Temporal dialectics of cities: anti-urban and anti-(anti-urban)
Definitive ownership of land is one of the most undeniable principles of cities. In this sense, anti-urban phenomena are the cases where the boundary lines get blurred. On the other hand, it can be called ʻanti-(anti-urban)’ when the borders are defined and reinforced more than necessary. Therefore, urban is not the opposite of anti-urban, not anti-(anti-urban) as well. Here lies the oxymoronic characteristic of cities. Paradoxically happening within urban contexts, these events are prevalently recognized as urban traits, evidenced by the fact that people embrace unfamiliar and adversarial phenomena to some extent. Typical instances can be found in the cases where people take measures establishing boundaries, preventing other people from accessing certain areas, and promoting urban development while fortifying the edge, on the other hand, crossing the plot limits, occupying the land without ownership, and curbing partial urban development. From time to time, these measures coincide with the social consensus despite seeming unsuitable for the rule of cities, while some of them inevitably involve controversy. Understanding that urbanism has progressed dialectically, ʻanti-’ shall be deemed as a prefix with a temporal meaning which refers to backlash, compromise, and appreciation at the same time.
