EN MANIFESTATIONS OF THE "AUTHORITARIAN URBANISM" AND POSITION OF THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY

WARning the CITY conference by CISR e.V., Berlin

MANIFESTATIONS OF THE "AUTHORITARIAN URBANISM" AND POSITION OF THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY

EDITED TRANSCRIPTION
26.11.2022

Speakers

Oleg Pacehnkov
Organizer of the session, GSZ HU, Berlin / CISR eV, Berlin
Philipp Meuser
architect and publisher, DOM publishers, Berlin
Oleksandra Nenko
MA in Sociology from Kharkiv National University, PhD in Sociology from Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Ukraine)
Lela Rekhviashvili
researcher at the Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde (Leipzig)
Andrei Vazyanau
European Humanitarian Unversity, ex-Minsk / Vilnius
Lev Vladov
activist, bloger, founder of «Chelyabinskii Urbanist»

Transcription of session

Oleg Pachenkov
moderator
So, today we have [at our panel]:
- Lela [Rekhviashvili], who is from Georgia; well, I never asked, but that's my guess; she is working now in Leipzig at the Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography.
- and we have Philip Meuser, architect and publisher from the publishing house that I guess most of you know and love, DOM publisher; I was once published there with a chapter in the collection of chapters edited by my German colleagues actually. And I guess that something is going to be presented from an architect's perspective.
- So again, most of us represent social sciences and the next speaker, Andrey Vazianau, is my colleague for many years with a very complex regional background, which I think is very important and useful for a social scientist and researcher. He is now based in Vilnius at European Humanities University, and also is an active member of Minsk Urban Platform, a grass-root initiative.
- Oleksandra Nenko is also a colleague for many years; we have been working together in Saint Petersburg. Oleksandra is a sociologist with education in Ukraine, in Kharkiv and then in Kiev, now she is based at the University of Turku, and also at the University of Arts in Helsinki, Finland.
- And then we have Lev Vladov a blogger, an "influencer" as they call it, from Tchelyabinsk, who used to establish a very well-known and popular blog "Tchelyabinskiy urbanist"; and also Lev had an architect buro, so they were people who were really changing [their city], not just talking about the need to change the urban environment, but changing it themselves. So now, Lev is based in Berlin too at the Center for independent social research (CISR eV) and maybe other independent projects, I guess, too.
So that's the team for discussion today. Honestly saying, the first idea of this talk came from Oleksandra, who was also our teacher at the program of CO-URBANISM [at EUSP: https://upcenter.spb.ru/ ] . She just came from Minsk last summer, where she spent some time, and wrote a message in a Telegram chat… [see the discussion (in Russian): http://urbanismdiscuss.tilda.ws/ ]. I think it was the very first kick, yeah, where she shared her impressions about Minsk. And one of the key issues there was... I don't remember if that was her or me, who called it or how we started using the term "authoritarian urbanism". But anyway, it was a very mixed feeling [of her from Minsk - OP]: of a very friendly urban environment and very strange political situation and the interaction between these two things and the relations between them. So it became a kick for a longer discussion with the students and teachers of ourprogram. But I think that for the discussion today I probably would like to start with another participant who also has a presentation, because architects always should have images to share [laughs]. Yeah, Philip, I would like to ask you to start, because you already have some conceptual vision, I think. And I think that's a good starting point for all of us. Thank you.
PHILIPP MEUSER
Oleg, thank you very much. As an architect, I am always working less with words and more with images. Consequently, I prepared some slides because when I was invited to this panel, I asked myself, what would be my contribution to this podium of social scientists and geographers? And I thought I would just tell you something about my experience as an architect and how I see what's going on in the eastern part of Europe and the former Soviet Union. In recent years I have been discussing it and thinking about the term "Eurasian city". What is the Eurasian city's typology? Is that the blueprint for authoritarian urbanism? I would like to discuss the parameters of the "Eurasian city" in the context of the war in Europe. And so, I refer to this term used in a couple of publications, and I would like to understand your opinion.

Transcription of session

Oleg Pachenkov
moderator
So, today we have [at our panel]:
- Lela [Rekhviashvili], who is from Georgia; well, I never asked, but that's my guess; she is working now in Leipzig at the Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography.
- and we have Philip Meuser, architect and publisher from the publishing house that I guess most of you know and love, DOM publisher; I was once published there with a chapter in the collection of chapters edited by my German colleagues actually. And I guess that something is going to be presented from an architect's perspective.
- So again, most of us represent social sciences and the next speaker, Andrey Vazianau, is my colleague for many years with a very complex regional background, which I think is very important and useful for a social scientist and researcher. He is now based in Vilnius at European Humanities University, and also is an active member of Minsk Urban Platform, a grass-root initiative.
- Oleksandra Nenko is also a colleague for many years; we have been working together in Saint Petersburg. Oleksandra is a sociologist with education in Ukraine, in Kharkiv and then in Kiev, now she is based at the University of Turku, and also at the University of Arts in Helsinki, Finland.
- And then we have Lev Vladov a blogger, an "influencer" as they call it, from Tchelyabinsk, who used to establish a very well-known and popular blog "Tchelyabinskiy urbanist"; and also Lev had an architect buro, so they were people who were really changing [their city], not just talking about the need to change the urban environment, but changing it themselves. So now, Lev is based in Berlin too at the Center for independent social research (CISR eV) and maybe other independent projects, I guess, too.
So that's the team for discussion today. Honestly saying, the first idea of this talk came from Oleksandra, who was also our teacher at the program of CO-URBANISM [at EUSP: https://upcenter.spb.ru/ ] . She just came from Minsk last summer, where she spent some time, and wrote a message in a Telegram chat… [see the discussion (in Russian): http://urbanismdiscuss.tilda.ws/ ]. I think it was the very first kick, yeah, where she shared her impressions about Minsk. And one of the key issues there was... I don't remember if that was her or me, who called it or how we started using the term "authoritarian urbanism". But anyway, it was a very mixed feeling [of her from Minsk - OP]: of a very friendly urban environment and very strange political situation and the interaction between these two things and the relations between them. So it became a kick for a longer discussion with the students and teachers of ourprogram. But I think that for the discussion today I probably would like to start with another participant who also has a presentation, because architects always should have images to share [laughs]. Yeah, Philip, I would like to ask you to start, because you already have some conceptual vision, I think. And I think that's a good starting point for all of us. Thank you.
PHILIPP MEUSER
Oleg, thank you very much. As an architect, I am always working less with words and more with images. Consequently, I prepared some slides because when I was invited to this panel, I asked myself, what would be my contribution to this podium of social scientists and geographers? And I thought I would just tell you something about my experience as an architect and how I see what's going on in the eastern part of Europe and the former Soviet Union. In recent years I have been discussing it and thinking about the term "Eurasian city". What is the Eurasian city's typology? Is that the blueprint for authoritarian urbanism? I would like to discuss the parameters of the "Eurasian city" in the context of the war in Europe. And so, I refer to this term used in a couple of publications, and I would like to understand your opinion.

Picture: Philipp Meuser

Philipp Meuser
When I am talking about the Eurasian city, we can talk about the subject from the perspective of geography, and we can speak from the standpoint of politics, but also from the perspective of an architect or an urban designer. And this also stands in the context of the term "post-Soviet". We have always been using the term "post-Soviet", and as far as I can say, as architects and urban planners, we're still talking about "post-Soviet cities" or "post-Soviet environment". But I would like to suggest, let's talk about "Eurasian city" and "Eurasian context" from a geographer's and political perspectives. And whatever we have in mind when we talk about Eurasian City, these architectural icons come into my mind, maybe also into your mind. We are talking about Ashkhabad, Baku, Astana, Moscow, and Kazan. And even if I don't show the names of the cities, you might recognize these cities just by their iconic architecture.

