Even though it seems easy to catch those rhythms around us, it is not. According to Lefebvre, we need to be captured by rhythms in order to capture the rhythms itself. (Lefebvre, 1996) He said: “Yet, to capture a rhythm one needs to have been captured by it. One has to let go, give and abandon oneself to its duration.” (Lefebvre, 1996) (p.3) As we can see from the quotation, we need to be captured by the rhythm and for this we firstly started to listen and see what is going on around us. 

The city has a lot of rhythms that we notice or not. While reading the article I noticed some rhythms that I never thought before and one of them was about trees. I can see lots of trees from my window. Different types and shapes… But I didn’t think about them a lot. In the article, Lefebvre explains the rhythms of the trees for various time periods. After that I noticed I captured by those rhythms a lot without thinking about it. I was thinking about how my neighborhood is silent and lack of rhythms while reading then I faced with those paragraphs and then understand it is not silent but was lack of capturing it.

According to article again, no camera, no image of sequence of images can show the rhythms. (Lefebvre, 1996) As it is mentioned above, we have to attempt with our ears, eyes, head even with our memory to understand and to feel the rhythms in the city. We can take pictures of it but when we show it to someone it will lose it rhythms. It is another point that catch my attention because as an architecture student, while in a site trip we focused mostly on taking picture of the area. I noticed that I might miss lots of rhythms that specific in that area in that time, even though I have lots of pictures. 

In my opinion, every street, every district has its own rhythm. Even in the same blocks of houses, every house feels different rhythm from their window. It is because the city itself. The city is a compact ‘creature’ that lives different in each part.

The article open up my mind for this situation and I tried to reflect my thoughts in here. 

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Seen from the Window. Blackwell Publishing., 219-227.

When we think about the Arab cities, there are newly built, modern, and rich cities such as Dubai, Doha, and some poor countries such as Yemen and Baghdad. In the article, Elshestawy is analyzing those cities that have similar backgrounds. 

According to the article “the words Arab city evokes a multitude of images, preconceptions, and stereotypes.” Those stereotypes however differ from city to city. When we said Dubai as an example, it is one of the important cities of the United Arab Emirates and it is like a modernist. Even the term “Dubailization” or “Gulfication” has emerged. The term is used for some undeveloped cities of UAE to be like Dubai. Baghdad on the contrary is mainly known for religious and cultural conflicts and past or present despotic regimes. Cities like Baghdad are dreaming about being like Dubai. Cities like Yemen have a hostile environment and few sources. Even these cities are in the same country their properties are different. 

The article also included two cases that have the same geographical features. – being near the Gulf- One of them Cairo which is representative of the old order and the second one is Doha as a “new Arab city.” These comparisons between two cities assist us to understand the city observation of people.

When we think about Turkey in the same conditions, we may see the same conditions. For example, Istanbul is an important city in Turkey as we may say Dubai like the city. The city is developed and by known from other countries. On the other hand, let’s say Konya a less developed city than Istanbul. The city is mostly known for its religious activities and when we think about it with reference to Elshestawy's article we can see similarities between cities in Turkey and UAE.

In conclusion, the cities we see around and feel are differing from each other in terms of being global activities. So, it is possible to say that there is a new globally connected city has occurred. These cities could be like Dubai in United Arab Emperies or Istanbul in Turkey. According to the article, with these kinds of paradigms, there is a new global citizen will emerge to establish those cities. Even though in the article Gulf cities are given as an example we may vary them and compare them as well.

The main topic he mentioned was about the money economy in a metropolis. He said that “the metropolis has always been the seat of money economy” (Simmel, 1903) Money rules the city in other words. When we think about the modern city, we can feel it better. Another point he mentioned was about the economy and the psychological aspects of it. He gave an example related to the rural and urban conditions of production. While in a rural area it is obvious to know who the producer of a product is, where it is coming from and so on, however, in a metropolis city it is all unclear. Those impacts of psychological, and economic are so integrated that it was not clear that there are before or after impacts. Simmel thinks that people in the metropolis shaped by rationality. Metropolis forces us to be rational while we are having individual problems as well.

Another perspective for the metropolis is how everything is in a relation to other things. Even though everything in a metropolis city seems individual they all related with one another and in a smaller impact of one affected the other.

Blasé attitude which is a new term for me is also mentioned in the article. Simmel described a blasé attitude as an attitude of absolute boredom and lack of concern. Like in the man in the metropolis. The city makes us all the same but also, he thought that by facing with individual problems we are being visible at the same time invisible, which is kind of paradoxical situation ...

While thinking about the metropolis about the writings on Simmel, I started to have linked them with the Covid-19 period. As it is mentioned in above everything is related to one another and even though man is individual in that larger window we can see that relation. For example, like in the Berlin hours example in the article, during this period there are many aspects in the city is stopped and with this point, we faced lots of problems. Also, as I observed even though we called many cities as metropolis cities they have a different level of metropolis idea in my opinion.

