1:06 pm and 30 seconds in the neighbourhoodof the 4000 at La Courneuve… inthirty seconds the exp<strong>lo</strong>sion is due. Debussy,this building two hundred meters, herein front of us, will be swept away! Therestructuring of the neighbourhood is inprogress and today we have made a greatstep forward: the process to break socialisolation passes through six hundred ki<strong>lo</strong>s ofdynamite. A big show, and the authoritiesare here all.[Framing Debussy]1:07pm, last second.Five four tree two one… fire ![Shortly after, the journalist passes a fingeron the leather jacket of a person to showthe dust]Three hundred and sixty flats. Debussy hasended in dust. It will take four months toremove rubbles and years to rebuild a new,more human neighbourhood.Antenne 2 News, 18 February1986This way, they thought they could destroy a neighbourhoodin few seconds and shake it off like dustfrom a jacket 1 . The “4000 South of La Courneuve” isconsidered one of the most ill-famed French banlieues,one of those that appeared in November 2005 inthe famous CNN map of the outbreak of the Frenchrevolts, even though absolutely nothing happenedthere. A modern area built in the late 1950s, made of7 bar-buildings with 16 f<strong>lo</strong>ors, two-hundred meters<strong>lo</strong>ng each.Since 1986 onward, the dominant narrative was that,in order to change the face of the area, old buildingsshould have been deleted from the map. Thus, demolitionafter demolition, at the end, in 2011, only oneof those bar-buildings will remain. “La Courneuveinvents a different future” is the motto which, since1986, has been posted on the buildings scheduledfor demolition – a kind of theo<strong>lo</strong>gical message thatshould justify the cathartic act which is taking place.During the last twenty-four years, at every demolitiona future has been promised, <strong>lo</strong>nged for and stillwaited. Yet originally those banlieues were the future:they represented modern France, what better could1 The original clip can be found here: http://www.<strong>lo</strong>squaderno.<strong>professionaldreamers</strong>.net/<strong>sq16</strong>/Debussy1986.movbe promised and hoped in the 1960s. They representedthat hope, of course they did! The inhabitantswhich arrived there en masse from the sad and poorFrench countryside or from overseas ex-co<strong>lo</strong>nies justafter the costly wars of independence, spoke of their“America”, a fantastic place where everyone couldhave had the opportunity to experience a new way ofliving, modern and full of comfort 2 . That model collapsedbefore the buildings. The dominant narrativeturned those places into unliveable areas and bearersof social ills. The flag-wavers of the new models ‘at ahuman scale’ defined those high-rises ‘criminogenicarchitectures’. They began to weave lists of crimes andsocial problems that occured in those neighbourhoods;figures and statistics trumped experience andexperiments of everyday life.It is true that upfront these places are rarely at a humanscale, but we should remember – even withoutdefending them – that they were aimed to answer tothe imperative of accommodating the modern masses,and so they had to face the great architecturaland planning challenges of that age. The micro scaleof everyday life is physio<strong>lo</strong>gically gulped down by themacro scale of men and cement quantities.Anyway, the everyday experience of this spaces, witsand inventions to live it, becomes evident as soon asyou start observing these places from within ratherthan from the outside, from a maquette point ofview (Fava, 2008). An inside which however, withthe collapsed model, it is difficult to penetrate and‘conquer’(as an anthropo<strong>lo</strong>gists conquer informants’confidence) because nobody wants to get in to thatmodernity or admit one’s own admiration in frontof it.This inside is difficult to share even with thosearchitects which over the years have given their heartand soul to transform it, to think differently aboutthose places, but without realizing that failure wasinherent in wishing to save them. It was a collectivesilence that decided the end of enchantment andconsequently those who lived or worked there agreedto be disenchanted in order to defend themselves. Aspeech which is given (and, alas, taken) no <strong>lo</strong>nger assingular, but as collective, and so which cannot butdenounce the ma<strong>lo</strong> vivere, thus giving confirmationto the collapse of the model.The inhabitants are stuck over the years in that ‘mass’these places were built for, without being even2 See the documentation of the Urban Anthropo<strong>lo</strong>gyLaboratory at http://www.laa-courneuve.net
themselves able to find another space for giving theirstories a place. So their stories can be but a cry soevident and undeniable that nobody dares to doubtabout it.It is true. The elevators are urinals, dark stairwells ofgray cement are dealing places, and the entrancesas very complicated gymkhanas where you need apassword to go through safely, otherwise you willhave troubles.But there are also beautiful stories that are told in thesingular and cannot be part of that sad tale of collectivesafeguard, as if they were sharp and dangerousweapons capable of casting a shadow of doubt onthe collective imagery.These are stories of hidden gardens on the fifteenthf<strong>lo</strong>or, cows fitted between a bathroom and a corridor,informal patisseries for wedding and ceremoniesin the neighborhood, home sitting rooms whichwelcome ballroom dancers a few days a month, andmuch more – stories whispered almost wishing toridicule them.However, these rumours are too often spelt outby those who govern these places for ‘memorialsactions’ that are translated in finely crafted books ordocumentaries, made in memory of a demolishedbuilding: a kind of bonus that <strong>lo</strong>oks like a gravestone.Instead, these things are said softly by the inhabitants,and we have get used to this whisper to collectthem. Media shout that it is a disaster and thenpoliticians shout promising another new future.These buildings get emptied, stuffed of dynamiteand knocked down in front of everybody. Then, whathappens?During this time between the ‘last second’ and thesecond after, since applauses, since speeches ful<strong>lo</strong>f promises, since the festival music and since thetelevision-styled cries that fill the soundscape ofthe pre-exp<strong>lo</strong>sion, you find yourself in an instant ofsacred silence, still inhabited by the muffled soundleft of the collapse, when the crowd suddenly dismemberedand each one protects a little to cry freelyat home, to see the monster that disappered behindthe dusty smoke that is s<strong>lo</strong>wly falling to earth dueto gravity and to make holes in the grid that protectsthe rubble to go to take a facade tile as souvenir.A respectful silence that surrounds the rubble (Sebald,2004) and a s<strong>lo</strong>wer tempo impose themselvesto the surrounding environment which can no <strong>lo</strong>ngermove and gesture as before. A very special time, theone which enve<strong>lo</strong>ps the period after the demolition,a suspended time that al<strong>lo</strong>ws the image to settlewhere there is now empty and the demolishedbuildings’ great shadows to disappear s<strong>lo</strong>wly. Animage which corresponds still for a little time to whatwas, for the inhabitants, while for politicians andplanners it corresponds already theoretically to whatwill happen. A play of images that will never match,where the temporality of both rhythms absolutelynot in the same way the life of the neighbourhood.A ‘between’ which forces to get used to a landscapewhere tons of concrete became rubble, where piecesof everyday life can be glimpsed even in scraps ofwallpaper still stuck to the walls’ remains, but whereyou can not see, or you are not prepared to see, futurehomes and gardens in b<strong>lo</strong>om. A ‘between’ whichsuspends also ourselves from being of that place thatis no <strong>lo</strong>nger, but at the same time that is not yet.13