.
Relatively, the notion of ‘flâneur’ as poetic explorers of cities, is changing radically. The concept which defined modern urbanism and shaped the urban experience, replaced by ‘digital flâneurs’. The line between work and home which came into our lives as a consequence of the industrial revolution has increasingly blurred. Digital flâneur prefers to immerse into ‘flux’ experience with a hope of liberating itself from all these, including home, work, and the city. Perhaps it is tempting to let ourselves go with the flow due to the speed of change and our critical thoughts on the environment and the stereotypes. We see it as a way of being different, fictionalise our ‘personas’ which we can not have in our “real” life. By doing this, we all become labourer of digital platforms. The time we spare for exploration and novelty turned into a kind of media labour. Now, there is no separation between home and work. Today whenever our smartphone – even our bedroom – could be an office. The time which we collectively spend on any popular internet platform is a much longer period than entire history. Prior to the beginning of ‘information age’ we witnessed these experimental cities within dystopian projects of Superstudio, the most expressive of them was ‘Infinite Monument’ (Monumento Continuo) where we are all connected to a neutral wire of immensely repetitive grating systems as in this world.
This monotonous repetition is not just about the digital world, it must be about something beyond technological developments. Considering the current cities, the ‘megalopolis’ such as Shanghai, Istanbul, Mumbai are reflections of this endless expansion and monotony. We are witnessing the exchange of the numerical and virtual values of the economy into the real estates with various packages. Each area corresponds to a certain amount, and according to the circumstances, the multiplier of this value changes yet, unfortunately, the spatial quality is not affected by this value at all. Because it remains unimportant to respond to the needs or to enrich our lives but how easily it can be monetised. These properties are then transformed into mortgages and loans, new constructions, evolving into a never-ending consumption of space.
Perhaps architectural studio Diller Scofidio + Renfro wanted to speculate this reality with their building “Blur”. They wanted to prepare us for an extremely blurred and gray world within the cities are black and white, all the borders are divided, continuous and standardised.
But it can be misleading to see this movement as just increasing the number of homes or offices. At the same time, we live in a world where the ‘house’ is getting smaller and scattered in the city ². We live in cities where the restaurants replaced kitchens or the living rooms replaced by coffee shops, the bedroom is compensated by “love hotels”, therefore everything is intertwined. However, there are also unique opportunities for individuals to come together and even closer. Intermediate forms such as coworking and co-living create opportunities for collective goodness by crossing the borders between institutions or even families in terms of inhabitation.
However, collectively, we could undoubtedly dominate all these hazardous methods that consume the cities. This also means that nowadays systematically accelerated ideas and evolving systems are more appreciated than absolute monopoly.
We live in an era that the small can rapidly grow, and learning is more important than education. Therefore, it is also possible to create ‘asymmetric goodness’ in spite of the asymmetric inequality. Since the inhabitants of the city can easily gather around mutual causes, intentions, and purposes easier than ever before. If your network equals your net worth, you may use your network to fundraise for good. Communities gathered around common goals can actively take part in institutionalisation and fundraising, collaborating on critical issues such as the development of cultural infrastructure or the conservation of nature. Using digital platforms, similar needs an