I came to Astana 20 years ago when there was just nothing. And this was just this kind of slogan on the bridge "Astana - the symbol of new Kazakhstan".

Picture: Philipp Meuser

Philipp Meuser
I was really wondering, well, what the hell does that mean? And I came to Astana when there was nothing around in this new city. There was no Baiterek tower, the symbol of the new Kazakhstan. I started to research the "Eurasian city" because architecture has become essential to this identity-making, especially for Kazakhstan's territory. And as we know, Kazakh history and its identity is the identity of nomad culture. Today, contemporary architecture has become the central part of this new identity. And you see the late president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, presenting himself with his people.

Picture: Philipp Meuser

Philipp Meuser
And this is just an artist's painting. It's like an icon from Soviet times. But the background is contemporary architecture. When this was painted, all these buildings were less than ten years old. This is just a particular parameter, what I say. Architecture, again, I'm repeating, has become such a big part of the identity-making, including Nazarbayev standing in as a bas-relief on the Square of Independence in Astana.

When we talk about the Eurasian city, we talk about identity making, and this also includes this example from Moscow, where the statue of Vladimir the Baptist was just put in front of the Kremlin, just hijacking the history of the Eastern Slavonic culture, stating that it was part of Russian culture.

Picture: Philipp Meuser

Philipp Meuser
But as we know, Vladimir the Baptist was not Russian. But he was just "hijacked" and put in front of the Kremlin. This brings us to the question of how this production of public space is made in those "Eurasian cities" or in these regions of authoritarian urbanism? I'm talking about the architecture of symbolism, imposed identity through architecture, and I'm also talking about the welfare state as a guarantee for the quality of life. Switching to Moscow: Each mayor in a western country would be so jealous. Moscow established a social housing program in 2015 by saying: "Okay, all you house building companies, you will continue producing this kind of typology of urbanism with these large housing estates somewhere in the outskirts of Moscow. But you need to increase the quality of architecture". So, again, architecture becomes a vast and vital parameter of identity-making, but also, as a part of this kind of welfare state, it could provide housing for the population. Renovation of nearly all public squares in Moscow with a tremendous amount of money. And I heard these rumors that when all these public spaces and squares were just renovated, there was no granite available on the Russian market anymore because all the granite was used for renovation works for the city of Moscow, spectacular architecture.

Picture: Philipp Meuser

Philipp Meuser
And this is [refers to the slides - OP] a park Zaryadye and stunning architecture standing for new Moscow. And also inviting world-famous architects; this is Skolkovo Scientific Park [refers to the slides - OP], and this circle building was designed by Herzog & de Meuron. Moreover, the renovation or modernization of the metro system in Moscow: More than 100 stations are planned, including new stations within the next ten to fifteen years. Unbelievable to implement these kinds of programs: urban renovation, housing programs, public squares, parks, and public transport. But this is something we are going to discuss today. On the other side, the highest density of cameras. I just picked this up. This is the last figure. Moscow has the highest number of cameras in public spaces – 50 cameras per 1000 citizens, a very high density. And this is the other side of this medal. So, on the one hand, as an architect, great public programs to modernize the city, inviting some talented world-famous architects. I expect from today's discussion [a search for the answer to the question]: How can I find my position as an architect? As an architect, I am trained to deliver answers to design tasks. But I also know that using these public spaces and the kind of decision-making in the planning process is entirely against my political understanding of our society. And this is why I put a question mark: "is the welfare state a guarantee for the quality of life?". In the pictures, I was reminded of when I was preparing this presentation on the period of Stalinist architecture. We have these lovely coffee table books, perfect photography, new architecture from the thirties, late forties and fifties, and modernization of all the Soviet cities. But on the other hand, we know, from a political point of view, what the environment was like at that time. I'm stopping here to allow my fellows on the podium to present their statements. Thank you!
Oleg Pachenkov
Thank you, Philipp. Yeah, that's exactly what we're supposed to talk about. At first, I was also thinking while you were showing the images, that many of those examples, I would rather call it "totalitarian urbanism", because the idea of totality is kind of very obvious with these cases – with the coverage of cameras, with the scale of the buildings and with the idea of control staying behind it. So, one of the things that we wanted to discuss is the following. There are so many different manifestations that we refer to when we speak of "authoritarian urbanism" or "totalitarian urbanism" or some other… Actually, why do we put all of these examples under the same category? Or what is the correct name for that category that covers all of them? Or why shall we [find such a category]? Why are we looking for a term that would cover all this variety? Perhaps to keep varieties is better, actually, and to talk about different phenomena – than to find one proper, so to say, "the proper name" for all of them. So yeah, thank you very much for this start and throw in.
Oleksandra Nenko
Hello, everyone. So I 'll be picking up maybe with some examples also, but in a spoken form without photographs [available (in Russian) at: http://urbanismdiscuss.tilda.ws/]. And I would also like to refer back to our conversation about … that experience of Minsk which happened to me when I was visiting my partner, a citizen of Belarus, who couldn't come to Finland. I went to Minsk in July this year (2022). You can imagine that it was hard for me. Being a Ukrainian citizen for many years I worked with public participation and grass-root projects and initiatives, concepts of public space and alternative urban life in St.Petersburg, but in March this year (2022) I left. To let you understand what I was feeling back then, I kept asking myself the question: what had we, you know, not noticed... at the right time, or how could it all happen? So I started paying attention to those strange discrepancies in the cities I witnessed. In Minsk, it struck me to see the cycling lanes, the micro-mobility, the visual presence of a healthy city issue and the ecological initiatives which were all around the place.

Picture: Oleksandra Nenko

Oleksandra Nenko
We were discussing with my partner that they have been there for several years. So they are there as indicators of what we once called "urbanism with human face", human oriented urbanism, human scale urbanism. And once we were discussing them as the components of the democratic approach to the cities, but it was not … eventually. Because Belarus is an authoritarian country. So how did it all coexist?

When we left Saint Petersburg in March we went to Baku for a week. I saw Baku for the first time in my life. I perceived it as a very unique city, rich and well located with beautiful architecture. Big wide prospects were filled in with... Zaha Hadid architectural buildings and other modern architecture buildings, also fancy and very "new urbanism" public places with skating facilities. At the same time, when we went out in the evening, we witnessed the absolute absence of women and children walking the streets. I had the feeling that people tried to rush the streets and the streets were not for them. We were frightened and we wanted to rush home ourselves. And actually we also experienced even more severe feelings when together with our host we went to a point where LGBT activists were gathering and were creating posters for 8th of March. Our walk was a secret route, our host was crawling and we had several checkpoints until we reached the place and got together with the LGBT community. So being beautiful and trying to be modern, Baku-city is an absolutely regulated space, which is frightening for... vulnerable groups. And I think that, yeah, all of those discrepancies and our feelings and all of those strangeness coming from our interaction with the city, they are signifying something... Not democratic, anyway. I don't know if it's authoritarian or totalitarian or something else, but it is not democratic.

