Ibirapuera Park, Salone del Mobile, and Osaka Expo

From the Open Culture Blog.

The newsletter’s portrayal of Ibirapuera as an “emerald island in a sea of grey” echoes a romanticized and aestheticized vision of nature within hyper-urban environments. Ibirapuera functions symbolically not only as a public park but as a sanctuary, an “oasis” whose value is framed in visual and experiential terms. This framing aligns with Sharon Zukin’s (1995) analysis of the “aesthetic economy” of cities, where culture and aesthetics become tools of urban redevelopment. The transformation of Ibirapuera—complete with sunset bars, coworking spaces, and brand-sponsored events—signals a shift from public amenity to consumable urban spectacle, embodying what Zukin (2010) later called the “triumph of visuality over civics.”

Culturally, the newsletter emphasizes cosmopolitanism, design-consciousness, and curated experiences. The focus on Salone del Mobile in Milan highlights the cultural significance of design as both an artistic endeavor and a major economic event, blurring the lines between creative expression and commercial enterprise (Hesmondhalgh, 2019). The enthusiasm for collaborations (Beni Rugs & Studio KO, Muji & 5.5) and the integration of art installations (Robert Wilson, Es Devlin) underscore the value placed on aesthetic innovation and cross-disciplinary partnerships within this sphere.

Similarly, the profile of architect Trey Trahan designing the US pavilion for the World Expo in Osaka showcases cultural exchange, specifically the influence of Japanese aesthetics (“In Praise of Shadows,” temple layouts) on Western design thinking. This reflects a broader trend of global cultural flows, where ideas and styles circulate and hybridize (Appadurai, 1996). However, this cultural appreciation is often framed within contexts of consumption – attending events, buying products (Lojel luggage, Monocle magazine), or experiencing luxury travel (La Dolce Vita Orient Express). The very notion of reviving the “sweet life” through a premium train service commodifies a cultural concept associated with Italian heritage.

Support

The privatization of Ibirapuera’s management is emblematic of broader trends in neoliberal urban governance. As urban theorists such as Harvey (2005) and Brenner & Theodore (2002) have argued, neoliberalism recasts the city as an entrepreneurial arena, where public assets are restructured to attract investment and consumption. The concession granted to Urbia represents an economic shift from collective public stewardship to market-led management.

The improvements in infrastructure and amenities, while seemingly positive, are deeply entwined with commodification. The newsletter’s praise for these developments—restaurants, clean bathrooms, and branded coworking spaces—suggests a consumerist logic that conflates access with purchase power. As Mitchell (2003) contends in his study of the “right to the city,” such developments often lead to exclusionary effects, where the informal, the homeless, or the non-consumer are marginalized or displaced in the name of “improvement.”

Moreover, the creation of exclusive branded spaces, such as Nubank’s coworking hub, reflects a logic of “enclosure” within open space. In economic terms, this represents the creation of semi-public zones whose access is gated through consumption. This echoes critiques by scholars like Low and Smith (2006), who demonstrate how neoliberal urbanism transforms commons into corporate-curated zones of consumption.

Economically, the newsletter is underpinned by themes of neoliberalism, branding, and the expansion of markets. The central conflict in the Ibirapuera Park story exemplifies the tension between public good and privatization. The argument for the concessionaire Urbia rests on efficiency, investment (new facilities, restaurants), and enhanced visitor experience – hallmarks of market-based solutions often promoted under neoliberal urban governance models (Harvey, 2005). The criticism, however, points to the potential downsides: the “excessive exposure of brands,” creation of exclusive (paid) spaces, and the transformation of a public amenity into an “open-air shopping centre,” reflecting concerns about the commodification of public space (Low & Smith, 2006).

The profile of An Chieh Chiang and Lojel illustrates contemporary business strategies: direct-to-consumer models bypassing traditional distribution, supply chain diversification (moving production from China to Indonesia, partly driven by geopolitical factors like the US-China trade war), and branding focused on durability and repairability (“Buy less, buy better”).

This last point taps into sustainability narratives, yet operates within a framework aiming for significant revenue growth ($3.5m to $40m target), showcasing how ethical consumerism is integrated into expansionist market logic. The La Dolce Vita Orient Express represents the pinnacle of the experience economy, where luxury, heritage, and travel are bundled into a high-cost product targeting affluent consumers (Pine & Gilmore, 1999).

Politically, the newsletter touches upon urban governance, international relations, and national representation. The Ibirapuera case involves a direct confrontation between a private concessionaire, operating under a city government agreement, and a public prosecutor threatening legal action and potential revocation of the concession. This highlights the political struggles inherent in public-private partnerships and the contested nature of urban space management (Mitchell, 2003). The state’s role shifts from direct service provider to contract manager and regulator, creating new arenas for conflict.

