The introductory blurb about Resilient Cities outlines resilience in response to both climatological shock and systemic social problems. Dandy. I read on, I watch the videos – they are smooth, earnest, sophisticated; everyone dresses and speaks in the language of the boardroom. Such groomed spokespeople.
I find it something of a revelation to find that civic resilience is a project of 'partners from the private, public and NGO sectors'. It indicates that this is primarily an economic project that works on infrastructure and the delivery of services. This is big money. It gangs cities together to pool ideas and strategies: we can all learn from one another.
There is not a small dose of TED-talk enthusiasm here: what can possibly be wrong with all of this? Individuals shouldn't have to struggle on in isolation, always learning as they go, reinventing the wheel, cut off from advanced technological solutions; Resilient Cities is like a global think tank that all cities can access. Forget culture and history, cities are machines that can be fixed. Ultimately this is what it comes down to, these strategies for resilience. They are like strategies in war: always the same no matter who the antagonists, what the century, what the technology.
Two immediate questions: Vanuatu and Syria. Aleppo, Damascus, Port Vila: not on the list of selected cities. Montreal and Barcelona are however. I think resilience is relative. I worry when I am shown a diagram of what constitutes resilience. Can't imagine that it is all so tidy and universal. Shall think more about this.