And of course, we have lots of examples from Saint Petersburg. For example, one of them is the Gazprom tower, which was once designed as Okhta center, then through a huge resistance – actually united resistance of the activists, experts, and citizens – it was relocated. But the Okhta cape remained under governance of the monopolist, the Gazprom Company. It's located in the historical city center. Gazprom organized a new architectural contest to build.... another building on the Okhta cape. The architectural project which won was contradicting the opinions of the experts and urban activists who were following this contest. It was a business office with dull architecture which was ignoring the historicity of the Okhta Cape and its international significance as the site of the Landskrona fortress. The contest was violated in terms of democracy and inclusion of the opinions from experts and the public field. The same goes for the case of Tuchkov Buyan, which you, Oleg, were managing in terms of public participation. The results of the sociological survey and numerous public participation workshops - I think they were not accounted for in the project which won the contest. The violations at the level of architectural contests and urban planning contests in Russia… is just a minor example, but this is an example of authoritarian urbanism. I will wrap up with a very provocative thought that, maybe, we can find the signs and traces of authoritarian urbanism also in democratic contexts. It is when we see the situation of coupling of the state power and the capitalist power and the so-called capitalization of space. [it is cases] When the state power gives the territory to the private business to capitalize the space even more, to make mega-projects or to make projects which are good for the capital or good for the tourists and city branding. But these projects are not done through the processes of democratic collaboration and participation. Actually, I saw some very strange buildings even here, in Berlin. I'm so sorry to say, but the "Alexa", the Trade Center next to the Alexanderplatz, where we live in the hotel is one of the examples. With my partner, who is an architect, yesterday we were discussing it: "oh, my God! What is it!?". It has no windows on the ground floor... It looks so… closed to the publics. It's like.. a very interesting manifestation of capitalism, I think... You know, we have to be aware of these authoritarian manifestations even in the democratic countries.
Oleg Pachenkov
Well, you know, I can show you even "better" places, the fresh ones.. Just go to Warschauer Straße and near Ostbahnhof, you will find a lot of "interesting" quarters – not even just buildings – to discuss.
Andrei Vazyanau
Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. You advertised my complicated background. I grew up in Mariupol, but then I studied in Russia and then in Germany. And then I started to work in Belarus where I lived till 2021. And then because of repressions I had to leave. And I went to live in Kiev where I lived until February 2022. But professionally and bureaucratically I am most connected to Belarus, the country of my citizenship, and I'm working on the projects that are intended for the Belarusian audience. It was very interesting to me to listen about Sasha's impressions from Minsk, because I could discern two different layers in these impressions. One layer is what I think is a good showcase for authoritarian urbanism. There's a layer from the years 2014 to 2020. That period of liberalization in Belarus, I think these years allow us to see how authoritarianism can be seen... not at some symbolic level, but rather as something that identifies the limits of possibilities. Let me explain with a few examples. So speaking about that period, Belarus was far ahead of Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan in terms of waste recycling. Belarusian specialists from road inspection were educated according to a Swedish program. Introduction of reverse vending machines was actively discussed and was planned for 2020. Bicycle infrastructure was one of the best across post-Soviet space. Actually, none of these has survived the mass repressions that started since 2020. Since the beginning of that repression, 6% or more of the Belarusian population has left the country. And the second layer: what started from the 2020s in Belarus is something very different, because speaking about this period, we are not only talking about just an authoritarian city and authoritarian space, but also about the space with contested sovereignty or endangered sovereignty because Russian troops are on Belarusian territory, and because the power and guns, and police are controlled not by the elected president, but by the Kremlin-backed Alexander Lukashenko. So for practices of governing the city, what does this mean? In that first period before 2020, authoritarian....Ah, let's say so: non totality of Belarusian urbanism was manifested through massive outsourcing of architecture and planning competencies from NGOs and private companies. You could do many things in Belarus as far as they were not recognized as political or ideological. Bicycle roads were not recognized as ideological or political. Same went for reverse vending machines, trolleybuses and so on and so forth. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development stopped its collaboration with Russia in 2014, but it continued all its projects with Belarus until 2020. That's why many experts would travel freely to the EU. Belarus used to be a world champion in Schengen visas pro capita, so people were traveling to the EU very actively on a regular basis. And that's why on a micro level of design, of interior design, of particular architectural projects, you could see many borrowings from Baltic and Nordic countries that some Belarusians like to associate themselves with, aesthetically. And there was a hypothesis formulated by Olga Korosteleva who was just thinking: is it possible to democratize Belarus through these technocratic practices, when you allow experts to do some things, borrowing them from the spaces with established democracy? We know from 2020 that the answer is rather "no", because the repression styled according to the 1930's occurred. And none of those European elements of urbanism has survived. Yes, I think I'll stop here because we'll have more rounds in this conversation.
Oleg Pachenkov
I just wanted to announce that you probably are puzzled about what's going on there out [refers to the loud bustle outside the conference premises]. So, that's the difference between the authoritarian city and the free city with some authoritarian architecture, I mean Berlin; because this is a demonstration that can happen really and happens actually every weekend. This demonstration is against chemical weapons, people are protesting on the streets.
Lela Rekhviashvili
And there was also a Kurdistan-related gathering at Hermanplatz. So it might also be them taking the march.

If I may, before sharing my comment, I wanted to ask Andrei a question. You mentioned twice that none of these infrastructure survived the repressions since 2020. What do you mean? Were these infrastructures taken over? Was the access to them different? Is the recycling practice now different?
Andrei Vazyanau
Thank you for this question. I could probably have formulated it better. None of these infrastructures are developed. All projects that were in realization are not finished, and none of these infrastructures is maintained as it used to be before 2020. Also because the maintenance was partly financed through those EBRD projects. And expertise was outsourced. State institutions do not have expertise in maintaining bicycling infrastructure in Belarus and even roads infrastructure. And now the experts were actually the first group to leave the country because they were repressed. They are either in prison or abroad.
Lela Rekhviashvili

This is a very interesting observation or story that you're telling right now. Even though it might seem, that less politically sounding, but very socially oriented or environmentally oriented projects can go through, but then there is this limit that broader authoritarian government's logic dictates to it, and can really undermine it, right? Needless to say, this is a very, very sad story.

Anyway, I did not prepare a linear or clear story for my contribution. I just want to think along with all of you on how do we understand authoritarian urbanism as a concept. I am not someone who works with the concept. So I actually had to read up on it, and my summary would be that authoritarian urbanism is the form of governance in which political decision making is increasingly consolidated and centralized, and also has increasingly more repressive manifestations. And in this sense, I want to really dialogue with what Oleksandra was saying, whether we see authoritarian urbanism also elsewhere but in what we call post-Soviet or Eurasian cities. I think we surely do. We know that the concept has roots in critical understandings of urbanism in the Global South. When we use this concept, for me, the highest risk is to, exceptionalise the East and say, "oh, the East is authoritarian and the West is not". I find it risky to stick to this kind of thinking and read it as another dividing line, which to a certain degree it is, but not to the degree that is sometimes played out. In this sense, it is important to also think of cities like London or Athens, which are also discussed, and studied through the concept of authoritarian urbanism. Which brings me to the next issue. Very often political science and other social science disciplines measure democracy and authoritarianism solely as a political spectrum, without considering forms of welfare and economic organization. Yet, we also have to observe socio-economic inclusion and exclusion or economic democracy. And these two things are very intertwined. You can have places where you don't have outright authoritarian repression, but you also don't have functional, working mechanisms to have voices of large parts of the population considered in the decision making. I'm happy to have this very short comment now and to elaborate later.
Andrei Vazyanau
I think the definition that you gave to authoritarian urbanism is well illustrated by that observation from Minsk that I tried to describe... Under authoritarian urbanism, many things are possible. Things can be very different, but they are all fragile and unsustainable, so they can disappear much faster than in non authoritarian urbanism because the power is consolidated in a very small number of people, actors.

