February 23, 2003
From e-mail correspondence
These are some initial thoughts after one read-through, admittedly on the train from 116th & Broadway to Astoria. I promise deeper thoughts once I've looked at it again.
Oh, mentioning where I started my reading reminds me of where I was after the meeting: a lecture on 'Density and its Architectures' by Saskia Sassen at Columbia. It seemed really short and haphazardly presented, but it really started expanding in my head after I left. Perhaps this is the 'viral' criticism that Joselit is looking for? Her talk asked a lot of questions that she left (intentionally) unanswered: What happens when you dislodge density from its general perception as physical agglomeration and building height? How does the digital age change notions of density? What is the range of forms--from the territorial to the electronic--of density? She 'dislodged' it by changing the word 'density' to the phrase 'spaces of centrality' and historicizing the current understanding. Our understanding of density is a product of 20th century urbanism, and that as we move into the digital 21st century, we need to see more than just a downtown. Her spaces of centrality are (1) the downtown/city center; (2) the social network, which can extend beyond the physical borders of the city; (3) the global network of interlinked cities (centers of finance, etc.); and (4) electronic space. I get the feeling from her talk that she's most interested in the latter, which is probably the one I'm least interested in.
Actually, before I go and narrate the whole boring thing to you, I'll cut myself short and just get to the two points I found most interesting. First, she seemed to say that in our age density alone is not enough. She coined the phrase mixity ('mixcity'?), emphasizing that a given place--geographic or electronic--must not only have a lot of things going on in it, but that those things must be interacting in complex ways. I think that's an interesting way to think about urban spaces that 'work' versus those that don't: it's not just a matter of building tall and having lots of tenants in your office space. The other idea she brought up was the idea that density can create political subjectivity. It was something she threw in at the end of the lecture, and didn't really flesh out. In the Q&A session afterward, she related it to the WTC disaster: the destruction of that site uncovered a density of heretofore hidden laborers, users, etc. Many of these groups were silent or their social/economic activity was intentionally repressed, the disturbing absence of the surface-level activity at the site brought to light the whole underside that supported that activity. Not only was it bond traders at Cantor Fitzgerald that needed support from the government, but also (possibly undocumented) nighttime workers that suddenly were out of work; they were unified by this absence and were both accorded a certain political subjectivity--a certain right to the funds given and the rebuilding process--after the disaster. Sassen mentioned it in relation to Lefebvre's understanding that it is the organized working class, not the bourgeoisie, that makes creates 'urban space' in a city. In 1950s and 1960s France, the working class was a lot more visible, but nonetheless they are still here today.
Anyway, I'm rambling again...