Constructing Urban Places: An Essay

Being an urban subject is not an easy task, nor is it a definite one. The difficulty of resolving the reality that one is a subject is complicated enough as is. Who am I? What do I want to become? Where is my life taking me? The question of our solitude and the place of other people in it is mind boggling. But it is not limited to the theoretical frame. The implications of all these ideas and questions pour out into the political and into the social. We live as members of a community defined by relations that shape our understanding of solitude and that determine our interactions with one another. As each cultures reliance on the communal exaggerates and stretches the scope of one's understanding of the individual.

Jean-Luc Nancy places community at the center of his study of political dimensions. He identifies the importance of reconciling individuality with the communal and further recognizes that the places we inhabit make these relations possible. With the increased onslaught of a privatized world, we are emerging into times where individuality is taking precedent over the communal. This is further complicated in cultures that laud their traditions as being communally oriented, such as Arab cultures.


Community building, according to Nancy is a contradictory process. The places we inhabit foster the means for engaging in these contradictions and further reconciling the tensions that arise from them, while encouraging newer ways of interacting. I would add that as is the case in most post-colonial nations they can aggravate existing tensions. Which is why the importance of exploring and facilitating places of safe and positive communal interaction is so vital.

Harirism is a term commonly used to refer to the increased privatization of Beirut's urban space. The drive behind privatizing Beirut was to improve the economy by increasing investment in the country while increasing tourism. The danger is that now Beirut has very few places for public interaction and communal building. Furthermore, our communal boundaries and traditions are being modified to accommodate to the individualistic sentiments that come with privatization. Each sect is increasingly polarized from the others around issues of class, political action, international affairs, and money. Who is given access to what resources, why, how, and who is providing these resources, all become integral questions of concern aggravating our communal differences?

After a recent discussion about Solidere and Hizballah with a few friends of mine, I have some insight on the importance and devastation that comes with a lack of public places for relation building. One friend said "Beirut Souk is a high class imitation of a once popular market that was one of the main traits of Beirut", adding "the way it is done, and the shops that opened are meant to drive ordinary people out. The Souk of Beirut was like the one of Tripoli, every alley of it contains traders of one specialization like the jewelry makers, small merchants, and now there are no places for gathering anymore".

Gathering is the most important part of forging a community. Thus with the increased isolation of Beirut's spaces there is a dramatic form of stagnation being imposed by the very urban center. A stifling of the history, and a prevention of future mobility.  Ras Beirut is becoming far to uniform, the presence of contradiction is vital to encouraging growth. There is further shame in the fact that communities outside of Ras Beirut are not integrating with the ones in Ras Beirut. One reason for this is because of the lack of places for public interaction.

I am not emphasizing the importance of nationalizing everything, nor I am necessarily promoting Socialism. But cities like London and Paris have public parks, public Museums, even Public Art Galleries. Where is this in Lebanon?

4c Beriut Down Town Continued

Though I don't think I need to explain or justify myself, I am doing so because I don't want people to get the wrong impression. For one, the Down Town pictures of what was and what is are a representation of how Lebanon has changed since its glory days (sarcasm). The response to my post is a representation of how it hasn't changed.

I received some comments about how biased I may be to the Sunni Lead Hariri government who have supported and sponsored Solidere, the corporation responsible for reconstructing the downtown area.

Solidere is mostly a private corporation, though its origins were created for public purposes (and are still of public concern), it gradually evolved into a more privatized business. One that Hariri and his people encouraged via the laws governing Solidere. Ohrstrom writes in the Daily Star,

Solidere was established by the government through CDR [the Council for Development and Reconstruction] and is regulated by two public statute laws but has taken the shape of a commercial company. It has been supported by the government and given about $1 billion in exemptions, and half of the area of Solidere is municipal property. 

Since its relatively none humble beginnings, Solidere has evolved into stock oriented business, those who owned land in downtown area received stocks in Solidere as compensation for their deeds. Many of these people were forced into selling their stocks for prices less than the value of their land, which created much controversy around Solidere. Not to exclude the fact that many people living/squatting in the area at the time were forced out of their homes. 

Hence the critics began to reign down on the renovation of the downtown area. The criticism ranges from corruption charges, perpetuating historic civil war amnesia charges, increasing debt charges, destroying archeological sites charges, excessively commercializing Beirut charges, and increasing the class and sectarian divide charges. All are valid. 

Hariri had the largest amount of stocks invested in Solidere. Thus clearly indicating a bias in his political status as his financial interests are implicated in the countries renovation. People saw this bias and commented, calling him

Ammar hajar wa dammar basher – he who built the stones and destroyed the people. (Craig Larkin)

Now that he has passed,  the car explosion that took him, and the cedar revolution that has followed make him a symbol of sorts. A symbol of freedom and of liberalism. His name and status is untouchable, people do not accept criticism of the Man anymore. Though he was as fallible and as human as any of the current politicians to date.

Regardless of this, Solidere still persists on and is still renovating the region from what it once was. The area is undoubted beautiful with cobble stone roads, four story buildings, a clock tower, several Souks (Markets) ranging from the really absurdly expensive to the moderately expensive, and gorgeous mosques and churches laden with chandeliers and bells and prayer calls alike.  It is a distinct indication of Lebanon's Commercial oriented history. While representing Lebanon's multifaceted camilion like quality. All of which is topped off with Roman ruins. I personally find the area mesmerizing, and a tribute to what shit loads of money can do to any country. 

WHAT I believe is that we have to face the fact that it's far too late to criticize Solidere (though they still need to be held accountable and responsible, and the laws need to be made clear about what its regulations and policies are!) The face of Lebanon is changing, as is the world, and though it is becoming more and more materialistic and divided by class; it is also shrinking and breaking down barriers that once existed. Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of its weaknesses or strengths.