squares as self-contained and discrete spaces within the
urban fabric.
While energy indicators and pluviometers have been designed to thematize the
large-scale territorial implications of water and energy production, another series of
indicators will focus on visualizing the relationship between individual behaviors and
collective ones. This will be done through a series of indicators focusing on publicizing
recycling processes. In contrast to traditional recycling indicators, based on tightly
defined protocols, instructions and prohibitions, the recycling indicators of the
square will focus on translating individual recycling behaviors into readable energetic
equivalences. Thus, rather than making the link between individual and collective actions
through rules, these devices aim to establish this connection through the visualization of
the effect that individual actions have in collective processes.
Finally, another series of indicators will concentrate on ‘unblackboxing’ the process
of public investment in infrastructures. In contemporary Western democracies, citizens
typically delegate the control of public investment in infrastructures to the state through
taxes and, increasingly, to private companies subcontracted by the state (Torrance, 2008;
Kirkpatrick and Smith, 2011). Public investment thus remains unaccountable and hidden
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1048
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
behind the state apparatus and different forms of expert and technical decision-making
processes. The aim of the square will be to render public investment visible and
accountable by informing citizens in real time about the extent to which the initial public
investment required to build the square has been repaid. Over the duration of this process,
which will expand over some decades, the urban trees will be changing their color as the
initial investment is gradually repaid. In so doing, the square will render visible and
accountable the process of public investment and will also help to understand the time
and economic effort involved in investing in green technologies (see Figure 4).
Thematization and political participation
Thanks to the combined action of these indicators, the square aims to perform a double
function. First, it will perform a civic function acting as a publicizing device through
which citizens can learn about the often hidden sociotechnical ecosystem lying beneath
the seemingly autonomous fabric of urban life. This process of visualization is not aimed
at solving political problems, but at thematizing some infrastructural processes, like
electrical and water consumption, recycling behaviors, or public investment, as matters
of public concern. In other words, the square does not aim to provide political solutions
to existing infrastructural problems (i.e. excessive energy or water consumption), but as
a device to publicize these infrastructural problems as political problems open to public
scrutiny and debate. Second, and as a consequence of the former, by enabling citizens to
relate to these issues as matters of concern rather than as matters of fact, these indicators
aim to transform the square into a possible site for political involvement. That is, they
aim to transform the square into a polemical space by opening up different themes for
political participation and discussion. However, this does not preclude other recreational
or economic uses of the square. Citizens who wish to enter the square and use it as a
space of leisure and recreation can do so, without needing to participate or engage in
political discussions about public investment or water management. The square does not
enforce participation in these debates. Quite the opposite, the square requires a civic
effort on the side of the individual citizen as the prerequisite to participate in these
debates. The spatial and color codes thematizing the different infrastructural processes
are only readable from specific points of the square. Thus, the citizen willing to know
how much energy the square has collected has to move to one of the specific points to
make this political reading of the square. From any other point, the square emerges as
standard recreational space. Additionally, the codes employed to convey infrastructural
information have been deliberately designed not to be self-evident; they demand an effort
to understand what they mean. For example, the citizen must learn that the different
intensities of the light refer to the amount of energy collected on the day, or that the
changing colors of the square over the years are an index of the process of repayment of
the initial public investment. Thus, to reformat the square into a space of political
involvement does not imply transforming it into a space of enforced citizenship and
participation, but rather to transform it into a space in which political discussion and
engagement is an option for those willing to participate.
Conclusion: the modest material politics of architectural design
General Vara del Rey has been designed as an experimental device to rethink the nature
of public spaces in contemporary urban environments. Specifically, it is an attempt to call
into question the dominant definition of urban public spaces as spaces segregated from
other natural and infrastructural spaces. Through the double movement of technifying
public space and the publicization of infrastructures the square aims to redefine an
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
1049
existing public space by enabling the integration and participation of some of the
infrastructural and natural elements that have remained veiled in the modern political
ecology of the city. In so doing, General Vara del Rey aims to disrupt or suspend some
of the dichotomies dominating modern urban environments like, for example, the
opposition between public and infrastructural spaces, the confrontation between
technology and society, the disconnection between individual behaviors and collective
good, or the spatial and functional segregation of technology, nature and society. The
disruption of these dichotomies can be seen as a first step towards a novel urban political
ecology that recovers infrastructural and natural elements from the subpolitical worlds
wherein they have been typically confined, and that incorporates them into the public and
political life of the community.
