Todd Reisz, Showpiece City: How Architecture Made Dubai (New Texts Out Now)

Todd Reisz, Showpiece City: How Architecture Made Dubai (New Texts Out Now)

Todd Reisz, Showpiece City: How Architecture Made Dubai (New Texts Out Now)

By : Todd Reisz

Todd Reisz, Showpiece City: How Architecture Made Dubai (Stanford University Press, 2020).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Todd Reisz (TR): This is not the book I intended to write. Originally, I had planned to survey the work of British architect John Harris during key decades of Dubai’s modernization. At the time, photographs from his archives revealed to me the power architecture wields to formulate how a city works and what it provides. Eventually, though, I realized that the source texts I needed about Dubai’s history did not exist yet. It is pretty remarkable how much has been written about the city without much historical documentation to back it up. So I turned to primary sources to help piece together the social and economic forces that brought Harris to Dubai and facilitated his success; to do that required a broader examination of the forces that created the city. Documents at the British National Archives, however limited they are in scope, introduced me to the British Foreign Office’s loose, though explicit, modernization program for the city, which paved the way for British and later more global consultants. English- and Arabic-language newspapers celebrating the feats of these experts made for other, more slippery sources, but they nevertheless provided a sense of the ambitions behind major projects. Reading about the city, putting it together through these papers became a thrilling kind of construction. In the process it seemed that the Harris photographs also started to change; they started to tell me stories different than the ones I thought they were telling.

The result is a history that, by no means comprehensive, focuses on Harris’s work among a shifting constellation of traveling consultants. It was important to show that Harris worked among many others, whether from Dubai or abroad. Rather than writing a book about architecture, I wrote a history through architecture.

I witnessed that what we do as architects can transform a region, both physically on landscapes and expressively in identity and geopolitics.

J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

TR: This book took twelve years to write, so it feels both previous and current. Its meaning has shifted, and so has mine. When I started writing, I was an architect at the Rotterdam-based firm Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA). One day in 2005, I was designing an art museum in Riga; the next day I was working on projects for Dubai. My first time in the city was as a foreign consultant. Ongoing and potential contracts were intriguing to the firm’s business department, but, outside of oil wealth, I had little understanding of what was driving the boom. Within a few months, I was onto answers, but I approached questions not as an historian, but as an architect. I witnessed that what we do as architects can transform a region, both physically on landscapes and expressively in identity and geopolitics. For some architects, this realization induces delirium; for John Harris, it fueled a drive for efficient clarity; for me, it rendered a leaden sense of self-reflection. In light of all those responses, I maintained the architect’s perspective throughout the book. Moving forward from this project, having been shaped by it, I do not know if I would still call myself an architect. If I do not, then there has been a momentous departure, at least for myself.

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have? 

TR: I would love to see this book on sale in Dubai’s airport gift shops. That does not mean it is just for the foreign consultants flying in and out of the city; it is also for academicians, journalists, and policy makers. I wrote the book that I did not have when I first wanted to know more about Dubai. It is so tempting to look at Dubai and think you get it. The city is designed to be legible, but legibility does not necessarily provide accuracy. There is much more rigor needed in approaching Dubai, because there is a lot to learn from it. In architectural and urban design, for example, the city is a tapestry of late twentieth-century and contemporary approaches to city making. Dubai’s legibility makes this easy to observe, but physical investigation needs to be backed up with other kinds of evidence, some of which this book provides.

More pervasively, there are broadcasted inaccuracies spread about Dubai. Robert Vitalis once claimed that history writing can provide a sort of reverse engineering—a form of analysis that takes apart widely held assumptions without the intention of putting them back together. Dubai seems to exist in an echo chamber that allows observers to hear and experience what they want. There are myths—for example, that its buildings effortlessly rose from the sands. Such a sloppy statement is used by both the city’s promoters and detractors. It can be sung in an Emirates on-flight video, and it makes for a flippant remark in an op-ed piece. Insidious truisms also slip into academic writing. I have worked especially to expose this particular out-of-the-sands myth. Still, more accurate accounts from more varying perspectives of Dubai’s past are needed.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

TR: This project leaves me in an existential fix. It defined my work life for the past decade. I wrote it in between design contracts, especially ones that took me to places that helped me better understand Dubai. In the latter years, I taught at design schools in the United States, which gave me access to conferences and the library resources that are cruelly denied to outsiders. There are other books I would like to write, but that would require me to reboot the hustle. 