Oleksandra Nenko
I can add another indicator. When you observe certain limits or borders, delimiting the public spaces, it might be a sign. If there are "specifically designated places" for urban activists where they are allowed to do "their urbanism", and other places power-holders define as central locations where they will do something else, this is a sign of authoritarian urbanism. Another example of these borders, quite very particular for Belarus and for Russia, is the adjacency of a beautiful green public space where people socialize, recreate, make barbecues, and a privatized area, cut from this public zone by a president or a capitalist. This is where the power of the state or of the capital just takes out a piece of land, which should be democratically planned
Lev Vladov
[While] Living in Europe I made two observations about authoritarian states. First thought is that the more authoritarian a state is, the lower and fewer trees are [in the cities]. If you look at many capitals of authoritarian states on their main streets they basically have no trees at all. You can rarely see an old tree in the center of Moscow, you know, a big old tree like you can see here on the streets of Berlin or some other German city. And I think it is because politicians in these [authoritarian] states want to get very fast results, and trees… [do not match this approach – OP]. You know, planting a tree is the best thing you can do to the city environment, to the city beautification, and landscaping. But it's a very long term [process]. And none of these new urban methods and approaches which are used by authoritarian states are about planting trees, gardening and so on.

Next notice I made... We have some questions in the description of our panel today which [address the possible] signs that we can trace before we can say that this state is going to authoritarian way. Maybe one of these signs is [the fact] that government starts it's public spaces development and parks program. Because, you know, basically, a desire to have a park should come from people, from citizens, not from government. And maybe it's because of lack of ownership, a sense of ownership [to a city space – OP] that people in Russia and some other authoritarian states do not have. They do not have these ideas at all and do not go with that ideas to authorities, because they don't even realize that they have a right to demand something for their city. So I love the word "citizen" because ...It doesn't exists in the Russian language. "Citi/y-zen" contains the right to be a part of the nation and parts of the city, two things together. And maybe in Russian it's a word "gorozhanin" , but this word is not used in press or by governments at all, because it's very … strong word [in political sense - OP]. And because it says that citizen have a right to choose, have a right to be owner of his city, of his land, and have a right to make decisions on this land. So when this program starts with, you know, beautification of streets, redesigning of streets, huge programs of redesign of public spaces, maybe something is going wrong already. Or maybe because if they give you something right here, it means that somewhere else they are stealing your right to choose.

And in conclusion I want to tell you a story. I think I faced the very edge of authoritarian urbanism last year. I went to Vladivostok where the local governor invited a team of young architects from Tatarstan who are really good in landscaping, in design, [who can do - OP] really nice looking public spaces. And so I've been to a few of these places, and it was really, really great quality of benches, pavements, of tiles, it was really nice. All places were instagrammable. But I noticed that on every bench they had three cameras in each direction. And then I was told the stories by my local friends that each camera had a microphone and speaker, and they have operators in the office who are watching this square or park 24 hours a day. So if someone at 01:00 AM goes to this square, sits on a bench and drinks beer, this operator tells them through speakers to go out otherwise they will call the police. After that, the operator cuts this video and sends it to the city authorities. City administration of Vladivostok has its official Instagram page. So they put this video of guys who drink beer with a comment: "These are criminals! Shouldn't be allowed to go in our parks, please, be aware!". I was really horrified when I started to look at this page of Vladivostok administration. At some park in the winter there was snow everywhere and kids went from school, about ten years old or nine years old [kids], so they played standing on the bench because it's snow everywhere. And near the bench there was a litter bin. So one kid sat inside a litter bin. It was a game of ten year old children. So the Instagram account of the city administration placed the video of these children and said: "this group of young criminals went from that direction from that school. Please, parents, be aware that if it happens again we will call the police. And you have to speak to your children very strictly about that". So then I realized that these perfectly designed squares and parks are not for people, at all. They are for the government, to show images of how good life is in our city. You know, it's like... these aesthetic pictures are like they have been made in the Soviet Union. I only recently realized that all those Soviet pictures with laughing people are… designed pictures, you know. So they set it up for the photographs. Life never was the same like we see from photographs. So, it was the very edge of authoritarian urbanism I noticed in Russia. And then the war began.
Andrei Vazyanau
Maybe just to give an interpretive narrative of authoritarian urbanism. In Belarus, actually, those beautiful spaces and nice things that are present in large cities are not publicly perceived as gifts or goods from the regime. The narrative is that if there would be no regime, there would be much more of such spaces and they would be more beautiful. And actually the merit of creation or maintenance of these spaces is usually ascribed to civil society, to experts, to NGOs and so on. So those good things in Minsk are not there because of the regime, but despite the regime. That is the narrative and the consensus within Belarus, which I think is a very different story. And then when those spaces are not used and they're empty, usually the explanation is because the regime imposes... executes violence on people, and because you can be detained by OMON [kind of a SWAT troops - OP] at any place at any time in Belarus. Well, yeah, the explanation is really different. So people usually would say if there would be no this regime, it would be even better. But the regime is hyper... inhibiting. It makes things slower and makes the development slower.
Philipp Meuser
I wanted to refer to some of my colleagues and the images I showed. We discussed a waste management system to be implemented in Minsk. You described these bicycle lanes in Minsk, which was planned to become a bicycle-friendly city. And you mentioned this exciting example from a well-designed public space in Vladivostok. So, if we saw pictures, everyone would say, well, it's a great design. And this would be a reference in 50 or 100 years – people would show those pictures again because of the waste management system, modern bicycle lanes, and very well-designed public space. That brings me to the thesis: we are not discussing urbanism that we will criticize. That means we should not talk about authoritarian urbanism in this respect, we should find another term, or we should try to make a definition for urbanism. Or the following thesis might be: when we talk about urbanism, we are not talking about urban design, and we are not talking about urban planning. We are talking about planning processes and how to use public spaces. And this is very, very important because, again, I refer to my pictures of the world-famous architects who were invited to Russia to design lovely buildings and livable public spaces. In 20 to 30 years, you will see all these buildings in books on the architectural history of the 21st century. They will all be shown in these books. But on the other hand, we know precisely that the usage of these buildings or the decision-making is entirely against our beliefs. Again, we need to find a definition for urbanism: What are we talking about? Because we are not talking about this beautiful bench. We are not talking about the fact that a bicycle lane would be part of a livable city, and a colorful trash bin would be a part of sustainable waste management – we don't need to talk about it. This is a very crucial issue for our own future.
Oleksandra Nenko
I was thinking again about all of our comments here, and I would like to note one important thing, specific for public spaces development in Russia. I guess it is relevant for the discussion of authoritarian urbanism as such. It is the distinction between beautification of public space and community development of public space slash place-making. If we speak about public spaces development as it happened in Russia in the frames of the national programs, beautification is the case. In Russian language the term is "blagoustristvo". It focuses on the visual, formal, design aspects of the public space, the main concern is making space visually attractive, but actually not public. There is no identification of what "public" is and should be. And the public space is considered [with this approach - OP] as a product. Or a building, a closed public space, which can be consumed and which can be sold on the market, which could be gaining its value, and could be controlled. And it's not about community. Community planning of public spaces is about the scenarios of usage.

This distinction becomes visible on photographs of public spaces. Sometimes when the photographs of the new public spaces are published in fancy architectural journals, what one sees there are the formal design attributes, there are no people. I guess this is quite an authoritarian view on the public space. These photos are detached from people – they show beautiful benches, but not the actual scenarios of space usage. Are there any people in this space? When do they come? Who are they? How inclusive is the visitors' community? How do they move, how do they interact? Are there interesting activities on site? These questions reveal the democratic value of public spaces.