Yet, as we have argued, the repoliticization of urban infrastructure and nature can only
be achieved through a repoliticization of architectural design itself. General Vara del Rey
constitutes a vivid reminder of the fact that when we design, we are not merely sorting
or arranging different elements into a system of spatial positions, we are also generating
and defining a very particular system of relations, hierarchies and patterns of reciprocity
and participation between those elements. In short, we are defining ways of being and
living together. It is for this reason that we would like to define architectural design as a
form of ‘material politics’ (cf. Law and Mol, 2008), rather than as a simple material
means for politics. To define architectural design as a form of material politics implies
acknowledging that not every practice of architectural design enables the same ‘material
politics’; that is, not every way of designing enables the same ways of dwelling and being
together. Each architectural design lets us generate — and, crucially, imagine — different
ways of being and dwelling together; that is, different ecologies of togetherness. The
traditional and seemingly neutral tree-lined squares populating our cities are no less
political than the proposed design for General Vara del Rey. Indeed, in spite of their
apparent innocence as mere decorative elements, these ‘traditional’ squares spatialize a
very particular grammar of relations and hierarchies that reinforces the separation
between the human, natural and technological inhabitants of the city. The difference
between General Vara del Rey and these squares, therefore, does not reside in the fact
that General Vara del Rey has a political project while traditional squares do not, but
rather in the kind of material politics they promote and enact. General Vara del Rey has
been specifically designed to thematize some processes and relations as political — like
water or energy consumption — but not others. In this sense, the project consciously
implodes the distinction between aesthetics and politics as it understands that each
design decision is always the inscription and materalization of a specific political
ecology. In this sense, the critical questions we need to ask ourselves in the process of
design are: what ways of living and being together are made possible and enacted by each
specific design? And, more importantly, what designs do we need to pursue to construct
a common world?
Both questions have become increasingly urgent in a world in which the modern
ideal of cohabitation imagined by Haussmann and other reformers at the close of the
nineteenth century has been short circuited by the unparalleled growth of infrastructural
worlds and a spiraling ecological crisis that question the sustainability of inherited urban
models and ways of living. In this context, there is a critical need to create urban political
ecologies that reimagine the relationships between infrastructures, nature and society.
General Vara del Rey aims to contribute to this process by opening up a new urban
political space in which the relationship between these elements becomes a central
matter of public concern and debate. Yet we should be very careful not to overstate the
case. General Vara del Rey has been explicitly designed against those grand utopian
modernist models that entrusted to urban and architectural design the task of social
change. In contrast, General Vara del Rey emerges as a plea for modest design. By this
we mean an architectural design practice whose aim is not to prescribe a script for
specific political actions or programs (Jones et al., 2011), but rather to generate spaces in
which political discussion and civic engagement can take place, and where democratic
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1050
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
conflict and controversy can emerge (Mouffe, 2006). From this modest perspective,
therefore, architectural design does not emerge as a form of political engineering but
rather as a form of political rhetoric, a practice that attempts to seduce rather than to
oblige, to propose rather than to prescribe, to persuade rather than to instruct, to nudge
rather than to force (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). In this sense, the political function of
architectural design is not pedagogical; its aim is not to teach or inculcate certain values,
codes or modes of behavior. Instead, its political function is to be polemical; its aim
is to render visible and public a series of problems qua political problems. This is,
precisely, the aim of General Vara del Rey: to propose a series of topics, such as energy
consumption, as matters of public concern and to invite and persuade citizens to engage
with them. The political importance of architectural design, it follows, does not reside in
an illusionary power to change behaviors or consciousness, but in its power to propose
new models of cohabitation and novel matters of concern, as well as to enable new spaces
for political participation and engagement. Needless to say, how such engagement takes
place is something that will be ultimately defined by the different ways in which its
different users appropriate the square.
Fernando Domínguez Rubio (dorubio@ucsd.edu), Department of Communication,
University of California, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA 92093, USA and Uriel Fogué
(urielfogue@gmail.com), Escuela de Arquitectura, Universidad Europea de Madrid,
Villaviciosa de Odón, 28670 Madrid, Spain.
References
Altshuler, A.A. and D. Luberoff (2003)
Mega-projects: the changing politics of
urban public investment. Brookings
Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Arendt, H. (1998) The human condition.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Barry, A. (2001) Political machines:
governing a technological society. Athlone
Press, London.
