A man (original biological parts and all) named Piet and a woman (original biological parts and all) named Sandra sit to discuss all things worldly at Hopper, a coffee shop at Schiedamse Vest 146 in Rotterdam. (Recorded here with my apologies for any unidiomatic uses of idioms. See idioms in “Notes”)
Piet: “According to its webpage, Erasmus University Rotterdam professors research urban life. Their goal, at least their goal as indicated in a short video on the university’s website, centers on their ‘Vital Cities and Citizens Initiative.’ The Initiative identifies four central themes that play an important role in urban ‘vitality’: 1) Inclusive Cities and Diversity, 2) Resilient Cities and People, 3) Smart Cities and Communities, and 4) Sustainable and Just Cities. *
“Ah! ‘Inclusive.’ Now where have I heard that before? And Diversity? And the terms smart, sustainable, and just? Could there be a set of terms more indicative of the times? Could there be a set of terms more indicative of pipe dreams in the heads of Utopians?”
Sandra: “Hold on there, these are professional intellectuals. Your questions imply a snarky ignorance. Look, the website describes their research as interdisciplinary and holistic, involving ‘different areas of science, such as psychology, sociology, public administration, educational sciences, communication, art and culture, history, development studies and anthropology.’ Cities have problems, and these researchers look for solutions. I was kiplekker voelen ** this morning, but I can see this conversation will probably upset me. Sometimes I want Iemand achter het behang plakken when we talk. When you aren’t fully aware of something, it’s best to stay quiet. These Rotterdam professors are smart, Iets onder de knie hebben, as we say, and there’s nothing under your weak knees.”
Piet: “So, you prefer we talk about…what? The coffee here? The latest fashion? Gossip? Praten over koetjes en kalfjes; I prefer to discuss such matters because I see them as signs of the times and keys to understanding human folly. I’m not dismissing the noble nature of the university’s ‘Vital Cities and Citizens Initiative’; I’m dismissing the futility of the research. Those researchers can say, ‘We zullen dat varkentje wel even wassen,’ all they want; they won’t, in fact, get the piglet washed. Cities are innately dirty places that require constant maintenance just to keep themselves from falling apart. Too many variables interact as one generation replaces another and as economic conditions change. Think of America. Is Detroit the only place that makes cars? It got that reputation when it was the center of the industry, when it dominated, but is it the center of car making today? There are car assembly plants all over the U.S.: Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, California, Alabama, Ohio. The one-time auto worker population of Detroit changed, and as it did, so did the city. You think the Erasmus U staff of researchers can revitalize Detroit? And I’m not talking about tearing down old buildings and replacing them with a Motown Museum and shops complex that makes essentially nothing. You think what the Rotterdam intellectuals discover through research is much different from what an unemployed auto worker already knows?”
Sandra: “Met de mond vol tanden staan. I don’t know what to say to answer your narrow views of things. First of all, that auto worker has a very narrow perspective centered on his work or job loss. He’s not a mover or shaker, not someone with an overview. Second, there are city planners who can adopt strategies for revitalization.”
Piet: “Frankly, Sandra, my view can be summarized thus: No vital industry, no vital city. When jobs leave, cities succumb to decay, the natural entropy of the universe. And attempts to replace areas with economic vitality with retail shops and restaurants won’t revitalize in the long run. Besides, I’ve noticed that in ‘revitalizing,’ cities redo neighborhoods, you know, like putting a stadium where a ‘vital’ neighborhood filled with gainfully employed citizens once lived. Sure., cities can be temporarily given a ‘new life’ with investment, but initial investments have to be followed by long-term investments by stakeholders, the people who live in the cities. Seems to me that such revitalizations make things better until things get worse; plans are good in the short term, but because all cities change as populations and economic opportunities wax and wane maintaining ‘vitality’ is chancy at best. Look at downtown shopping areas that were replaced by suburban shopping centers and malls. And with regard to those new centers of vitality, note that many of them fall into decay after about a quarter century, that is, in about a generation. And no one can account for the variability in urban residents and their makeup. I’m thinking of a comparison between environmental and ecological niches and cities or even neighborhoods. Old ethnic neighborhoods disappear to be replaced by newer ethnic neighborhoods, all succumbing to the waning of a population of similar people whose children move out.
“The buildings might remain through several generations, but the residents change, just as in nature when some species go extinct, others take their place on the food chain. New prey replace old prey; new predators replace old predators. And older ecologies give way to newer ones. These researchers will never run out of work because cities will change character as they are working to consolidate their vitality. Residents will age and either move or die. New residents will move in. What was once vital will no longer be vital.”
