JOAN SUBIRATS. If until now the specific urban condition was the ability to contain, accurate within limits, countless relationships, interests, possibilities and resources, Most cities have increasingly successful which can overcome the boundaries imposed by the political urbanism.

The processes of change that have crossed more or less virulence all areas of social life across the world (especially in the last twenty years), work in the fields, her family l'social structure, affected very intense cities. With bé know, is in urban areas where there are problems, but also opportunities. Where significant innovation processes coexist with dynamic segmentation of individualization or social functions and tend to separate people. With va demonstrate Jane Jacobs, the city was the major driving modernization, and it was thanks to their ability to differentiate.

The city has always been a complex and conflictive, vulnerable i dependent de l’exterior. But enormously attractive, because they only seem possible to generate significant changes in how things, how to live, produce, learn and enjoy. In the words of economist and Nobel Prize, Robert Lucas, what in the background makes people continue to persist at difficult and expensive to live in places like London, The New York Paris, is like, they need to live with other people. This force aggregation, be together, is what attracts as a basis for creativity, innovation and wealth generation. The city not only allows more, but, especially, do them differently.

In recent years we have seen the evolution of the world, their economic and social structures, stressed the advantages of the city, while transforming the idea of ​​city. If until now the specific urban condition was the ability to contain, accurate within limits, countless relationships, interests, possibilities and resources, Most cities have increasingly successful which can overcome the boundaries imposed by the political urbanism. We could say that the success of the city has led to a breakup of the classic pairing “city-center”.

This same overcoming traditional boundaries of the city and the tendency to generalize the urban phenomenon have led to talk of “Death sites”. From this perspective, the ease of connection caused by new technologies have minimized the problem of distance and the importance of location, communication technologies should “resolved” the world to bring all, and flows (communication, Relationship, Exchange, …) Is replacing sites. It seems that no longer need to be in the city to create differentiated invented. However, we have been realizing that, although this is partly true, so is the capacity for innovation and diversification (following Jacobs), continued concentrating, not only in the cities as strictly, but in certain areas encompassing cities.

The current scenario, because, presents two faces. In one is trivialitza the lloc. Not too important which produce goods, and in some cases is not significant from where they are generated or handled in demand. Simultaneously, we have evidence that many economic activities that generate added value tend to concentrate on a small number of sites. Perhaps with significant developments such as Dublin, Shanghai, Bangalore, Seoul and Singapore- in relation to the map of city-star twenty years, but this produces a blurring of territorial location value as strong concentration of resources in innovation, Design, finance and media. We could say that, paradoxically, phones are more things determinants are the places where they think these things are managed and. The site care, but matter what happens in this place.

It is also ironic that the dissolution of the city limits globalized cities, rather mean its success on “non-city” that surrounded the perimeter, practice has involved a regression in relation to the liberating sense that the city had in the Middle Ages ( City air makes you free, “The city air makes us free”). If this had been historically limited space that allowed unlimited practice, Urban environments are increasingly presented to us as unlimited (in their physical contours), but only allow limited practice in some of its internal folds. The megaciutats, “the fact widespread urban”, results in its internal fragmentation, segmentation of its people and practices.

The more generalized urban phenomenon and flow prevails over the internal order, more cities lose their independent significance, its ability to be promises of integration and release. However, attention, this new reality that subverts the center-periphery relationship, not depoliticises City. Hierarchies still exist between urban areas, from its better or worse connection with global networks, and from the greater or lesser capacity to contain the new and old resources that explain innovation, differentiation and creativity. The cities are spread outward, while creating new internal folds, folds that concentrate wealth and poverty, connectivity or mobility-root-dependence, public-private security or insecurity autonomously managed.

There is no doubt that the discussion of social issues is intrinsically linked to the urban question. And they are just the most recent changes in capitalist development, with its impact on the urban dimension, which has been driving the convergence between the two issues. As blur the boundaries between city and region, between center and periphery, as the emphasis is on “flows” while worrying about “places”, more difficult it is to maintain separate fields reflection urban dynamics and social dynamics. And it is precisely this reconfiguration and revaluation of public space as a large container of all the complexities and social interactions, from the everyday to the more general and abstract, which reinforces the need for a re-politicization of the urban. In its renewed territorial dimension, made the city looking for specific answers to specific space, with all that that means breaking with universal approaches to citizenship.

What some have called “ideology espaialista”, who has had much success in Barcelona, tried to defend the idea that the key lies in the design of living spaces. This is probably true, but no longer sufficient. So that citizens can take their places these, have to practice them autonomy, express their difference, make real possibilities of solidarity and equality. This implies certain conditions regarding employment, training, housing, the salvation, security and transport. And it should be possible in a particular place, without being condemned to live forever right there. The condition is now essential mobility. Without mobility can no longer have places. We look for places to stay, but also points out that the.

Beyond the city, hi life has. Hi has the political. Link policy that saw moments of tribulació d'i hope. Disaffection and alternative. They exceeding caution unresolved transition, and reappear old problems with new clothes. Beyond the institutional crisis and the major parties, no life, There are political.