Studying a “bubblegum” concept: lessons from Medellin’s chaotic urban resilience journey.

Keywords: urban resilience, Medellin, politics, empty signifiers, fluidity
Abstract Type: Virtual Paper Abstract

Abstract

They come in standard packaging, are widely marketed, can be stretched out, and will stick
to a shoe or under a chair for a long while. “Urban resilience” and bubblegum have a lot in
common. My research on the “resilience strategy” of Medellín, Colombia, taught me to
be prepared for a frustrating experience when studying this concept, its contested uses, and
often questionable impacts.
Started in 2014, the relationship between Medellín and the 100 Resilient Cities network
(100RC) first appeared groundbreaking, based on a “social” vision of the concept entrenched
in the city’s violent past and “social urbanism” history. Three years later, the local resilience
office was “politely” removed from the municipal administration by the new mayor, with the
resilience strategy and associated projects brushed aside. However, the concept‘s use in
municipal agencies and plans survived, and the relationship with the rebranded “Global
Resilient Cities Network'' was renewed in 2020, with a radically different focus than the one
which had legitimated 100RC’s ancrage in the city in the first place.
Based on my urban organizational research in Medellín (2020-2021), and taking inspiration
from the debates around “empty signifiers” (Brown, 2016; Westman & Castán Broto, 2022), I
will argue here that critical approaches of resilience must bypass the pitfall of the concept’s
“fluidity” and of general lessons on its “agency”, but rather focus on the “fixes” that give the
concept permanence in an urban system, including everyday interactions within and
in-between organizations at the periphery or core of the local administration.