Now I will refer to my experience in Berlin these days. When I walk the streets of Berlin and when I see some public spaces run by communities or artistic initiatives, it is not something formally "beautiful". It's quite shabby, it's quite strange, it's quite hippie... Well, it's not polished. I ask myself - where is the picture? But it's not about the picture. It's about stories this community tells: "We do this and we do that. We speak about these terms. We speak about our community. And we do this initiative because... ". They speak about the processes in that place. The democratic place-making has communication and decision-making indicators. One will focus on the processes, meanings in there, not the formal side, communication and activities make the value. It will be good to make such a checklist to compare authoritarian and democratic public spaces.
Lela Rekhviashvili
In the first round I did not talk about Tbilisi, right? Tbilisi is an interesting case because one could say that Tbilisi, at least in the last ten years, has not been too authoritarian. This is changing in the past year, but let us say, since the Saakashvili' rule (2012) until the last years (2021) Tbilisi was not particularly authoritarian. It maybe was not particularly democratic either. However, people could protest. People were not afraid that they were tad taped, political voice was something that you can have and you will not necessarily be prosecuted for it. Of course, there were cases of state violence and repression, but people still have a space to react. They will come out on the streets and they will protest. There is a possibility for political self-expression.

On the other hand, Tbilisi is a city which has experienced a lot of un-planning and the removal of professionals as a way of allowing rule of the powerful, enabling private actors and upper middle classes to really design the city to their desire and benefit. You can observe this in various ways in Tbilisi. I myself studied mobility and transport. Tbilisi is a super congested city, but actually, according to 2019 statistics, only 30% of the population had access to cars. It is just that they over abuse it, and then everybody has to be stuck in traffic jams, including the privileged. And in many other ways, in terms of a rental market, in terms of income inequalities, in terms of access and prices of everyday consumables and food, this is a city that is really designed for the richer. Even if it's not very visible, even if the state distances itself from planning, a lot of state power is deployed to allow the private sector and the rich to dominate the city. In fact, you have a lot of state capacity that is actually invested in repressing the voices of marginalized people. Such repressions might not always be visible in media and public discourse, because middle classes don't usually care. It is not problematised when the street vendors are being driven out of public spaces, when squatters, or people that are living in illegal settlements are expelled to make space for private companies to buy and 'develop' urban land, to support accumulation process by dispossessing certain populations. So in this sense, there is a significant degree of authoritarian type of violence through which, let's say, relatively more democratic cities are governed. For me, the question is, when we deal with this authoritarian urbanism, how do we define this spectrum? How do we talk of different versions of authoritarian urbanism and authoritarian interventions in space production and social production?
Andrei Vazyanau
I have a short comment to what Sasha has told and a question to Lela. I very much agree with the idea that we should sometimes disconnect the notion of beauty and the notion of authoritarian urbanism. Like some cities are ugly, but they're not authoritarian. Some cities are beautiful and they are authoritarian. These are things that do not always coincide. And I'm thinking here about Ukrainian cities, which to me are not quite examples of authoritarian urbanism, which are quite democratic in their life and practices. And some of them use participatory budgeting quite successfully, and they follow very different paths. But I think when we look at – of course I'm talking about it all the time before a full scale Russian invasion – when we look at different regional centers and [we see] they're going in different directions. Which is paradoxically a sign of democracy, because local power is elected. And then we could sometimes talk about oligarchic urbanism. And this is a concept that I was working with when talking about eastern Ukrainian, particular Donbass cities, where a local oligarch could also become a mayor, be elected as mayor, or collaborate with the mayor, and he would be (usually it's he) much more influential for urban development of the city than the Republican legislation. That would just provide some space, but there on the ground a mayor and some local actors would define the piece of development. And that's how Kharkiv and Odesa and Zaporizhzhia could go absolutely in different directions. And my question then was, like, when we're talking about authoritarian urbanism, should we probably separate the state level from urban level and talk about more polycentric countries? Because Georgia here is a different case. It is not as polycentric as Ukraine, because it is smaller, it has one million-populated city and then there is some trend. But probably we could observe different trends in Kutaisi or Rustavi or Batumi. So can we just somehow operate on different levels here, saying that in some regions it could be authoritarian urbanism in one city, but another city of the same state, it's a different non authoritarian urbanism.
Oleg Pachenkov
I think that's a very good question, actually. I'm thinking that, well, it's already a good example... If different things can happen in different cities, it's for me a very good example of that... that the society or the state as such is not authoritarian to that extent, because it means that the federal power is not that strong and it gives an opportunity to locals to act. Not always in a good or right way, but at least it means that the state [power] is not that strong and total. But yeah, I also think that... what became clear from this discussion was that... It makes no sense to talk about authoritarian or whatever urbanism without its connection to what is usually called neoliberalism or capitalism. Because they act everywhere, in all examples, I think, that we discussed, they act in a very close connection to each other. And the main manifestation of authoritarianism is often a kind of violating the democratic process or institutions in favor of capital. In European space it's maybe... It can be seen as the softest version of authoritarian urbanism, while the strongest, the hardest version is like what we have in Central Asian countries or in the Russian cities sometimes. So it's definitely a spectrum. But as we already discussed, the collaboration between the authorities and capital and their agreement to ignore the voices of the others, as you said, it's already, probably a very bad sign of the coming authoritarianism. And it refers to what Lev [Vladov] said - to his idea of that... when the state government is planning public spaces for people and [does] beautification of public spaces it is already a bad sign. As they're very quick decisions, "quick victories" as we know it. It is one of the things we know from the professional vocabulary of [urban] consultants. So whenever the consultants come [together] and they discuss among the professionals, among themselves, what should they do, they always have this idea that they should work in two directions or scales – like, tactical and strategic or short term and long term. So in the long term, we do something good, something really important for us as urbanists, but in the short term we do something to satisfy the politicians, which is exactly.. Well, for me now it really sounds like the best way to serve populism. You know, they need it because they're populists, that's why they needed short term victories. And that populism is obviously a first step towards authoritarianism. So this is... here I see the connection.
Philipp Meuser
Thanks for mentioning the oligarchs in Ukraine. I was immediately thinking about... In the US, the real estate developer Donald Trump has become the president. And another billionaire, Elon Mask, bought Twitter and arranged some voting among the community of Twitter members. It was, so to say, vox populi, and we have a decision made that Trump has his account open again. So he's using our understanding of democracy and just asking the specific group and then saying: here, the majority of voters, we are going to reopen the account of Trump. When we talk about these Eastern European oligarchs, we should also consider that we have this kind of oligarchy in Western countries as well. We don't name it. We don't brand them like this. We also have them everywhere in the whole world. And all the examples we discussed, even the bicycle lane, which was planned but not implemented – we have the same case in Berlin. So we had Friedrichstrasse, which just overnight became a bicycle lane. I'm just living close to it, to this area. No one had ever asked me, as a democratic citizen of Germany, if I would like to have a bicycle lane there or not. But this [asking such questions – OP] is also a part of democracy! And all the time, I'm sitting and just thinking, what are we talking about? So what is so wrong with smaller trees? At Tverskaya street, they have trees now! For 70 years during Soviet times, there was not a single. They have at least some trees, and of course, they are small, but they have trees. And also all this Moscow embankment – it's a lovely and well-designed area. So what are we talking about? I'm just using your term of authoritarian urbanism, but we are talking about the fact that in this country [Russia - OP], the president has been reelected without any opposition. And if we talk about urbanism... Well, what we all wish to have, we would want a change of power after each legislative period. And I think this is the biggest problem. Democracy needs a power shift. And referring to what you were saying – that the politicians always are seeking to have short-term success – if we have our parliament every four years, you vote, and you go for election, and that power is changing, but all the politicians, they also aim to have short term successes to be reelected. So this is not a big difference. The significant lack we are all missing [in countries like Russia compared to democratic countries - OP] is that there is no opposition. And we always have this official statement of top-down politics. And whenever there is a bottom-up, it is somehow destroyed or, I don't know, they put pressure on it because politicians are afraid that this bottom-up movement could become a vast or more giant political party.
AUDIENCE (Wolfgang Knapp)
I'm quite familiar with the Chinese context since 1993, and in the last five or six years, you have these cameras [everywhere there in China – OP] and when you lose your wallet, well I like, that they really can find where you lost it and then you get it back. But they ask you to come within seven days because they only just store those videos for seven days. Because it creates too much conflict when a foreigner has a problem. When you know it, you go on the third day and then they watch the video. But this level of surveillance was already done around 15 years ago at Mainz Central station. It was a pilot project to control everything in the place in front of the Central station in Mainz and inside. And there was a discussion in the city if toilets could have those cameras too. This was only a discussion. Why do I describe this? The level of acceptance of a terrible totalitarian structure is interesting in the context of public administration and decision making processes of administration, of security and fear in public space. And management of fear in public space, lots of examples show this. Sometimes it collapses like in Korea, the last time. Ironically in Mainz which was the first democratically elected republic in 1793, the most condensed authoritarian structure as a pilot project was implemented, and in public discussion there was no rejection because the fear-feeling management was so effective in the city. So the acceptance goes up. And I would like to know, given the examples that these tycoons and trustees were everywhere, how this acceptance is different? [the question is – OP] When you accept this kind of authoritarian structure and on which conditions you check it; this is one [thing - OP]. Another moment is which of these decision making processes are public, seen by the public already.