Sandra: “You’re pessimistic. If we don’t try…
Piet: “Try, sure. I’m not saying, ‘Give up.’ I’m simply saying that the researchers will not be able to put into practice their lofty dreams of ‘vital cities with vital citizens’ over the long term. Too many variables. Look, here we are at the Hopper on this pleasant street, staring into our fancy coffees. Back in 1940 the Rotterdam Blitz destroyed much of this city. That wasn’t so long ago, and there’s no guarantee that it won’t happen again. But even if there isn’t another all-out war, there are the little battles, the crime, for example, that makes some neighborhoods hostile to coffee shops—and to any and all other businesses save drug dealing.”
Sandra: “But I feel safe…”
Piet: “Sandra, sure; you feel safe sitting here with your coffee. I just saw that hate crimes here rose from 121 in the first quarter of 2018 to 156 in the first quarter of 2019. That’s here, in Rotterdam. You think the researchers can do anything about hate crimes among their ‘vital citizenry’?”
Sandra: “But we’ll be revitalized by immigration. As a port, Rotterdam has always been a site with diversity.”
Piet: “As all ports have been. I just looked up the figures. Only a little over half of Rotterdam’s residents are Dutch. And now 70% of Rotterdam’s youth came from abroad. You think that the researchers will be able to keep up with the changes those youth will impose either intentionally or unintentionally on Rotterdam society? That’s why I said they’ll never run out of work.”
Sandra: “But won’t they help to solve future problems by understanding today’s problems?”
Piet: “Time will tell. But think about this. Rotterdam is one of the Intercultural Cities. The Council of Europe actually has an index for that, the ICC, Intercultural Cities, index. *** What do you think the practical effect of that is?”
Sandra: “I don’t know.”
Piet: “Guess.”
Sandra: “Just tell me, my coffee is getting cold.”
Piet: “The Council calls the index a ‘powerful tool’ because it can be used by ICC city coordinators to 1) initiate a discussion…about what intercultural integration means, 2) raise awareness on the necessity of working horizontally between the various departments…,
And 3) identify and learn from ‘good practices’ by other cities.”
Sandra: “What’s wrong with that?”
Piet: “As an intellectual exercise, nothing. As a practical solution to city problems, virtually nothing. Just talk, and more talk, and more talk. In the meantime, cities either thrive or decay, or both simultaneously, with one neighborhood prospering and another declining regardless of all the discussions.
“You think all the discussing really helps?”
Sandra: “Sure.”
Piet: “Let me point out what one of the Erasmus researchers has said in answer to the question ‘How does your research impact society?’ VCC researcher Zouhair Hammana says, ‘I try to generate impact in many ways…last year I was interviewed for podcast about decolonialization in education and I wrote an article for the Sociology Magazine.’ He goes on to say he wrote a chapter for a book on ‘the good immigrant,’ and he gave an interview on radio. And ‘I mainly use social media to share my knowledge and beliefs and interested people also approach me on these channels.’ That’s it. That summarizes his current impact, but, of course, like so many others in academia, he wants to make an impact in the future: ‘It is my wish to contribute to systemic changes…I would like to extend my current research to observe society on a larger scale. ‘For example, buy shifting from diversity in education to decolonization of education.’ You tell me, Sandra, is there anything of actual consequence in that so-called research? And what does that all mean, anyway? Is it one of those cultural guilt trips taken by so many nowadays for sins of their fathers, for Dutch colonialism? But if the Dutch were so bad, why have so many immigrants moved to Rotterdam? Of course, as you say, I’m basically ignorant, with nothing ‘under the knee,’ as we Dutch say. But just echoing the terms du jour doesn’t mean much to me. Academicians, however, love to talk. Hammana has a colleague named Ryan Holmes, ‘who specializes in environmental economics and energy policy for the maritime industry.’ He ‘hopes to visit’ the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow that runs from October 31 to November 12, 2021. So that he can ‘connect with a wide range of people.’ Of course, he won’t spend any carbon getting there. Surely, he has a zero carbon footprint when he discusses in person with people he could email or meet online.
“And one more question. If cities are now in need of help, what will happen in the near future when 2/3 of the people live in them? I would like to know the practical steps Erasmus U researchers propose to make life for 4.5 billion city dwellers sustainable, just, and ‘smart.’”
Sandra: “I’m worn out. Drinking coffee with you is a task.”
Notes:
*https://www.eur.nl/en/research/erasmus-initiatives/vital-cities-and-citizens/vital-city-can-take-few-knocks
**https://girlswanderlust.com/top-25-funniest-dutch-expressions/
Literal translations do not express the idioms properly, of course, so see the website for the interpretations of:
Iemand achter het behang plakken: “To glue someone behind the wallpaper”
Praten over koetjes en kalfjes: “Talking about little cows and little calves”
Met de mond vol tanden staan: “To sit with your mouth full of teeth”
Iets onder de knie hebben: “To have something under the knee”
We zullen dat varkentje wel even wassen: “We will certainly get that piglet washed.”
