contributor: Sernaz Arslan

contributor: Saskia de Wit

contributor: Saskia de Wit

▪ From a relational geography perspective, places are social and spatial territories with relational boundaries that refer to how individuals perceive, imagine, experience and interact with the social and spatial entities in that particular realm. However, a place with a universal image and symbolic value may dominate or suppress the subjective, experiential and imaginative potential of personal encounter.

▪ A mid-sized city does not have a universal and fixed symbolic silhouette that governs the imagination of the citizens, inhabitants, residents, or visitors. The image of a midsized city is too evasive and subjective to grip or manipulate; it is expectably a flexible one, neither having a universal symbolic value nor a collective or public function of representation.

▪ An image, by definition, is fluent, flexible and open-ended in a state of becoming, not a fixed and solid symbol (or symbolic silhouette). The image of a place is a particular narrative construction and an experiential accumulation, whereas the silhouette of a place/city is of symbolic value and universally circulates a figurative meaning. So, an open-ended image of a place is more individual, subjective and experiential, while a universal silhouette of a city holds a collectively shared meaning/function. In the former, the inhabitant or the visitor is an active participant in the unique encounter with the city; in the latter, the participant is expected to be part of the prevailing silhouette with a grand narrative behind it.

▪ So, in the communication with a midsized city, the existing image of the urban setting hardly shapes one’s perception, experience and imagination before s/he has an interactive (social, cultural and spatial) experience with it. On the other hand, a silhouette is a universal image, a symbolic sign rather than a particular, subjective and personal image. Hence, if a place has a universal, collective and public “silhouette”, the visitors or citizens will be determined or adjusted by the city silhouette. The individuals will be governed by collective consciousness and probably be part of the collective experience (i.e. It would be too difficult to develop a particular, subjective, personal image in Makkah, Vatican or Mumbai).

▪ The fluid image of a midsized city does not predetermine the individual’s/subject’s imagination, which is inviting but not imperative, engaging and encouraging but not encapsulating; and the persona can have the potential to contribute to the ongoing/fluid/becoming construction of the urban image, by which the experiencing persona remains active.

▪ As for the silhouette of a big city or a small town, if it has turned out to be a universal symbol (solid, fixed, imposing), the participant (as a citizen, resident, visitor or tourist) is supposed to be part of the readily presented, collectively shared and publicly consolidated image, which has emerged as a transgenerational phenomenon or worldwide arrangement of the urban elements. The passivized persona in such a city remains almost always a “visitor” in the face of that silhouette, attuning himself/herself to the collective mood of the city, or should develop somewhat schizophrenic (fluent image and fixed/symbolic silhouette at a time) attitude towards the city as it would be challenging to overcome the “silhouette.”

▪ One's imagination is captured by the pre-existing array of narratives of the city. Metropolitan cities cannot be utterly “big” nor the mid-sized cities are always “smaller,” from a narratological perspective “if a city lets the “participant” tell his/her own narrative then it can reinstate its potential for being a mid-sized realm of experience. Such a definition will not only exclude the metropolitan cities but also small towns having such symbolic meaning and universal silhouette associated with a particular sect, religion, cult etc. For example, Florence, Oxford, Strasbourg, etc. are midsized cities according to the conventional parameters of “size.” Yet, these cities have a prevailing, universal and solid image, thereby signposting a symbolic value and cannot be considered “mid-sized” regarding the spatial, social and personal experience with the urban elements. 

▪ Narratives of midsized cities, therefore, are primarily eligible to explore the unique and particular city images. They represent spatial, experiential, perceptive and fluid images of these cities in narratological, psychological, phenomenological and aesthetic senses, respectively, and are more open to overwhelming any symbolic (universal) or collective metaphorical signification. These experiential fluid images also have to do with the relational parameters of town places.

contributor: Mustafa Zeki Çıraklı

 

So if we take the European context (as a whole) as the main frame, I would say that the parameters of the mid-sized city are:

contributor: Matej Nikšić

Contributor: Mirza Emirhafizović

There is another, more visible, manner of urban fragmentation; territorial division. It has been observed that cities have the capacity to split their geography, social and religious identities, resources, and infrastructure if and when a polarising conflict comes to pass. Berlin in Germany, Nicosia in Cyprus, Belfast in Ireland, and Beirut in Lebanon, Aleppo in Syria are some examples of once or currently fragmented cities. 

Is “fragmentability” a trait of the large cities? The evidence seems to suggest so; these mentioned cities are ones of the largest, if not the largest, in their respective countries. During conflict, each city was contested by two or more conflicting parties. Heterogeneity, abundance of resources, large population, and large geographical and urban footprint are all factors inciting, prolonging, and sustaining the division. The resulting two cities, needless to say, have very strongly opposing characters. moreover, and opposite to Plato's cities, the two cities are strongly demarcated to prevent any overlap or porosity. It is also interesting to look at how many points and lines of demarcation are but the urban infrastructure itself.

On the other hand, the mid-sized cities have different dynamics for conflicting groups; more often than not, rather than splitting territory, one group eventually prevails in winning or controlling the city as a whole. This happens due to the lack of the aforementioned factors. In other words, while possible to accommodate conflict, the mid-sized city cannot afford to divide itself for neither part could survive without the other. 

Unity, not fragmentability, seems to be the appearance of a mid-sized city. It is hard to tell, however, whether this is a result of democracy and inclusion or conflict and exclusion.

Further reads: Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia. By Jon Calame, Esther Charlesworth.

Contributor: Amer Obied

involvement of citizens. Social capacities emerge from community-place relationships in a continuous process of learning, listening to what communities perceive as their capacities. A community-based approach recognises the city-specificity of resilience and the heterogeneity within urban systems. 
The complexity of the urban system may be reduced in more maneageable urban environments, where the need for place-based approaches to analyse how heterogeneous communities and actors engage in promoting resilience can be more easily applied. 

contributor: Sara Cruz

The mid-size city stays in-between. The streetwalker can be anonymous in the crowd or the mission of guarding the society can become his/her duty with the first familiar person s/he encounters. It is never known when the wanderer will be seen, when he can be freed from his/her labels and be just a body standing in the public. The mid-size city is the unknown in terms of the function of the gaze and wandering.

İlknur