For now, I am writing an article that works as a prequel to the book, and I am organizing an exhibition of archival photographs at Jameel Arts Centre in Dubai. I am completing another book, to be out next year, about Sharjah’s architectural landscape. Sharjah neighbors Dubai, so I thought Showpiece City would have prepared me well enough, but it is turning out to be a very different story. That book is co-edited with Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi. I am anxious to know what comes next.

 

Excerpt from the book (from “Piecemeal: Al Maktoum Hospital,” pp. 137–138)

Aerial image of Al Maktoum Hospital fenced in among palm groves in Deira, 1959. The hospital is in the largest fenced area. An adjacent fenced-in compound contains residences for the hospital’s chief doctor and other employees. Courtesy John R. Harris Library. 

When John Harris first encountered Al Maktoum Hospital, the fence around it was worth more than its buildings. Ramparts never protected the district of Deira from attack, but a new rigid metal fence, anchored with concrete foundations, enclosed its first hospital. Erected in 1959, the fence served two purposes. Most immediately, it shielded the vacant land around the buildings from others’ claims. Harris recorded in field notes for the town plan that land just beyond the new fencing had been already staked out with palm-frond fences and barasti structures. Even the minimal development of an inadequate hospital had set off a land grab around it. The fence’s second purpose was to designate a discrete and concentrated site for health care. One could point to Al Maktoum Hospital as distinct from the rest of the city. Whereas the hospital’s buildings were deficient and underperforming, the fence enclosed the promise of future fulfillment. Harris was commissioned to design that future, by whom, though, was not clear.

An aerial photograph of the hospital was taken in 1959, the same year Harris visited it for the first time. It can be regarded with marvel—that the region’s hospital, serving a 32,000-square-mile area—was surrounded by nothing. The photograph might betray scant evidence of buildings, but on all sides of the fenced-in hospital are signs of human activity and occupation just as Harris had observed. There are ordering systems. There are houses and fences. Points on the ground surface are date palms planted in Dubai’s first grid formations. The groves did not survive without human care and therefore demonstrated cultivation and enterprise. Had the lens been tilted up a tad toward the horizon, the photographer would have also captured the durable Burj Nahar, Deira’s look-out tower and a marker of the city’s furthest reach. One might wonder whether the tower was cropped out to insinuate isolation. Burj Nahar, built in a similar manner as Dubai’s sturdiest homes, was meant not so much to thwart outsiders as to guide arriving caravans to Sikkat Al Khail, the land entry to Deira and its souks. The tower’s purpose, beyond defensive, was communicative, like an onshore lighthouse. The hospital’s new fence defined, and insulated, the site from the well-trodden passage into the city.

A fence defines space, and it also limits that space. Al Maktoum Hospital’s fence made it possible for the hospital to grow in the coming decade, and it also marked the limits of that growth. Knowing where to set limits mattered not just in terms of area but also in terms of how much health care the city could sustain, in terms of costs and maintenance. Harris’s work on Al Maktoum Hospital filled in the fenced site with an essential expression of the political agency’s modernization campaign—not only in terms of content but also process. After the political agency itself, the hospital was an introduction of a choreographed construction site: formulated schedules, negotiated budgets, computed materials costs (including imported water), and recruited labor. Within fences, experts were supposed to design closed systems of calculation and logistical coordination, defined by the clauses of a contract and within the grasp of a bounded site. There is little that is physically remarkable about Harris’s design for Al Maktoum Hospital; its ordering was the spectacle. 

Al Maktoum Hospital signaled Dubai as a legitimate place of welfare and safety. In Dubai, one could be born and one could be healed there, and an administrative logbook could prove it. Throughout the 1950s, however, the hospital had a reputation as a place of last resort, from where the resident doctor “sends all the broken bones and surgeries to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and India.” The hospital’s logbooks charted steady year-to-year progress away from that reputation. Staff affirmed the hospital’s existence by counting every child born, every outpatient treated, and every inpatient lodged. One hundred forty-three people sought treatment there in 1954. By 1957, no fewer than 10,000 people had been treated, and 65 Dubai residents had been born in its barracks. These statistics measured Dubai’s ability to provide healthy envi­ronments and advanced medical advice. Within the clearly marked confines of the hospital grounds, progress was meant to be within reach.