Kiplekker voelen: “To feel chicken delicious”
***https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/about-the-index
Piet: “According to its webpage, Erasmus University Rotterdam professors research urban life. Their goal, at least their goal as indicated in a short video on the university’s website, centers on their ‘Vital Cities and Citizens Initiative.’ The Initiative identifies four central themes that play an important role in urban ‘vitality’: 1) Inclusive Cities and Diversity, 2) Resilient Cities and People, 3) Smart Cities and Communities, and 4) Sustainable and Just Cities. *
“Ah! ‘Inclusive.’ Now where have I heard that before? And Diversity? And the terms smart, sustainable, and just? Could there be a set of terms more indicative of the times? Could there be a set of terms more indicative of pipe dreams in the heads of Utopians?”
Sandra: “Hold on there, these are professional intellectuals. Your questions imply a snarky ignorance. Look, the website describes their research as interdisciplinary and holistic, involving ‘different areas of science, such as psychology, sociology, public administration, educational sciences, communication, art and culture, history, development studies and anthropology.’ Cities have problems, and these researchers look for solutions. I was kiplekker voelen ** this morning, but I can see this conversation will probably upset me. Sometimes I want Iemand achter het behang plakken when we talk. When you aren’t fully aware of something, it’s best to stay quiet. These Rotterdam professors are smart, Iets onder de knie hebben, as we say, and there’s nothing under your weak knees.”
Piet: “So, you prefer we talk about…what? The coffee here? The latest fashion? Gossip? Praten over koetjes en kalfjes; I prefer to discuss such matters because I see them as signs of the times and keys to understanding human folly. I’m not dismissing the noble nature of the university’s ‘Vital Cities and Citizens Initiative’; I’m dismissing the futility of the research. Those researchers can say, ‘We zullen dat varkentje wel even wassen,’ all they want; they won’t, in fact, get the piglet washed. Cities are innately dirty places that require constant maintenance just to keep themselves from falling apart. Too many variables interact as one generation replaces another and as economic conditions change. Think of America. Is Detroit the only place that makes cars? It got that reputation when it was the center of the industry, when it dominated, but is it the center of car making today? There are car assembly plants all over the U.S.: Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, California, Alabama, Ohio. The one-time auto worker population of Detroit changed, and as it did, so did the city. You think the Erasmus U staff of researchers can revitalize Detroit? And I’m not talking about tearing down old buildings and replacing them with a Motown Museum and shops complex that makes essentially nothing. You think what the Rotterdam intellectuals discover through research is much different from what an unemployed auto worker already knows?”
Sandra: “Met de mond vol tanden staan. I don’t know what to say to answer your narrow views of things. First of all, that auto worker has a very narrow perspective centered on his work or job loss. He’s not a mover or shaker, not someone with an overview. Second, there are city planners who can adopt strategies for revitalization.”
Piet: “Frankly, Sandra, my view can be summarized thus: No vital industry, no vital city. When jobs leave, cities succumb to decay, the natural entropy of the universe. And attempts to replace areas with economic vitality with retail shops and restaurants won’t revitalize in the long run. Besides, I’ve noticed that in ‘revitalizing,’ cities redo neighborhoods, you know, like putting a stadium where a ‘vital’ neighborhood filled with gainfully employed citizens once lived. Sure., cities can be temporarily given a ‘new life’ with investment, but initial investments have to be followed by long-term investments by stakeholders, the people who live in the cities. Seems to me that such revitalizations make things better until things get worse; plans are good in the short term, but because all cities change as populations and economic opportunities wax and wane maintaining ‘vitality’ is chancy at best. Look at downtown shopping areas that were replaced by suburban shopping centers and malls. And with regard to those new centers of vitality, note that many of them fall into decay after about a quarter century, that is, in about a generation. And no one can account for the variability in urban residents and their makeup. I’m thinking of a comparison between environmental and ecological niches and cities or even neighborhoods. Old ethnic neighborhoods disappear to be replaced by newer ethnic neighborhoods, all succumbing to the waning of a population of similar people whose children move out.
“The buildings might remain through several generations, but the residents change, just as in nature when some species go extinct, others take their place on the food chain. New prey replace old prey; new predators replace old predators. And older ecologies give way to newer ones. These researchers will never run out of work because cities will change character as they are working to consolidate their vitality. Residents will age and either move or die. New residents will move in. What was once vital will no longer be vital.”
Sandra: “You’re pessimistic. If we don’t try…
Piet: “Try, sure. I’m not saying, ‘Give up.’ I’m simply saying that the researchers will not be able to put into practice their lofty dreams of ‘vital cities with vital citizens’ over the long term. Too many variables. Look, here we are at the Hopper on this pleasant street, staring into our fancy coffees. Back in 1940 the Rotterdam Blitz destroyed much of this city. That wasn’t so long ago, and there’s no guarantee that it won’t happen again. But even if there isn’t another all-out war, there are the little battles, the crime, for example, that makes some neighborhoods hostile to coffee shops—and to any and all other businesses save drug dealing.”