Bauman, Z. (1999) In search of politics.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Beck, U. (1997) Subpolitics. Ecology and the
disintegration of institutional power.
Organization & Environment 10.1, 52–65.
Bennett, J. (2009) Vibrant matter: a political
ecology of things. Duke University Press
Books, Durham, NC.
Braun, B., S.J. Whatmore, I. Stengers, J.
Bennett, W.E. Connolly, A. Barry, G.
Hawkins and N. Thrift (2010) Political
matter: technoscience, democracy, and
public life. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN.
Caro, R.A. (1974) The power broker: Robert
Moses and the fall of New York. Knopf,
New York.
Castells, M. (1992) The informational city:
economic restructuring and urban
development. Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Choay, F. (1969) Modern city: planning in
the 19th century. George Braziller,
New York.
Clarke, N. (2007) Globalising the consumer:
doing politics in an ethical register.
Political Geography 26.3,
231–49.
Cranz, G. (1982) Politics of park design. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Desfor, G. and L. Vesalon (2008) Urban
expansion and industrial nature: a political
ecology of Toronto’s port industrial
district. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 32.3, 586–603.
Dupont, V. (2011) The dream of Delhi as a
global city. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 35.3,
533–54.
De Duren, N. (2006) Planning à la Carte: the
location patterns of gated communities
around Buenos Aires in a decentralized
planning context. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 30.2,
308–27.
Featherstone, M., N. Thrift and J. Urry (2005)
Automobilities. Sage, London.
Fishman, R. (1982) Urban utopias in the
twentieth century: Ebenezer Howard,
Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Technifying public space and publicizing infrastructures
Flyvbjerg, B., N. Bruzelius and W.
Rothengatter (2003) Megaprojects and
risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and
New York.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and punish:
the birth of the prison. Pantheon Books,
New York.
Gandy, M. (2002) Concrete and clay.
Reworking nature in New York City. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gandy, M. (2005) Cyborg urbanization:
complexity and monstrosity in the
contemporary city. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 29.1,
26–49.
Gandy, M. (2006) Planning, anti-planning and
the infrastructure crisis facing metropolitan
Lagos. Urban Studies 43.2, 371–96.
Giglioli, I. and E. Swyngedouw (2008) Let’s
drink to the great thirst! Water and the
politics of fractured techno-natures in
Sicily. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 32.2, 392–414.
Glasze, G. (2006) Private cities: global and
local perspectives. Routledge, London.
Graham, S. (2000) Constructing premium
network spaces: reflections on
infrastructure networks and contemporary
urban development. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 24.1,
183–200.
Graham, S. (2009) Disrupted cities: when
infrastructure fails. Routledge, London.
Graham, S. and S. Marvin (2001) Splintering
urbanism: networked infrastructures,
technological mobilities and the urban
condition. Routledge, London.
Graham, S. and N. Thrift (2007) Out of order.
Theory, Culture and Society 24.3, 1–25.
Habermas, J. (1991) The structural
transformation of the public sphere: an
inquiry into a category of bourgeois
society. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hall, P. (2002) Cities of tomorrow: an
intellectual history of urban planning and
design in the twentieth century.
Wiley-Blackwell, London.
Harvey, D. (2003) The right to the city.
International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 27.4, 939–41.
Hobson, K. (2006) Bins, bulbs, and shower
timers: on the ‘techno-ethics’ of
sustainable living. Ethics, Place and
Environment 9.3, 317–36.
Holzer, B and M.P. Sørensen (2003)
Rethinking subpolitics: beyond the ‘iron
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
1051
cage’ of modern politics? Theory, Culture
and Society 20.2, 79–102.
Jacobs, J. (1996) The death and life of great
American cities. W.W. Norton & Co,
New York.
Jaque, A. (2011) Eco-ordinary. Codes for
everyday architectural practices.
Lampreave, Madrid.
Joanne, A. (1870) Diamond guide for the
stranger in Paris. Hachette, Paris.
Jones, R., J. Pykett and M. Whitehead (2011)
The geographies of soft paternalism in the
UK: the rise of the avuncular state and
changing behaviour after neoliberalism.
Geography Compass 5.1, 50–62.
Jordan, D. (1996) Transforming Paris: the life
and labors of Baron Haussmann.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kaika, M. (2005) City of flows: modernity,
nature, and the city. Routledge, London.
Keil, R. (2005) Progress report — urban
political ecology. Urban Geography 26.7,
640–51.
