Jacopo Galli and Mattia Bertin are two Italian researchers who are experts on this subject. urban destruction: what happens when there is a war or a hurricane passes by. His view is that both types of events, no matter how different they may seem, will become increasingly linked. climate change and the lack of resources to adapt to it. Additionally, they are also working on restructuring. Is it worth rebuilding areas where property damage occurs every time it rains? Can cities be built today with the logic of the past? Are we investing well in European funds?
Galli and Bertin joined El Periódico de España from the Prensa Ibérica group after participating in a discussion about two of his books:Cities Under Pressure: Urban restructuring strategy And The impact of Covid on cities— at the Polytechnic University of Madrid.
What is a catastrophic event? Could it be a natural disaster, a war, or tourism that destroys cities in its own way?
Mattia Bertin: Good question. First of all, I don’t believe natural disasters exist: disasters are a condemnation of how we build. We are now faced with many more extreme events. Other destructions, such as wars and violent conflicts, have sociopolitical and religious roots. Tourism is a slower phenomenon. This relates to the impact of industry on cities since the mid-19th century. It’s a conflict that corrupts the city, but it’s driven by economic evolution rather than disaster.
We saw the destruction of Ukrainian cities live; Now we see the Gaza Strip. What will be the restructuring stages? How will it change compared to the reconstructions made after World War II?
Jacopo Galli: Today’s destruction is not the same as in World War II. We think of images of Guernica and Stalingrad, but they are now much larger in size. What we want to say with the book is that we need to think of new solutions, because the ones used after the Second World War will not work: they were built on small cities that were, above all, historical centres. Now, cities with very low urban quality are experiencing destruction. They will have a greater degree of conversion. Ten-story Soviet buildings in Ukraine are being demolished and will not be rebuilt. You should consider different solutions.
For example? How do you rebuild a city when the country is still at war?
: We can learn from history. London’s reconstruction plan was drawn up in 1943. The war was half over. You can start immediately. Architecture and planning take time, but you can start with a clear plan and reconstruction of small elements. There are parts around Kiev that were completely destroyed and can now be rebuilt.
MB: And we can’t think that technology will solve all problems. The impacts of geology, hydrology and the Earth’s natural transformation accelerated by climate change will need to be taken into account. You can’t move a river for industrial needs.
There are hundreds of thousands of houses in Spain built very close to or above river beds in flood-prone areas. Do they need to be destroyed? Is it possible to say on a political level: Either we destroy this place, or it floods every time it rains and people become homeless?
MB: Definitely. It’s simple: We won’t have the money to replace damaged assets that often. If there are homes on rivers, as in the Mediterranean, and floods increase in frequency and intensity, we will not have the resources to manage it.
: Controlling climate change cannot be just defensive. It will be devastating in some places, it will change the entire region. There are climatologists who say that some areas will not be habitable. Many regions of Italy and Spain will be different as current conditions will not be maintained. The time between one disaster and another becomes shorter: there is no point in rebuilding.
Extreme events are becoming more and more common. In Madrid, wind recently caused hundreds of trees to fall, one of which killed a young woman. Are there any interesting strategies being implemented in European cities? I seem to remember that in Paris up to 40 percent of the asphalt will be removed.
MB: Climate change will be humanity’s problem, not nature’s problem. This planet has survived many changes. The problem is with human life as we currently understand it. There is a contradiction between the natural system and human life, which goes in one direction because of humans.
If our starting point is to care about life, because we are more worried about one girl dying than 200 trees falling, we must transform the spaces we live in because these events will increase. Risk; It consists of dangerousness (climate change), vulnerability (how we build) and exposure (the value we place on people and things). We place great value on people and things, and danger increases, so vulnerability must decrease.
Is there anything that can be done that hasn’t been done? Beyond asphalt removal and planting…
: Not easy. The current way the city manages its heat is wrong. The ancient city did not have advanced and sustainable materials, and heat management was much better. The first thing that changes is the construction rules. If we wanted to build a city with the Cerdá Plan now, we couldn’t do it because the rules don’t allow it. These models have value, why do the rules allow this? This is a big urban problem.
MB: We must rely on less stringent rules. Set goals and let the architect, urban planner and politician discuss the vision rather than sticking to fixed rules.
We have previously stated that destruction can also be social. Sometimes it results in war, but is inequality another example of destruction?
: Inequality is destruction. There are many studies that say that beyond a certain level of inequality society does not exist, it just consists of a group of people. Inequality is increasing around the world, and city development has a lot to do with it. We know that the destruction of war and an earthquake are very similar. But the destruction at the social level is different. For our part, we can work on spatial type tools. In many places, reconstruction facilitated conflict. There are regions in the world where conflicts occur every twenty or thirty years. And every time it is destroyed, it is rebuilt and another conflict occurs. This means that reconstruction does not allow for peace.
MB: The conflict between Israel and Palestine is fueled by the organization of the region. The physical transformation of a space can lead to the inability to move, relate, or work, which can lead to conflicts that have devastating effects not only on the community you are dealing with, but also in your own community. If we consider the ‘banlieu’ of Paris, we find traces of the same administration. The exclusion is of a socio-administrative nature.
There is a lot of talk in Spain about urban boundaries and how some infrastructures create income barriers. To what extent are these obstacles intentional? Are there people concerned about discrimination?
MB: One professor said that the urban planner’s job is to draw a line: On one side, people are getting rich; poorer than the other. So you can create more equality or inequality with the line.
: There are times when dissociation is intentional. Others don’t do this. But climate change will increase this. There are those who say that the Syrian conflict is already a conflict over water and natural resources. As the likelihood of separation increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to decide where to draw the line.
Mattia, your book is about Covid. At that time, there was talk that everything would change; However, it seems to me that such destruction did not happen and we are back to the way we were before.
MB: Actually the title of my section is we didn’t understand anything. The pandemic has brought with it very interesting solutions that can be used in the face of climate change or conflicts. But I think we remain the same in the face of climate change, despite European Next Generation funds and national plans. We will solve small situations and end up worse because we will have the same or worse problems with less resources. We will be wasting too much public money on studies that accept what exists as an objective and eternal truth. Riverside houses, private ownership… We will fail to prepare, we will be left with less money and less desire to change.
What do you mean by private property?
MB: Consider a block in Madrid where property is divided among forty neighbours. It is necessary to reduce the effect of heat and water or increase the common areas… And this cannot be done if all neighbors are not willing. Private property is a problem.
And given this, can you think of another solution? Because expropriation happens very slowly.
MB: I am fatalistic because I believe we will not have resources; I am optimistic because I believe that when the effects of change are this serious, humanity will solve the problem, even if it is at a loss. We had time to do this democratically and practically did nothing. We will solve it, but not exactly with democracy.
J.G.: Some drastic things have been done during Covid that no one thought were possible. Radical solutions are possible. Awareness that the climate is changing has increased a lot, so it may move faster. By attacking Ukraine, Putin accelerated Europe’s decarbonization process overnight. Everyone thought that we could not live without Putin’s gas, and it soon turned out that we could live without any problems. Renewable energy and grid construction accelerated.
MB: Putin’s case was an ideological stance. The fact that cars have to pass through all streets is also an ideological stance. There is a federal law in the United States that says every home must have two trees in front of it. This will transform European cities and have a very strong impact on the impact of climate change. Why don’t you? For an ideological question. When will we change the values perceived as universal and absolute?