Jerusalem have a complicated relation- ship with their urban barriers. Walls are often introduced to inhibit violent clashes amongst the population; however, such responses are urbicidal in that they hinder any possibility for collaborative local democracy. According to Thomas Fraser, Provost of the University of Ulster and Coordinator of the Belfast-Jerusalem Civil Society Partnership 4 , the closer people are emotionally, culturally and spatially, the more difficult it is to build walls and divide into homogenous communities. Based on the work of the partnership, Fraser makes an obvious yet oft-neglected point in that it becomes more difficult to fight and to hate someone if you are actually able to recognise them. If you literally don’t see the enemy, then it becomes easier to fear them and to hate them. In cities such as São Paolo, Mexico City and Johannesburg, fortified enclaves have emerged as a popular housing option, which illustrates yet another manner of urbicide: these communities change the shape and operation of the cities in which they are built. Social boundaries become increasingly rigid and, as they are comple- mented by physical structures, residents of all groups have some sense of exclusion and restriction. Truly public spaces are eroded, left to ‘the poor, the homeless and street children, who are left vulnerable to violence and abuse by various control groups, including criminals and the secu- rity forces’. 5 As the majority of the world’s popula- tion now lives in urban areas, cities have become critical to human interaction. Pre- cisely due to this emerging reality, urban spaces have materialised as an influential variable to human and socio-economic security. To be sure, organised settlements have always been targets to some extent, as urban areas are not only strategic for mass destruction but are also frequently associ- ated with wealth and power. However, in a world with 3.5 billion urban dwellers, the impact of violence deliberately aimed at cities has become a grave threat. Not only are the potential consequences much broader but urbicide itself can be perpetrated by a variety of factions, including political authorities, insurgent groups, military forces and citizen groups – depending on the political or economic situation of a given society. urbicide a crime against urbanity
urbanism | spatial dismantling by erin koenig
boundaries culture discontinuity disruption public space
1 Quote taken from Sells, Michael. The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. p 1, 5 2 Steven Graham. ‘Lessons in Urbicide’, New Left Review . No. 19, 2003 p 63 3 This title is in Shona, an African language spoken by nearly 80% of Zimbabweans, and translates to Operation Drive Out Trash in English although the government translated it as Operation Restore Order . 4 Based at the University of Ulster, this initiative was established to address the effects of urban intolerance. It enables cities coming together or moving apart, to learn from each other’s mistakes through examining best practices that have evolved in ‘divided cities’. 5 Landeman, K. and Schönteich, M. ‘Urban Fortresses: Gated Communities as a reaction to crime’. African Security Review . 11(4), 2002 p 8 spatial instability. Therefore, the most effective approach for inoculating cities against urbicidal acts is ground-level policy directed toward building social cohesion and ensuring consistent social and spatial entitlements for urban citizens. Without an expanded interest in cities that acknowl- edges their unique territorial and architec- tural character and influence, municipali- ties will remain defenceless in countering urbicide. C In fact, it can even be initiated by a single individual – just the threat of a suicide bomb interrupts the use of schools, public markets and places of worship by urban inhabitants. In any of its incarnations, urbicide op- poses interconnected, resilient cities and seeks to disrupt urban citizen networks. Yet, municipalities have so far been compromised in their ability to respond. Despite the fact that cities over 20 million possess larger populations than 75% of the world’s countries, the bombings in New York, London, Madrid, and Baghdad sug- gest that large cities remain as vulnerable as ever. Human security must be recognised and addressed by all levels of government, as both State and non-state actors increas- ingly act out their respective political, re- ligious and ethno-nationalist struggles on an urban stage. Whether cities are targeted by conventional weapons or bulldozers, the intent to damage and destroy both the sym- bolic and the mundane remains consistent. A growing body of analysis suggests that urban security can be enhanced through cohesive spaces, which counter social and Erin Koenig currently works with the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, located in Costa Rica.
On August 25 1992 , the National Library in Sarajevo and its contents were destroyed over three days of incendiary grenade at- tacks launched by Serb forces. The library, a fusion of Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian architectural styles, housed over a million books, one hundred thousand manuscripts and centuries of historical records from the Balkans. For days following the attack, residents described a thick cloud of ash that hung above the city as pieces of charred books and manuscripts floated to the ground. ‘It was the most apocalyptic thing I’d ever seen’, said Sarajevan Aida Musa- novic. The horror had not been directed toward an army or intended just to annex territory; to borrow Musanovic’s words, it rather ‘sought the cultural eradication of a people and all evidence of that people’s culture and existence’. 1 In 2002, the Israeli Defense Force launched Operation Defense Shield, which left 140 multi-family housing blocks com- pletely destroyed – 1,500 significantly dam- aged – and some 4,000 residents homeless 2 in the Jenin refugee camp. The weapon that dominated the operation was not a machine gun, tank or even incendiary bombs – it was rather the D-9 Caterpillar bulldozer. Three years later, Robert Mugabe initi- ated a large-scale government campaign to forcibly clear slum areas across Zimbabwe. Described as a crackdown on illicit hous- ing and commercial activities, Operation Murambatsvina 3 deployed police across Zimbabwe’s urban areas in order to uproot millions of people; among other weapons, the bulldozer played a key offensive role. These examples – and countless others – serve as disturbing illustrations of an emerging phenomenon. Termed urbicide , this process undermines the city and its inhabitants by disrupting urban rituals and spaces. From unrestrained destruction during times of war to chronic urban blight, urbicide can occur in a variety of forms; what remains consistent is the objective of forcing urban inhabitants into the surrender of not only functional but also symbolic urban spaces. It is a process intended to cor- rode cities by attacking their foundational places – of worship, education, exchange and commerce – and characteristics – den- sity, cosmopolitanism and heterogeneity. As cities bisected by walls architectur- ally and psychologically, Belfast, Berlin and
40 On Site review 22: WAR
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator