By Caio Esteves, Managing Partner, N/LF

There are various explanations for the emergence of cities. Personally, I quite like the idea of us being domesticated by wheat. According to this perspective, when we abandoned nomadic lifestyles to cultivate crops, by domesticating wheat, we ended up domesticating ourselves. This event, known as the Agricultural Revolution, occurred around 10,000 BCE, although there's some debate about the exact date.

While urban life may have embryonically started at that time, it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that things really became complicated. In the 18th century, mass migration to urban areas created unprecedented challenges related to housing, sanitation, and infrastructure, not to mention social challenges inherent in this new urban organisation. Until recently, there was a prevailing notion that cities were inherently "bad" and that happiness could only be found far from them, supposedly closer to nature. Not because of cities themselves, but due to the challenges they posed, which were not fully understood at the time.

The future, however, promises even greater complexity. According to the UN's World Cities Report 2022, the global urban population will reach 68% by 2050, increasing by 2.2 billion people each year. By 2021, cities already housed 56% of the global population. This rapid urban growth poses enormous challenges—challenges we currently address using knowledge acquired thus far, often viewing the world in a linear fashion.

In this article, we’ll critically examine this standard linear worldview, exploring its impacts, and presenting alternative paths forward.

The limitations of the traditional approach

Let's begin with the obvious: place branding. The title already hinted at a controversial stance; indeed, after dedicating over a decade to promoting place brands, you may think I've finally lost it. But what exactly has changed? In short: the world around us.

Over time, place branding aimed to enhance the external attractiveness of cities, regions, and countries, attracting visitors, talent, and investment, and promoting products, services, and creativity. These remain relevant objectives, yet the problem lies in how they're pursued. Initially, involving the community in constructing place brands, rather than solely focusing on external perception, was indeed a paradigm shift. But although the next step may seem obvious to readers, it might be challenging for practitioners and markets to accept:

It’s no longer acceptable to plan places using today’s research based on yesterday’s data.

Simple, isn’t it? Add to this the equally straightforward notion that the future, by virtue of not yet existing, isn’t singular but plural—multiple potential futures exist. Although conceptually easy to grasp, practically, this idea changes everything.

Understanding the linearity and singularity of the future is exactly what prevents traditional place branding from thriving in our complex and volatile world—just to name two characteristics of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (or V.U.C.A. and its trendy acronyms).

Furthermore, how important is external perception and reputation of a place to the community living there? 

Important? 

Certainly. 

Everything? 

Certainly not.

Urban experience and placemaking

Indeed, placemaking embodies urban experience, complementing place branding. Since founding Places for Us, I've never separated place branding from urban experience. For years, when explaining placemaking to place branding practitioners unfamiliar with the concept, I described it as the "brand experience" of a place brand. Although easily understood, this wasn’t the most precise definition. It does materialise the concepts behind a place brand but should go significantly further.

If urban experience was always placemaking’s twin sibling in my approach, it too needs evolution. Initially, simple D.I.Y interventions engaged communities to enhance spaces neglected by traditional urban planning. It evolved into something more strategic, addressing micro-scale interactions and their relationship with urban development. However, its tactical, immediate nature, or as I prefer, "presentist," limited its action to the present, perhaps becoming even less plural and diverse than place branding. If the pandemic and climate change have taught us anything—tragically at a great cost—it's that the world behaves unpredictably (though there's controversy about the unpredictability of these events), and more importantly (where there is consensus), it moves uncertainly, diversely, and somewhat erratically towards multiple potential futures.

If the ephemeral nature of D.I.Y placemaking was suited to the dynamic uncertainty of places, its evolution into strategic approaches risked becoming static, flirting dangerously with familiar urban planning paths—modernist in Brazil's case. Initially dynamic, it gradually became immobilised again, albeit contemporary and participatory, yet still fixated on singular solutions.

New always comes

At this point, you might think, another discipline with a strange name. Yes and no. Indeed, it's another discipline—but so complex it unfolds into many others, which is only the beginning of the issue.

When discussing the future, any author invariably starts by noting humanity's eternal obsession with prediction—using oracles, astrologers, or sorcerers. Here, however, a significant distinction is needed: we don't speak of "predicting" the future, as anyone promising this feat is a charlatan. Many speak of "anticipating"; personally, I prefer "exploring" futures. In my research for my latest book, I focused particularly on future studies and foresight. Future studies explores futures conceptually and theoretically, while foresight explores futures with strategic and tactical aims—essentially the more practical, applicable aspect of futures studies.

Yet, this isn't straightforward. Traditional strategic foresight also fell short regarding places; it required place branding as a starting point and placemaking as an endpoint. Incorporating the identity, vocations, and perceptions of places at the beginning, and grounding discussions in tangible strategies, is essential. I termed this methodology Place Strategic Foresight© in my book "Future Places," (“Lugares Futuros” in Portuguese) and this is how I've approached places in recent years.

Closing the circle

Combining these three areas of expertise, I found the most effective way to guide cities, regions, and countries through future uncertainties. Initially centred on identity, it needed grounding—materialisation in meaningful public places that ceased to be mere spaces. Yet, even this seemingly linear solution proved rigid, unable to survive political changes or guide long-term projects. We needed more.

The concept of the Antifragile City arose here, addressing unpredictability, but even that wasn't enough. Despite adaptability, it was singular, still conceiving time linearly as cause-and-effect. But reality is far more complex—times intertwine and overlap non-linearly. We talk about multiple futures, but what about multiple pasts? Terry, Castro, Chibwe, Sebina, Savu, and Pereira's work on decolonial praxis for futures introduced me to these entangled times through the powerful concept of Sankofa—emphasising the importance of the past for constructing the future.

“Rhizomatic thinking, which explores diverse, structurally equal possibilities, emerges as a synthesis suited to uncertain, plural futures...”

ESTEVES

Without contradicting my title's clickbait entirely, it's not that place branding or place brands will disappear. Rather, in our complex world, isolated approaches are insufficient. We must integrate diverse expertise, people, ideas, and methodologies—constantly questioning them—to not just survive but prosper amidst future uncertainties.

* This is an adaptation of the article originally published in Portuguese in O Futuro das Coisas.