Excerpted from Showpiece City: How Architecture Made Dubai by Todd Reisz, published by Stanford University Press ©2020 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All Rights Reserved.

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Drawing up Dubai’s Labor Camps from 1950 to 2008

      Drawing up Dubai’s Labor Camps from 1950 to 2008

      On 10 March 2015, news outlets worldwide reported that several hundred construction workers had protested their labor conditions in Dubai. The action took place in an area of the city often considered the center of “New Dubai.” Workers streamed out of the construction site for the Fountain Views residences, a tower selling vistas looking over the world’s largest choreographed fountain. 

New Texts Out Now: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein, guest eds. "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis." Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development

Conflict, Security and Development, Volume 15, No. 5 (December 2015) Special issue: "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis," Guest Editors: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you compile this volume?

Mandy Turner (MT): Both the peace process and the two-state solution are dead. Despite more than twenty years of negotiations, Israel’s occupation, colonization and repression continue–and the political and geographical fragmentation of the Palestinian people is proceeding apace.

This is not news, nor is it surprising to any keen observer of the situation. But what is surprising–and thus requires explanation – is the resilience of the Oslo framework and paradigm: both objectively and subjectively. It operates objectively as a straitjacket by trapping Palestinians in economic and security arrangements that are designed to ensure stabilization and will not to lead to sovereignty or a just and sustainable solution. And it operates subjectively as a straitjacket by shutting out discussion of alternative ways of understanding the situation and ways out of the impasse. The persistence of this framework that is focused on conflict management and stabilization, is good for Israel but bad for Palestinians.

The Oslo peace paradigm–of a track-one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution–is therefore in crisis. And yet it is entirely possible that the current situation could continue for a while longer–particularly given the endorsement and support it enjoys from the major Western donors and the “international community,” as well as the fact that there has been no attempt to develop an alternative. The immediate short-term future is therefore bleak.

Guided by these observations, this special issue sought to undertake two tasks. The first task was to analyze the perceptions underpinning the Oslo framework and paradigm as well as some of the transformations instituted by its implementation: why is it so resilient, what has it created? The second task, which follows on from the first, was then to ask: how can we reframe our understanding of what is happening, what are some potential alternatives, and who is arguing and mobilizing for them?

These questions and themes grew out of a number of conversations with early-career scholars – some based at the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, and some based in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere. These conversations led to two interlinked panels at the International Studies Association annual convention in Toronto, Canada, in March 2014. To have two panels accepted on “conflict transformation and resistance in Palestine” at such a conventional international relations conference with (at the time unknown) early-career scholars is no mean feat. The large and engaged audience we received at these panels – with some very established names coming along (one of whom contributed to this special issue) – convinced us that this new stream of scholars and scholarship should have an outlet.  

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures do the articles address?

MT: The first half of the special issue analyzes how certain problematic assumptions shaped the Oslo framework, and how the Oslo framework in turn shaped the political, economic and territorial landscape.

Virginia Tilley’s article focuses on the paradigm of conflict resolution upon which the Oslo Accords were based, and calls for a re-evaluation of what she argues are the two interlinked central principles underpinning its worldview: internationally accepted notions of Israeli sovereignty; and the internationally accepted idea that the “conflict” is essentially one between two peoples–the “Palestinian people” and the “Jewish people”. Through her critical interrogation of these two “common sense” principles, Tilley proposes that the “conflict” be reinterpreted as an example of settler colonialism, and, as a result of this, recommends an alternative conflict resolution model based on a paradigm shift away from an ethno-nationalist division of the polity towards a civic model of the nation.

Tariq Dana unpacks another central plank of the Oslo paradigm–that of promoting economic relations between Israel and the OPT. He analyses this through the prism of “economic peace” (particularly the recent revival of theories of “capitalist peace”), whose underlying assumptions are predicated on the perceived superiority of economic approaches over political approaches to resolving conflict. Dana argues that there is a symbiosis between Israeli strategies of “economic peace” and recent Palestinian “statebuilding strategies” (referred to as Fayyadism), and that both operate as a form of pacification and control because economic cooperation leaves the colonial relationship unchallenged.

