Cities with a postmodern mindset

Cities are no longer the result of social interaction or cumulative human experience; they have become products of real estate development chasing economic investment. Cities try to be different from others but fail, appearing similar in everything: their streets, buildings, glass facades, and even their spirit. The same real estate projects found in one city are repeated exactly in another, with attempts to borrow some urban vocabulary from local heritage; but the reality of urban production itself does not foster a sense of belonging to space as much as it emphasizes the marketing of place. This strange paradox reminds me of a woman who undergoes intensive cosmetic surgeries to try to stand out, but ends up looking identically similar to everyone else!

Postmodern cities tend to evoke urban identity and reflect it as a visual form to increase their appeal. We often hear the phrase “city marketing” as a promotional slogan devoid of real human development, where local urban symbols and vocabulary are invoked to become mere superficial shells, turning the place into a brand. This artificial urban identity or brand does not express genuine culture, its benefits do not reflect on society, and it is not the result of real social experience or historical and cultural accumulation.

I see that the problem in contemporary cities is not in building urban identity and producing a “city of meaning,” but in the erosion of place itself. In the age of flows, physical space is receding, and social relationships have been replaced by virtual ones.

Modern literature on urban planning addresses these issues seriously. Urban space has become oriented toward use rather than being a void that enhances belonging and meaning, producing artificial, packable cities that can be exported anywhere in the world. Recent transformations in cities, including artificial intelligence and networks, have also reduced the importance of geographical place. Modern cities increasingly rely on movement, information flows, and connectivity, meaning that society is more connected to space than to place.

David Harvey argues that with the acceleration of transportation and communication systems, the traditional concept of place has receded and no longer expresses identity; it has become reproducible and replaceable. Some researchers also contend that the urban planning mindset that evokes postmodern ideas and attempts to create activities that generate urban life in a place is a classical mindset.

Day by day, these major transformations in cities confirm the need to redefine identity linked to authenticity and local experience, which distinguishes us from others. However, the major shift in smart systems reduces reliance on place itself, meaning that life’s dependence on place is diminishing, or let’s say the concept of place has changed. It is true that place itself has not completely disappeared—we live and dwell in homes and interact in a physical environment—but the nature of humanity’s relationship with place has changed and become reshapable. Place is no longer the product of cumulative social effort as it once was, producing an urban void that does not reflect reality. In any case, I have no problem acknowledging the absence of identity, but I find it astonishing that the contemporary city lives in a state of stark schizophrenia: it produces soulless, repetitive places while simultaneously claiming to produce identity.

<div class="my-4 p-4 rounded-lg shadow-md bg-blue-50 border