One thing about these migratory cities that is hard to understand is the degree of dependency it projects for our future cities.
One thing about these migratory cities that is hard to understand is the degree of dependency it projects for our future cities.
In one way, we are becoming more independent. The physical separation between cities on the geographical scape makes these imaginations seem more like independent entities when compared to our existing ones. Each person in the city will also be assigned a role and will have to stay committed to that one job in order for the city to function. In one of my favourite animations, Howl’s Moving Castle, it depicts an even smaller scale of a moving city in the form of a moving mansion. The separation of the house and the land not only helps Howl escape the dangers of being caught by people of power, but also is a metaphor for his spiritual separation from society. His views do not align with the majority and he survives with his own little bubble of magic, not trusting nor collaborating with anyone from the outside world. This seemingly brings our differences and disagreements with different regions to the surface, where we physically separate just like how we are mentally
But on the other hand, the idea of a migratory city also celebrates the interaction between individuals and groups. We are no longer physically bounded by our geographical differences due to the increased mobility, thus we are no longer going from a place that belongs to us to other people’s territory. Instead, the distance between people or group will be the new unit, we will only be going closer to or farther from each other. People from different cities are also more interdependent as specialisation will be fully utilised. Our survival and comfort will be more affected by each city’s situation. In order to produce all the products needed, we have to rely on each others’ skills and specialties.
On another scale, in order to power the city itself, citizens must cooperate with each other and live according to this orderly system. Also in Howl’s moving castle, it showed how when one part of the mansion is damaged, the whole thing falls apart. So in a sense, gears of the city will also become more interrelated.
This begs the question of whether we will become more independent or interdependent in the future. There is no doubt that we will continue to be more dependant on technology as films have suggested, but will that technology drive us towards each other or apart? The internet currently seems to do both, more so driving us apart though. We are more interested about online content than we are to real life relationships. Recent social outrange has also proved difficult for citizens to oblige to orders, something so crucial and so badly wanted by our governments (who we draw to much ‘inspiration’ from when imagining future possibilities). Does this mean we are incapable of living in the migratory cities that we currently have in mind? If so, should we start to reimagine our idea of an utopia and our future cities? Only time could tell.
Chan Sun Kie Dorcas, u3579263
An eloquent response to Abbott text, I particularly enjoy the progression of your discussion. The emphasis on separation as a theme through migratory cities is very interesting – firstly your own example of Howls’ Moving Castle to explain the separation between cities and geographical constrains is exceptionally fitting; which then highlighted the organisation of people becomes key in these sci-fi movies which echoes Abbott’s concluding idea of Distributed Cities that one is not bound by geography albeit the absence of physical moving cities.
As the pandemic also reflects similar separation between people and geography as well as an increased dependency in technology, what do you think of our tactile relationship with the physical realm along with the gradual migration to the virtual world?