Simmel, G. (1903). The Metropolis and Mental Life. 223-226.

 

After that he questioned the voyeurs or walkers in the sense of the city. When you become a voyeur in the city you are in a distance but by being a walker in the city makes you involved with the city. He also comes with a new word for me which is Wandersmanner whose bodies follow the thick and things of an urban “text” they write without being able to read it.  

As an architecture student I was interested in the point where he talked about the painting of the city in Renaissance. Because the idea of renaissance was having an ideal city, they were trying to reflect it. I never thought it has no eye to enjoyed. So, yes there is no eyes, and you see the “ideal city” from a perspective.

Actually, after reading this article from de Certeau, I thought about Paris city planning. As I learned from n architectural lesson by Namık Günay Erkal who is one of the instructors in TEDU, the city planned from an eye view because of the new inventions that allows to take pictures from the sky. It is somehow related with the discussion in the text about God’s view. Also, another point is the city was designed as a pedestrian access as well. So, in my opinion, both of the situations are appropriate for the Paris. It could be hard to be a voyeur in Paris because the city designed in a way that you had to be involved in the city. It is like a podium where you show yourself and see others as well. I will put a video about walking in Paris. Let’s be a walker in the Paris in a virtual way.

After reading the article, I thought that is a way of communication in the city. When we think about the public spaces around, we saw lots of people that we did not know. It is a reflection of being in a metropolis. We know that in a metropolitan city, a person is individual. You do not interest with others and others do not interest with you. But with a graffiti, you became more integrated with city. You make yourself special, because now lots of people communicate with you with that graffiti, like me and that person who always paint something on that wall.
I will put a work of Banksy and a news about his/her work. I hope you enjoy it. It is again a way of "cleanless" but this time from the artist.

When we think the stranger in the meaning of the article, we saw that they are not individuals. They are a part of a group that interact with each other and with outside. We cannot completely turn them away; they have their own interaction points with the city. 

Lastly, I would like to say that strangers assumed as stranger for a certain type. It could be anything, race, religious, social statue… It reminded me the situation of Izmir before the Great Fire of Izmir in 1922.  The city divided into districts such as Jewish, Greek, Armenian, Turkish, etc. So, even in the city from district to district you could be assumed as strangers. The idea of trade as in the mentioned in article was an issue there, they were separating themselves, but the trade concept makes them a union. Izmir at that time could be count as a city of strangers. Also, I learned that since the city includes that much of various ethnics, it also counts a “stranger city” for the country. I think, it is an interesting point because whole city is becoming strangers if I may say truly.

From ancient times to modern times, dreaming a better city was an issue and the word “utopia” covers this issue. Thomas Moore coined the word “Utopia” in 16^th century, and it means “no place” City planners and architects works on this word a lot because they wanted to solve the problems of the city. 

In general, utopian cities designed as self-sufficient cities. For instance, New Lanark Project which is an 19^th century utopia by Robert Owen includes self-sufficient housing units that seems like prairie housing units with the function of city units. So, it is a combination of two idea, city life and prairie life. The streets cleaned every day and the garbage moved away from housing units. The aim was creating an industrial city moved to prairie which overcome the problems of industrial cities at that time. 

Garden City by Ebenezer Howard is one of the best-known utopias for architecture students. He tried to create a garden-based city, create some sub-cities, connect them with railways which is an important point because with the help of railways they can control the city. So, the city tries to escape from negative parts of the city, but also wants to use the positive aspects of it. 

In my opinion, the problem of utopian cities is they have strict rules and when there is an exception city fall apart. What I mean is that, for example in Garden City, the population should be remained according to plan and when it is exceeded whole system should be stabilized again. Also, I think that because of those strict rules, utopias turn to dystopias which is a negative version of utopia. Even though they wanted to solve the city problems ad wanted to stay forever, their end is always the same. But the ideas are always remained for future generations and used different ways.

 I read a book which is “Ideal Kent Arayışında Mimari Utopyalar” by Ece Ceylan Baba. If you have any further interest about Utopian Cities I suggest you to read it.

When we think about the junk space apart from the article, we may guess it as an undefined or wasted spaces. However, junk spaces are a result of modernization. Junk space is a blur space that you lose your control in it. I relate it with the idea of individual in metropolis. I thought that junk spaces do not need to be a community, they aim you to be individual, so they support the metropolis and the individuality of it.

After reading the article, I was thinking that Kızılay Metro Station could be a junk space as well. It might be wrong, but I want to share my experiences that the reason why I thought like that. Since I am from Konya, when I first arrived the Ankara, I met with “metro” rather than “tramvay” in Konya. In my opinion Kızılay Station is a space that with all the shops and signs aims you to lose your direction. I always find myself in a different position rather than my way. So, it is a blur space for me.

Because it is a complicated term, and I might understand it wrong I will put a 360-degree visual documentary about junk space and non-place.