And just a short comment on this: in China, you can buy any kind of tree in any size and you can wake up next morning and you see it in front of your house, 30 year old tree, 25 meters high, planted overnight brought from another city [though planting big tree in this way is rather a sign of authoritarianism than its opposite; compare to the case of Ivanishvili's Botanic garden in Batumi, Georgia – OP].
Andrei Vazyanau
My short comment was that if the power doesn't change , then there is no motivation for power to achieve long term goals either. I mean, if it does change, then there is some uncertainty. And it can be populist, but sometimes it is not populist. But if it doesn't change, I think, the Belarusian case shows that long terms are not pursued by such a regime and every achievement is extremely fragile.
Oleksandra Nenko
I would like to add to the discussion about elections. Well, elections per se.... yes, it is an important indicator, but also... We sometimes have elections, changes. Okay. But what might not work is the channels to express public political will. I would like to refer to those cases where we could actually trace if we do have democracy in urbanism or if we do not have it. And this is the case of urban conflicts. When a public good is contested or there is a concern around the future development of a certain place. When we talk about beautiful public spaces, it is sometimes difficult to say if they are authoritarian or not. But when we face a situation of a conflict, for example, a demolition of an object or a building.... And if there is a gross-rooted activism of citizens against it, and they use one, two, three, four formal channels, for example, petitions, meetings, public hearings, and these channels are not working... and this conflict object is built or demolished, this would give us proof to say: yes, the democracy is not working here, it's authoritarian urbanism. Urban conflicts are good cases to show democracy versus authoritarianism.
Lev Vladov
Speaking about surveillance, I want to answer. What depressed me the most in Russian conditions [is that – OP]... so when our mayor starts to talk about … if we organize some place, first, we should put some cameras there, of course. And what depressed me [is the fact - OP] that people are for it. They have this strange feeling of safety, imitation of safety because of the cameras. So I can't... I had a blog with a huge amount of subscribers from my own city, so even in my blog, among my co-thinkers, I can't... I couldn't convince them that these cameras are evil for our, you know, human rights. Because they are for this safety, because if .,. somehow they think that if there are cameras, there will be no crime at all. But, of course, it's a mistake. But I didn't know how to stop the process of this massive appreciation of installing surveillance.
Oleg Pachenkov
But is this a mistake? I mean, with these examples you gave, I mean, what crime can you expect with these cameras and operators watching you? You cannot drink beer! I mean, of course, people feel safe.
Lev Vladov
Yeah, yeah, but if you don't live at all, like if you die, then no crime can be a harm for you too, right? So it's like, it should be... Life has its risks, yeah. And when we leave our flat, apartments we take these risks and maybe, you know, somehow live barely without surveillance... Here [in Berlin - OP] I went to a park without surveillance, and I feel myself in the city much more safe than in Russia under hundreds of cameras. I don't know why. Maybe you can tell me, but I think this is a big, huge problem now in Russia and maybe in many authoritarian states.
Oleg Pachenkov
Of course, I agree, I just wanted to say that probably the argumentation could sound a bit different...
AUDIENCE (Madlen Pilz)
Thank you very much to all of you. Just some observations. I want to start with the case of Vladivostok. Actually, it's quite cute. I mean, they're looking for children sitting in the trash bin, they are looking for somebody who's drinking beer on a park bench... I mean, do they have nothing [else] to do!? It seems, they have... bigger and more serious problems, I have an impression. And this is interesting. I actually do not know what to do with it and what it tells me about authoritarianism or the situation in the city. But what I find also much more interesting is another point: as it seems, this is a local decision. It's not a national, it's not the national way of surveillance, how it is actually [often] practiced in Russia. And so in all this debate, I mean, sometimes it came a little bit through, but this multi-scalar question of authoritarianism is, I think, quite important. So what is the local decision? What is the national decision? And what is maybe even the influence of the international level? Like when Filipp Meuser was showing all this iconic architecture from Eurasian cities, I was thinking, well, how much of this is actually the resemblance of an international competition? Who is with the better techniques to build something? Who is more modern? Who is.., I don't know what else, and how much it is the invention of a nation on the national level and how much...it is really a decision made in the phase of authoritarianism, of political authoritarianism and how much how... how all these different scales actually intervene in the cities. And I think this is quite important to look at.
AUDIENCE (Sevil Gusseinova)
Thank you. I just wanted to reflect on Baku city as an example. Oleksandra mentioned here the nonsafety of the spaces, of the public spaces or some other spaces that you've been there. I think that is not [about- OP] safety. It's another main aspect of authoritarian urbanism, because we know in Berlin there are also many such places where a woman is better not going alone or even a friend of mine, the transgender journalist, was beaten in one of Berlin streets. So I think that there are lots of examples of authoritarian urbanism in Baku. You mentioned you touched upon some of them, such as civic participation, transparency, problems of transparency of tenders, problems of collaboration and these independent architects, urbanists and so on. But one of the aspects that you didn't touch upon is the memory politics. So Azerbaijan authorities are trying to represent its regime erecting lots of parks of Heydar Aliev, or erecting monuments to him. So this is for me as a resident of this city is the main aspect of authoritarian urbanism.
Oleksandra Nenko
I support. I was fascinated by those billboards everywhere with a bigger face, but without even an indication who this is. They were not signed! Everybody is expected to know that this is Heydar Aliev.