Sandra: “But I feel safe…”
Piet: “Sandra, sure; you feel safe sitting here with your coffee. I just saw that hate crimes here rose from 121 in the first quarter of 2018 to 156 in the first quarter of 2019. That’s here, in Rotterdam. You think the researchers can do anything about hate crimes among their ‘vital citizenry’?”
Sandra: “But we’ll be revitalized by immigration. As a port, Rotterdam has always been a site with diversity.”
Piet: “As all ports have been. I just looked up the figures. Only a little over half of Rotterdam’s residents are Dutch. And now 70% of Rotterdam’s youth came from abroad. You think that the researchers will be able to keep up with the changes those youth will impose either intentionally or unintentionally on Rotterdam society? That’s why I said they’ll never run out of work.”
Sandra: “But won’t they help to solve future problems by understanding today’s problems?”
Piet: “Time will tell. But think about this. Rotterdam is one of the Intercultural Cities. The Council of Europe actually has an index for that, the ICC, Intercultural Cities, index. *** What do you think the practical effect of that is?”
Sandra: “I don’t know.”
Piet: “Guess.”
Sandra: “Just tell me, my coffee is getting cold.”
Piet: “The Council calls the index a ‘powerful tool’ because it can be used by ICC city coordinators to 1) initiate a discussion…about what intercultural integration means, 2) raise awareness on the necessity of working horizontally between the various departments…,
And 3) identify and learn from ‘good practices’ by other cities.”
Sandra: “What’s wrong with that?”
Piet: “As an intellectual exercise, nothing. As a practical solution to city problems, virtually nothing. Just talk, and more talk, and more talk. In the meantime, cities either thrive or decay, or both simultaneously, with one neighborhood prospering and another declining regardless of all the discussions.
“You think all the discussing really helps?”
Sandra: “Sure.”
Piet: “Let me point out what one of the Erasmus researchers has said in answer to the question ‘How does your research impact society?’ VCC researcher Zouhair Hammana says, ‘I try to generate impact in many ways…last year I was interviewed for podcast about decolonialization in education and I wrote an article for the Sociology Magazine.’ He goes on to say he wrote a chapter for a book on ‘the good immigrant,’ and he gave an interview on radio. And ‘I mainly use social media to share my knowledge and beliefs and interested people also approach me on these channels.’ That’s it. That summarizes his current impact, but, of course, like so many others in academia, he wants to make an impact in the future: ‘It is my wish to contribute to systemic changes…I would like to extend my current research to observe society on a larger scale. ‘For example, buy shifting from diversity in education to decolonization of education.’ You tell me, Sandra, is there anything of actual consequence in that so-called research? And what does that all mean, anyway? Is it one of those cultural guilt trips taken by so many nowadays for sins of their fathers, for Dutch colonialism? But if the Dutch were so bad, why have so many immigrants moved to Rotterdam? Of course, as you say, I’m basically ignorant, with nothing ‘under the knee,’ as we Dutch say. But just echoing the terms du jour doesn’t mean much to me. Academicians, however, love to talk. Hammana has a colleague named Ryan Holmes, ‘who specializes in environmental economics and energy policy for the maritime industry.’ He ‘hopes to visit’ the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow that runs from October 31 to November 12, 2021. So that he can ‘connect with a wide range of people.’ Of course, he won’t spend any carbon getting there. Surely, he has a zero carbon footprint when he discusses in person with people he could email or meet online.
“And one more question. If cities are now in need of help, what will happen in the near future when 2/3 of the people live in them? I would like to know the practical steps Erasmus U researchers propose to make life for 4.5 billion city dwellers sustainable, just, and ‘smart.’”
Sandra: “I’m worn out. Drinking coffee with you is a task.”
Notes:
*https://www.eur.nl/en/research/erasmus-initiatives/vital-cities-and-citizens/vital-city-can-take-few-knocks
**https://girlswanderlust.com/top-25-funniest-dutch-expressions/
Literal translations do not express the idioms properly, of course, so see the website for the interpretations of:
Iemand achter het behang plakken: “To glue someone behind the wallpaper”
Praten over koetjes en kalfjes: “Talking about little cows and little calves”
Met de mond vol tanden staan: “To sit with your mouth full of teeth”
Iets onder de knie hebben: “To have something under the knee”
We zullen dat varkentje wel even wassen: “We will certainly get that piglet washed.”
Kiplekker voelen: “To feel chicken delicious”
***https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/about-the-index
RSS Feed