As architects, we manifest our ‘ideal world’ into reality, however, how much should we manipulate or plan our city? Is it right to so do?
Imagine a city and its dwellers develop and behave exactly how architects envision them to act. However surreal, it sounds absurdly threateningly and could be realized. In a Machine city, citizens are under surveillance continuously, forced to act with discipline. Such surveillance systems, undeniably, are effective as dwellers bow before horror. Ironically, similar systems are integrated in architectures around us, for instance, school, office, asylums and so on. Urban planners adapt this surveillance method, trying to build a better place where people would behave well. Of course, in practice, the surveillance is a lot lenient, granting dwellers freedom and privacy. However, there are cities or countries being monitored nowadays both in good and bad ways. With a clear ambition, some countries can catapult the development of cities. For example, Singapore has become the green city under clear urban planning regulations and policies and Dubai has developed rapidly with a clear city goal. On the other hand, there are cities where surveillance is unfathomably strict that takes away the rights of citizens, leading to dystopic cities. It is interesting to see same measure can lead to two extreme ends.
This raises another question: is this necessary? Philosophically, dwellers have establish social contracts with society. Signing the contacts, dwellers are willing to behave well. Do we have to remind them to have good conduct relentlessly with architectures and surveillance?
Personally, I think urban planning is crucial in designing a city. However, we, as architects, should be aware of the extent. We predict and plan the future but not forcing nor shoving into the future, asking dwellers to act accordingly.
Bosco Yeung Ho Lam 3035794210
I can relate to your anxiety about how far do the architects and urban planners/designers enforced certain kind of behaviours. I think it is a valid question to ask. As architects/urban designers/planners, we have agencies to induce changes because we can influence people’s behaviours through design. It also seems fitting that you pointed out the “social contract” in this sense. Picking up on Boyer’s points about how architecture in itself performs as a discourse generator, how would you situate your argument? How architecture and urban planning could contribute to the overarching discussion on cyber-cities or -security?