AUDIENCE (unknown)
Thank you for this very interesting discussion. I would like to go back to the concept of Eurasian city you've presented. Because in the cases you showed to us, it was, basically about capital cities, about metropolitan cities, megapolis with this iconic architecture, very modern. This is, as you said, it's something which will be in every book about 21st century architecture. But if we tear them down, what remains there? If you look at the regional centers? I think there is a strong post-Soviet heritage there, like big, very large production sites, because the same is for Kutaisi or Maiupol or Barnaul. So for me it would be interesting, how we could deal with this industrial heritage for... for understanding authoritarian cities. So it's a one [thing]. There is also another thing... I wonder if we can try to sharpen this notion of authoritarian city, what can be quantified? Do we have some data on, I don't know; are there, probably, more cameras or police... the higher density of police stations in regional cities in Russia then there is... I don't know, in the Czech Republic, for example. So how can you work with quantification methods?
Philipp Meuser
Of course, I was highlighting modern architecture, but I could have shown you the same cities, even Astana, and I could have only shown the late Soviet mass housing blocks. So it's my individual selection of images that I was offering. Regarding how to renovate or modernize or transform buildings of industrial heritage, this has nothing to do with or not necessarily something to do with authoritarian urbanism. You can see them everywhere in Europe where these buildings or these structures have been transformed. And very soon, this could also be changed in Russia and all the other countries. This is just a question of how the economy needs these old buildings. This may have to do with individuals who see some value in these buildings, buy them and then transform them into loft buildings, cultural centers, or whatever. This has not necessarily something to do with authoritarian cities.

I now want to refer to what you [Madlen Pilz] asked about the architecture competitions. Most buildings shown in my presentation have been decided through architectural competitions. But the way these juries are arranged or how the jury members are selected is the central question, I must say. I've been a member of some of Russia's architecture competitions as a puppet to decorate the jury. After the competition, I always felt that they needed an international jury member. And so I was put into the jury, and then it was called "mezhdunarodnoe" [international- OP]. My citizenship was used to claim, "we are very democratic, we even have someone from Germany". So again, I'm saying that the quality of the entries was very high at the end. And again, I'm saying we're not talking about urban design and architecture; we are talking about decision-making processes and the use of public space. I think this is… for me it's essential to underline.

And you asked about the density of [cameras or police stations - OP] and their numbers in the countries. The only figure I have is that we have 50 cameras in Moscow per 1000 citizens. I don't have the exact figures in my mind in detail, but you can easily find them on the Internet. But as a result, Moscow has the highest density [of cameras per thousand people- OP]. In other cities, cities which are identified as having a higher crime rate, they have less surveillance. So this says nothing... [about the actual situation with criminal rate – it was obviously not planned as a measure to fight against criminality – OP].

And referring to your [Wolfgang Knapp] example of Western people coming to China. You lose your wallet, and within seven days they find the wallet; this is... and they will always say: "this is the reason why we need surveillance, [it is there - OP] to support people if they lose the wallet!". And you can say nothing about it because you were happy to receive it back! Yes, but the question is if you could have organized a demonstration on the main square. And if you would have called some friends and you would have gathered there, you would have been the first to be imprisoned because they can also ... [Wolfgang Knapp: and then I would get my wallet in prison, yes]. Yes! [People laugh]
Andrei Vazyanau
I think quantification is difficult here also because it is risky to ascribe particular qualities to objects without taking practices of their use into consideration. You are talking about surveillance cameras. They can also be used and they are used in gender mainstreaming urbanism practices, for instance, together with street lighting to prevent harassment and to decrease the number of harassment cases. And then you need cameras. So probably authoritarianism comes through not with the object, but with the practices of its use. And this, I think, is important not to forget. And thank you for mentioning that in Berlin there are also no go zones for women, and one of the reasons is because they are dark and they're not under surveillance.
AUDIENCE (Matthias Bernt)
Well, thanks for this talk. And then I think I would start with some positionality. Being a Berliner, having lived here for a long time, I felt sometimes irritated [during this discussion - OP], and again, being a Berliner, I'd like to bring in some provocation. I mean, one thing that was always mentioned was the number of CCTV cameras. Just go to Hauptbahnhof [in Berlin - OP], go to Alexa [shopping mall near Alexanderplatz in Berlin – OP]: you have it everywhere! In Leipzig, which is not Berlin, there is an NGO, which every year awards the Erich Mielke Prize. Well, Erich Mielke was the head of the former communist secret service [of GDR - OP] and they [that NGO - OP] counted more than 200 cameras in Leipzig train station alone. If you go for [the topic of - OP] collaboration of capital with local authorities in privatizing public places, go down to Spree river and look at the Media Spree [urban development project - OP]. We had a [district level - OP] referendum against that and what came out is exactly the international globalist flagship architecture with high priced condos that you have everywhere in the world. If you want to go for flagship architecture, well, in Berlin, we're not particularly good at this. But if you go to London or anywhere in the world to the waterfronts, that's what has been pioneered there and then imported by Eurasian countries. So I just think... those things [like CCTV cameras or spectacular architecture – OP] treating them as signifiers for authoritarianism [of the society - OP] is just a misperception.

But one thing that I find really worrying is again being a Berliner... Some of you referred to the capacity of authoritarian regimes to actually deliver: to deliver bike lanes, to deliver social housing, to deliver a metro line. And then I think, you know, living in Berlin, I mean, we definitely have a more democratic government and more opportunities for civil decision and disagreement, right. But I mean, bike lanes in Berlin, it takes us ages to even get 100 meters of bike lanes built. Social housing, I think last year, although it's on the top of our government's agenda, we produced zero new social housing units. So that makes me wonder what is actually in the capacities of authoritarian rule that allows them to deliver. And that, I think, might also explain why they have popular support. So I leave it with this. I think the bottom line is we should stop thinking - and I think Lela made this point - in binaries, you know, where the things that we see in Western countries are totally put in opposition to things we see in Eastern countries. But rather [should think – OP] in terms of continuum. We are in different forms of government and end up in very similar outcomes.
AUDIENCE (Erhard Stölting)
I have a very small proposal. Yes, you have the authoritarian architecture, but you have another phenomena as well. That's the reconquering of urban spaces – authoritarian urban spaces – by the population. I will give two examples. One example would be Paris. Paris of the 19th century and the reordering of Paris by Haussmann, which was a very brutal process, very authoritarian and with an authoritarian goal, that's to create broad streets that in case of possible revolution they could use cannons against the population. So, but what has grown out of it is the system of boulevards, a wonderful city to walk in. And you have a similar phenomenon in Berlin, a planning of 1870 - broad streets with the explicit idea of using cannons in the case of revolutions. And what I like about Berlin are these broad streets in the center of the city. This is one example; that is to say, that authoritarian urbanism is re-used, re-defined to a certain degree. Another example is by an architect, a utopian architect who has been able to create a city for Pakistan, Chandigarh - Le Corbusier. He planned this city, even the size or the structure of the apartments for his houses. And the idea behind it was a family idea of the 1950s in Western Europe. And this did not fit at all to family structures in Pakistan at that time or even today. So people began to reorganize this city, which in part looks like it was planned, but which is completely different and has become a completely different city. And you could easily find other examples too. So this is the question of social reconquest of authoritarian structures.
Lev Vladov
Answering about the capacity of the authoritarian states to deliver these bicycle lanes. So, you know, in Russia, in Moscow, they have, I don't know, maybe a few bicycle lanes... like... It's like an exhibition of bicycle lanes, you know. And at the end, after 500 meters of the bicycle lane in the center, you have a sign: "Bicycle lane ends here". Then you have to take your bicycle on your shoulder and go home. You're talking about the capacity to make improvements in a city, comparing Berlin to authoritarian cities. But in my authoritarian city old people have no ability to go to drink coffee at cafes - they have no money for it. But they [government - OP] have, you know, lots of money invested in roads and parks, but they [old people in these cities - OP] can not leave outside because they have no money to go out to the city. They have no ability to travel, and we have no public transport at all. Only in Berlin for the first time in my life, I got a real pleasure to live without a car. And of course, you have many things to complain about at BVG, but for me comparing [Berlin] to any Russian city, it's like the best service you can even imagine. So you have a lot of good, a lot of goods and pleasures you never think of. And also, if you have such beautiful transitions between, you know, pavements and roads for bicycles. I rode a bicycle in Berlin for a whole year. So in any weather I feel that bicycle infrastructure is enough for me to feel safe and to go anywhere in Berlin. In Russian cities it is allowed to drive 80 kilometers per hour, allowed without any penalty. Now, on each street. We see those perfect bicycle lanes, you know, with a length of 500 meters, beautifully photographed and sent to your friends to see how great Moscow is, how urbanized it is. You can't even use it at all, because it's not designed for people to use. It is designed to be photographed.
Oleksandra Nenko
Okay. Wrapping up, I would like to underline this idea that sometimes we can find traces of authoritarian urbanism in non authoritarian contexts and vice versa. Sometimes we see democratic grassroots in contexts which are more authoritarian than democratic in terms of major political regimes. And it is important to keep this in mind that there might be hybrids and we can't work with pure cases. And it can't be quantified to the extent to calculate the level of authoritarian urbanism in a city. Yeah, of course we need to look in comparison in the context of practices in public spaces and level of public access in place. It is important to operationalize some of those concepts, but not to overuse them as pure cases.
Andrei Vazyanau
Well, I probably won't get back to my idea of looking for authoritarianism in the phase of maneuver, in the phase of what can happen. I think I'll just share a short story, a biographical one. Those years and a half that I and many other people from Belarus lived in Kiev, they would often start a discussion and they'd always end up with the same discussion: "OK, to us right now here Kiev is dirtier and uglier than Minsk. But if now Minsk would become as free as Kiev is and as democratic as Kiev is, being the same dirty and ugly - what would we choose? Surely we would choose to live in dirty, ugly, but free Minsk. And this discussion always had the same ending, and that's about capacity to deliver. And then also, there was one common saying, that "oh, all across the Soviet space, Eurasian space". Although I think some formerly post-Soviet cities ... it is incorrect to call them Eurasian or at least the inhabitants would be insulted, but there was the idea that, like, we can observe similarities all over. And I think that sometimes talking about differences is much more important. I think talking about similarities more did a bad service for many countries around Russia, especially referring to countries of Eastern Partnership. So that's why we should keep in mind that under authoritarian urbanism, very different things are happening. And this is still a variety and this is a diversity of phases.
Philipp Meuser
My last words today. I'm sure we all agree that authoritarian systems need a change of power, and even if this would be changed in Russia, or even better also in other authoritarian states, I think we could have the same discussion with the same subjects, the same topics with cities and countries in the European Union. My last words today are: We did not discuss urban design and architecture. We discussed decision-making and non-democratic planning processes.
Oleg Pachenkov
Thank you all!