The political landscape in the OPT has been transformed by the Oslo paradigm, particularly by the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Alaa Tartir therefore analyses the basis, agenda and trajectory of the PA, particularly its post-2007 state building strategy. By focusing on the issue of local legitimacy and accountability, and based on fieldwork in two sites in the occupied West Bank (Balata and Jenin refugee camps), Tartir concludes that the main impact of the creation of the PA on ordinary people’s lives has been the strengthening of authoritarian control and the hijacking of any meaningful visions of Palestinian liberation.

The origin of the administrative division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the focus of Tareq Baconi’s article. He charts how Hamas’s initial opposition to the Oslo Accords and the PA was transformed over time, leading to its participation (and success) in the 2006 legislative elections. Baconi argues that it was the perceived demise of the peace process following the collapse of the Camp David discussions that facilitated this change. But this set Hamas on a collision course with Israel and the international community, which ultimately led to the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, and the administrative division, which continues to exist.

The special issue thereafter focuses, in the second section, on alternatives and resistance to Oslo’s transformations.

Cherine Hussein’s article charts the re-emergence of the single-state idea in opposition to the processes of separation unleashed ideologically and practically that were codified in the Oslo Accords. Analysing it as both a movement of resistance and as a political alternative to Oslo, while recognizing that it is currently largely a movement of intellectuals (particularly of diaspora Palestinians and Israelis), Hussein takes seriously its claim to be a more just and liberating alternative to the two-state solution.

My article highlights the work of a small but dedicated group of anti-Zionist Jewish-Israeli activists involved in two groups: Zochrot and Boycott from Within. Both groups emerged in the post-Second Intifada period, which was marked by deep disillusionment with the Oslo paradigm. This article unpacks the alternative – albeit marginalized – analysis, solution and route to peace proposed by these groups through the application of three concepts: hegemony, counter-hegemony and praxis. The solution, argue the activists, lies in Israel-Palestine going through a process of de-Zionization and decolonization, and the process of achieving this lies in actions in solidarity with Palestinians.

This type of solidarity action is the focus of the final article by Suzanne Morrison, who analyses the “We Divest” campaign, which is the largest divestment campaign in the US and forms part of the wider Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Through attention to their activities and language, Morrison shows how “We Divest”, with its networked, decentralized, grassroots and horizontal structure, represents a new way of challenging Israel’s occupation and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

The two parts of the special issue are symbiotic: the critique and alternative perspectives analyzed in part two are responses to the issues and problems identified in part one.

J: How does this volume connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

MT: My work focuses on the political economy of donor intervention (which falls under the rubric of “peacebuilding”) in the OPT, particularly a critique of the Oslo peace paradigm and framework. This is a product of my broader conceptual and historical interest in the sociology of intervention as a method of capitalist expansion and imperial control (as explored in “The Politics of International Intervention: the Tyranny of Peace”, co-edited with Florian Kuhn, Routledge, 2016), and how post-conflict peacebuilding and development agendas are part of this (as explored in “Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding”, co-edited with Michael Pugh and Neil Cooper (PalgraveMacmillan, 2008).  

My first book on Palestine (co-edited with Omar Shweiki), Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy: De-development and Beyond (PalgraveMacmillan, 2014), was a collection of essays by experts in their field, of the political-economic experience of different sections of the Palestinian community. The book, however, aimed to reunite these individual experiences into one historical political-economy narrative of a people experiencing a common theme of dispossession, disenfranchisement and disarticulation. It was guided by the desire to critically assess the utility of the concept of de-development to different sectors and issues–and had a foreword by Sara Roy, the scholar who coined the term, and who was involved in the workshop from which the book emerged.

This co-edited special issue (with Cherine Hussein, who, at the time of the issue construction, was the deputy director of the Kenyon Institute) was therefore the next logical step in my research on Palestine, although my article on Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists did constitute a slight departure from my usual focus.

J: Who do you hope will read this volume, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

MT: I would imagine the main audience will be those whose research and political interests lie in Palestine Studies. It is difficult, given the structure of academic publishing – which has become ever more corporate and money grabbing – for research outputs such as this to be accessed by the general public. Only those with access to academic libraries are sure to be able to read it – and this is a travesty, in my opinion. To counteract this commodification of knowledge, we should all provide free access to our outputs through online open source websites such as academia.edu, etc. If academic research is going to have an impact beyond merely providing more material for teaching and background reading for yet more research (which is inaccessible to the general public) then this is essential. Websites such as Jadaliyya are therefore incredibly important.