Kirkpatrick, L. and M.P. Smith (2011) The
infrastructural limits to growth: rethinking
the urban growth machine in times of
fiscal crisis. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 35.3,
477–503.
Klinenberg, E. (2003) Heat wave: a social
autopsy of disaster in Chicago. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kooy, M. and K. Bakker (2008) Technologies
of government: constituting subjectivities,
spaces, and infrastructures in colonial
and contemporary Jakarta. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research
32.2, 375–91.
Larkin, B. (2008) Signal and noise: media,
infrastructure, and urban culture in
Nigeria. Duke University Press, Durham,
NC.
Latour, B. (2004a) Politics of nature: how to
bring the sciences into democracy.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Latour, B. (2004b) Why has critique run out
of steam? From matters of fact to matters
of concern. Critical Inquiry 30.2, 225–48.
Latour, B. and P. Weibel (2005) Making
things public: atmospheres of democracy.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Law, J. and A. Mol (2008) Globalisation in
practice: on the politics of boiling pigswill.
Geoforum 39.1, 133–43.
Le Corbusier (1987) The city of tomorrow
and its planning. The Architectural Press,
London.
1052
Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Uriel Fogué
Lezaun, J. (2011) Offshore democracy: launch
and landfall of a socio-technical
experiment. Economy and Society 40.4,
553–81.
Lovell, H. (2004) Framing sustainable
housing as a solution to climate change.
Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning 6.1, 35–55.
Low, S.M. (2000) On the plaza: the politics
of public space and culture. University of
Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Macnaghten, P. (2003) Embodying the
environment in everyday life practices. The
Sociological Review 51.1, 63–84.
Marres, N. (2008) The making of climate
publics: eco-homes as material devices of
publicity. Distinktion: Scandinavian
Journal of Social Theory 9.1, 27–45.
Marres, N. (2009) Testing powers of
engagement: green living experiments, the
ontological turn and the undoability of
involvement. European Journal of Social
Theory 12.1, 117–33.
Marres, N. and J. Lezaun (2011) Materials
and devices of the public: an introduction.
Economy and Society 40.4. 489–509.
McFarlane, C. (2008) Governing the
contaminated city: infrastructure and
sanitation in colonial and post-colonial
Bombay. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research. 32.2, 415–35.
Mitchell, D. (2003) The right to the city:
social justice and the fight for public
space. The Guilford Press, New York.
Mouffe, C. (2006) The return of the political.
Verso, London.
Mustafa, D. and P. Reeder (2009) ‘People is
all that is left to privatize’: water supply
privatization, globalization and social
justice in Belize City, Belize. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research
33.3, 789–808.
Robbins, P. (2004) Political ecology: a
critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell,
London.
Sassen, S. (2001) The global city: New York,
London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Sassen, S. (2002) Global networks, linked
cities. Routledge, London.
Scott, P.J.C. (1999) Seeing like a state: how
certain schemes to improve the human
condition have failed. Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.3
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Serres, M. (1995) The natural contract.
University of Michigan Press,
Minneapolis, MN.
Siemiatycki, M. (2005) The making of a
mega project in the neoliberal city. City:
Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory,
Policy, Action 9.1, 67–83.
Silva, R. (2000) The connectivity of
infrastructure networks and the urban
space of São Paulo in the 1990s.
International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. 24.1, 139–64.
Solà-Morales, I. (1996) Difference:
topographies of contemporary
architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Star, S. (1999) The ethnography of
infrastructure. American Behavioral
Scientist 43.3, 377–91.
Swilling, M. (2011) Reconceptualising
urbanism, ecology and networked
infrastructures. Social Dynamics 37.1,
78–95.
Swyngedouw, E. (1996) The city as a hybrid.
On nature, society and cyborg
urbanisation. Capitalism, Nature,
Socialism 7.2, 65–80.
Swyngedouw, E. (2006) Metabolic
urbanization: the making of cyborg cities.
In M. Kaika, N. Heynen and E.
Swyngedouw (eds.), In the nature of
cities: urban political ecology and the
politics of urban metabolism, Routledge,
London.
Thaler, R. and C. Sunstein (2008) Nudge:
improving decisions about health, wealth,
and happiness. Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT.
Torrance, M.I. (2008) Forging glocal
governance? Urban infrastructures as
networked financial products. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research
32.1, 1–21.
Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Polity, London.
Weeks, W. (2000) The man who made Paris:
the illustrated biography of
George-Eugene Haussmann. Allison &
Busby, London.