Post Scriptum

by Oleg Pachenkov, moderator

What we did not have time to discuss was the role of the professional community in its relation to authoritarian urbanism. What shall and what can we as professionals, as urbanists do in this respect, or what shall we not do? How do we see our role in the establishment of authoritarian urbanism? Or what can we as professionals set against it? I took the power of moderator to add my thoughts in this concern as a sort of Post Scriptum for this transcription.

From my side, one of the starting points in this regard was a reflexive analysis on what we in Russia have been doing in the last 10 years in the sphere of urbanism. We believed we were working to improve the quality of life in our cities. But we also worked to change the society, forked for making it less authoritarian, perhaps. For that reason we were not just doing consulting on urban design, but were always trying to suggest a design that would support and stimulate public life in the cities and thus would develop a public sphere. We applied participatory methods in urban design and planning not for the increase of the quality of design, but for the development of civil society, for the empowerment of city-zens, for the development of the skills of dialog, etc. And for all that we worked together with the state actors, we collaborated with the state and we appreciated this opportunity to collaborate - as we valued a dialog as a skill and a praxis. Why was it possible and acceptable for us as professionals? Because we did not think of authoritarianism as an "either/or" thing, but rather thought of it in terms of a spectrum or continuum (as it was suggested also above in the discussion). We thought of it in terms of the… extent. And we wanted to act against it, to work on the decrease of its extent in Russian society. But did we? We were ready to act as soon as we identified the zones, spheres of life in our society where authoritarianism seemed to give up its positions, where our efforts can be applied – and we believed our activity would allow extending those zones, winning up more space for democracy and liberalism against authoritarianism. We were ready to accept and develop rights associated with urban citizenship in the situation when basic citizens' rights were violated – as we hoped that we could "cultivate the soil" for the future changes. We used to believe that we prepared people and taught them to struggle for their rights; we believed that we could slightly change institutions and "street level bureaucrats", believed that we were forming a potential for changes and thanks to it there would be a gradual extension from the urban scale to the scale of state in terms of democratization.

The paradox and ambiguity of this position is that as soon as we lose and authoritarian regime stops once all these activities which do not match to its core nature and where temporary and localized "easings" – we realize, that all that time we have been collaborating with that regime and worked for its legitimization. We accepted that in some spheres life of our society was cruel and fully authoritarian, but still acted within this regime, within the frames suggested by this regime to us as professionals (even though we could protest as citizens) – and thus, we worked for a status quo. All in all our activities aimed at the dismantlement of the regime were weaker than our work that looked like a support of this regime.

The contemporary authoritarian (or hybrid) regimes are not obviously brutal but are often refined; they are rarely characterized by the direct and total violence, but rather by the existence of line dividing possible from impossible, what is allowed from what is restricted. And this dividing line is determined not in terms of legislation and institutions but by the intuition of the regime in regard to the protection of its power - the line is drawn where it is considered by a regime as a threat to itself. Up to this limit you can act, but not cross it. Crossing the dividing line provokes severe reaction and repressions which are also not rooted in the legislation, but the opposite: legislation can be changed in order to use it for punishment of the violators of a dividing line. Interestingly, contemporary authoritarian regimes still try to shape and present themselves as democratic, i.e. based on the supremacy of law, for example. That is why these legalist authoritarian regimes make voluntaristic orders to edit the law so it would provide a legal background for the decisions desired by the ruler. This strange flirtation with democracy calls to name these regimes "hybrid".

In this regard again the role and position of the professional community of urbanists could be problematized. In such a situation "practicing authoritarian urbanism" means acting in accordance with this order of things, i.e. performing professional activities aimed at the development of urban environment, technologies or anything else that does not touch or question that de facto existing "magic line" drawn within the society by its authoritarian ruler(s). It means practicing as a professional within the limits that support the status quo. This could be called a "minimum level of practicing authoritarian urbanism" – reproducing the existing order of things which violates democratic principles (such as supremacy of law, openness of access to political institutions for all citizens, rights of speech, opinion, public gatherings, etc.). A "maximum level of practicing authoritarian urbanism" would mean inventing and developing solutions, tools, technologies, etc. that would serve, support and extend the power of the power-holders, of a regime over society and people – for example, development of surveillance technologies and one-sided panopticon-like transparency of city spaces, designing public spaces in a way that would make it easier for police to fight against protesters (Haussmann's style of urban planning), etc. The "minimum level" , perhaps, looks quite innocent, but it is still authoritarian urbanism (or urban authoritarianism) and it does not diminish the professional responsibility for collaborationism with authoritarian regime.Book design is the art of incorporating the content, style, format, design, and sequence of the various components of a book into a coherent whole. In the words of Jan Tschichold, "methods and rules upon which it is impossible to improve, have been developed over centuries. To produce perfect books, these rules have to be brought back to life and applied."
Front matter, or preliminaries, is the first section of a book and is usually the smallest section in terms of the number of pages. Each page is counted, but no folio or page number is expressed or printed, on either display pages or blank pages.