Having said all that, I am under no illusions about the potential for ANY research on Israel-Palestine to contribute to changing the dynamics of the situation. However, as a collection of excellent analyses conducted by mostly early-career scholars in the field of Palestine studies, I am hopeful that their interesting and new perspectives will be read and digested. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MT: I am currently working on an edited volume provisionally entitled From the River to the Sea: Disintegration, Reintegration and Domination in Israel and Palestine. This book is the culmination of a two-year research project funded by the British Academy, which analyzed the impacts of the past twenty years of the Oslo peace framework and paradigm as processes of disintegration, reintegration and domination – and how they have created a new socio-economic and political landscape, which requires new agendas and frameworks. I am also working on a new research project with Tariq Dana at Birzeit University on capital and class in the occupied West Bank.

Excerpt from the Editor’s Note 

[Note: This issue was published in Dec. 2015]

Initially perceived to have inaugurated a new era of hope in the search for peace and justice in Palestine-Israel, the Oslo peace paradigm of a track one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution is in crisis today, if not completely at an end.

While the major Western donors and the ‘international community’ continue to publicly endorse the Oslo peace paradigm, Israeli and Palestinian political elites have both stepped away from it. The Israeli government has adopted what appears to be an outright rejection of the internationally-accepted end-goal of negotiations, i.e. the emergence of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. In March 2015, in the final days of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Jewish settlement of Har Homa in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is regarded as illegal under international law. Reminding its inhabitants that it was him and his Likud government that had established the settlement in 1997 as part of the Israeli state’s vision of a unified indivisible Jerusalem, he promised to expand the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem if re-elected. And in an interview with Israeli news site, NRG, Netanyahu vowed that the prospects of a Palestinian state were non-existent as long as he remained in office. Holding on to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), he argued, was necessary to ensure Israel’s security in the context of regional instability and Islamic extremism. It is widely acknowledged that Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s security—against both external and internal enemies—gave him a surprise win in an election he was widely expected to lose.

Despite attempts to backtrack under recognition that the US and European states are critical of this turn in official Israeli state policy, Netanyahu’s promise to bury the two-state solution in favour of a policy of further annexation has become the Israeli government’s official intent, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading ministers and key advisers.

[…]

The Palestinian Authority (PA) based in the West Bank also appears to have rejected a key principle of the Oslo peace paradigm—that of bilateral negotiations under the supervision of the US. Despite a herculean effort by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to bring the two parties to the negotiating table, in response to the lack of movement towards final status issues and continued settlement expansion (amongst other issues), the Palestinian political elite have withdrawn from negotiations and resumed attempts to ‘internationalise the struggle’ by seeking membership of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), and signing international treaties such as the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. This change of direction is part of a rethink in the PA and PLO’s strategy rooted in wider discussions and debates. The publication of a document by the Palestine Strategy Study Group (PSSG) in August 2008, the production of which involved many members of the Palestinian political elite (and whose recommendations were studiously discussed at the highest levels of the PA and PLO), showed widespread discontent with the bilateral negotiations framework and suggested ways in which Palestinians could ‘regain the initiative’.

[…]

And yet despite these changes in official Palestinian and Israeli political strategies that signal a deepening of the crisis, donors and the ‘international community’ are reluctant to accept the failure of the Oslo peace paradigm. This political myopia has meant the persistence of a framework that is increasingly divorced from the possibility of a just and sustainable peace. It is also acting as an ideological straitjacket by shutting out alternative interpretations. This special issue seeks a way out of this political and intellectual dead end. In pursuit of this, our various contributions undertake what we regard to be two key tasks: first, to critically analyse the perceptions underpinning the Oslo paradigm and the transformations instituted by its implementation; and second, to assess some alternative ways of understanding the situation rooted in new strategies of resistance that have emerged in the context of these transformations in the post-Oslo landscape.

[…]

Taken as a whole, the articles in this special issue aim to ignite conversations on the conflict that are not based within abstracted debates that centre upon the peace process itself—but that begin from within the realities and geographies of both the continually transforming land of Palestine-Israel and the voices, struggles, worldviews and imaginings of the future of the people who presently inhabit it. For it is by highlighting these transformations, and from within these points of beginning, that we believe more hopeful pathways for alternative ways forward can be collectively imagined, articulated, debated and built.