Urbanism and dictatorship: perspectives of the field of urban studies

In 1933 public letter to Wilhelm Furtwängler, Joseph Goebbels synthesized the official understanding of the link between politics, art and society in the early steps of the Third Reich. By assuming the ethos of art, politics acquired a plastic agency to mold its objects —population and the state— as a unified entity in the form of a ‘national-popular community’ (Volksgemeinschaft); in turn, by infusing art with a political valence, it became part of a wider governmental apparatus that reshaped aesthetic discourses and practices. Similar remarks could be made about the ordering of cities and territories in this period. Dictatorial imaginations mobilized urbanism —including urban theory, urban design and planning— as a fundamental tool for social organization. Under their aegis the production of space became a moment in a wider production of society. Many authors suggest that this political-spatial nexus is intrinsic to modernity itself, beyond dictatorial regimes. In this light, I propose to use dictatorial urbanisms as an analytical opportunity to delve into some concealed features of modern urban design and planning. This chapter explores some of these aspects from a theoretical standpoint, focusing on the development of dictatorial planning mentalities and spatial rationalities and drawing links to other historical episodes in order to inscribe the former in a broader genealogy of urbanism. Needless to say, I don’t suggest that we use dictatorships as mere templates to understand modern productions of space. Instead, these cases provide a crude version of some fundamental drives in the operationalization of urbanism as an instrument of social regulation, showing how far the modern imagination of sociospatial orderings can go. Dictatorial urbanisms constituted a set of experiences where many dreams and aspirations of modern planning went to die. But not, as the conventional account would have it, because the former were the antithesis of the latter, but rather because they worked as the excess of a particular orientation of modern spatial governmentalities — namely, their focus on calculation, social engineering and disciplinary spatialities, and their attempt to subsume a wide range of everyday practices under institutional structuration by means of spatial mediations. In my opinion the interest of dictatorial urbanisms lies in their role as key regulatory episodes in a longer history of our urban present. They stand as a threshold between the advent of planning in the late 19th and early 20th century, and its final consolidation as a crucial state instrument after World War II. We need, therefore, to pay attention to these experiences vis-à-vis the alleged ‘normal’ development of the field in contemporary democratic countries in order to develop a full comprehension thereof.

Air pollution levels measured at traffic hot spots : Brisbane urban corridor study

Air pollution levels were monitored continuously over a period of 4 weeks at four sampling sites along a busy urban corridor in Brisbane. The selected sites were representative of industrial and residential types of urban environment affected by vehicular traffic emissions. The concentration levels of submicrometer particle number, PM2.5, PM10, CO, and NOx were measured 5-10 meters from the road. Meteorological parameters and traffic flow rates were also monitored. The data were analysed in terms of the relationship between monitored pollutants and existing ambient air quality standards. The results indicate that the concentration levels of all pollutants exceeded the ambient air background levels, in certain cases by up to an order of magnitude. While the 24-hr average concentration levels did not exceed the standard, estimates for the annual averages were close to, or even higher than the annual standard levels.

How can land and urban development make houses healthier?

Traditionally, the main focus of the professional community involved with indoor air quality has been indoor pollution sources, preventing or reducing their emissions, as well as lowering the impact of the sources by replacing the polluted indoor air with "fresh" outdoor air. However, urban outdoor air cannot often be considered "fresh", as it contains high concentrations of pollutants emitted from motor vehicles - the main outdoor pollution sources in cities. Evidence from epidemiological studies conducted worldwide demonstrates that outdoor air quality has considerable effects on human health, despite the fact that people spend the majority of their time indoors. This is because pollution from outdoors penetrates indoors and becomes a major constituent of indoor pollution. Urban land and transport development has significant impact on the overall air quality of the urban airshed as well as the pollution concentration in the vicinity of high-density traffic areas. Therefore, an overall improvement in indoor air quality would be achieved by lowering urban airshed pollution, as well as by lowering the impact of the hot spots on indoor air. This paper explores the elements of urban land and vehicle transport developments, their impact on global and local air quality, and how the science of outdoor pollution generation and transport in the air could be utilized in urban development towards lowering indoor air pollution.