The World Expo, represented by Trey Trahan’s US pavilion, is inherently political. Designing such a structure involves navigating how to portray “American values” (openness, accountability) on an international stage, functioning as a form of soft power and national branding (Anholt, 2007). The mention of the US-China trade war affecting Lojel’s manufacturing decisions underscores how global business strategies are deeply intertwined with international political and economic tensions.

Public prosecutor Silvio Marques’ critique is emblematic of institutional resistance to the creeping privatization of urban commons. Marques’ invocation of potential criminal charges and the “excessive exposure of brands” introduces a political layer grounded in legal and normative concerns about the role of the state. His actions reflect the enduring conflict between democratic oversight and corporate governance in city planning.

The broader political implication is the weakening of participatory urban democracy in favor of technocratic or market-led solutions. In the neoliberal city, public-private partnerships often lack robust public engagement mechanisms, raising critical questions about legitimacy and accountability. The prosecutor’s intervention thus invokes a model of urban governance that seeks to reclaim collective control over space—a concern echoed by Lefebvre’s (1991) notion of “the right to the city” as both a spatial and political claim.

Support

Socially, the newsletter implicitly addresses class, access, and changing social norms. The improvements in Ibirapuera, while lauded by the author, raise questions about whobenefits most. Does increased commercialization and the presence of high-end restaurants or co-working spaces alter the park’s accessibility or appeal to lower-income residents who might value it primarily as free, open green space? The criticism regarding privatization often carries undertones of social equity concerns (Mitchell, 2003). The comparison with the dilapidated city-maintained plaza serves to reinforce the narrative of private sector superiority, potentially overlooking systemic issues related to public funding or management priorities.

At the heart of the dispute lies the social function of public space. While the newsletter emphasizes revitalization, it elides questions of social inclusion. Who benefits from this transformation? And who is left out? Research by scholars such as Don Mitchell and Setha Low has shown that the privatization of public space often leads to subtle forms of exclusion, whether through design (e.g., anti-homeless architecture), rules (e.g., restrictions on gatherings), or implicit norms (e.g., consumer behavior).

The park’s shift toward an “open-air shopping centre” diminishes its role as a democratic agora—a space for protest, leisure, interclass encounter, and cultural production. Instead, it becomes a curated lifestyle zone, accessible primarily to those who can pay or conform to the space’s new norms. This process of exclusion is not merely economic but also social and symbolic, affecting the sense of belonging among lower-income users and marginalized groups.

The focus on luxury travel (Orient Express), high design (Salone del Mobile), and exclusive events (The Chiefs conference) caters to and reflects the lifestyle and consumption patterns of a global elite. This curated world emphasizes taste, distinction (Bourdieu, 1984), and the consumption of experiences as markers of social status. The promotion of Lojel’s repairability initiative also reflects a social trend towards sustainability, albeit framed within a consumer context. The sheer density of events and opportunities presented (Milan, Jakarta, Osaka, Rome) paints a picture of a hyper-mobile, globally connected social stratum.

Monocle’s editorial framing—upbeat, cosmopolitan, and market-friendly—provides an implicit endorsement of private stewardship as a solution to urban decay. Its juxtaposition of Ibirapuera’s revival with the dereliction of Ayrton Senna Plaza presents a binary logic: privatization equals vitality, while public management equals decline. This narrative, while persuasive to the globally mobile urban elite, risks simplifying complex socio-political dynamics.

The rest of the newsletter—focused on Milan’s design fair, luxury train experiences, and global branding—reflects a similar sensibility: urban spaces are increasingly conceived as platforms for aesthetic consumption, cultural production, and entrepreneurial spectacle. This framing aligns with the notion of the “creative city” (Landry, 2000; Florida, 2002), where culture and design become tools of urban branding, but not necessarily engines of equity.

The Monocle newsletter provides a window into a world where culture, commerce, and curated experience converge. It champions a model of globalization characterized by private investment, aesthetic refinement, and niche luxury consumption. While celebrating innovation, efficiency, and cross-cultural exchange, it also surfaces underlying tensions: the privatization of the public sphere (Ibirapuera), the pervasive influence of branding, the potential for social exclusion inherent in luxury markets, and the complex interplay between global capital and local realities.

The newsletter itself acts as a cultural product, shaping and reflecting the tastes and priorities of its intended audience, promoting a particular vision of the “good life” intertwined with global mobility, sophisticated consumption, and market-driven solutions. The critical perspective offered by the São Paulo public prosecutor serves as a counterpoint, reminding readers of the contested nature of these trends and the ongoing debate about the balance between public interest and private enterprise in shaping our shared environments.

The Ibirapuera controversy offers a microcosmic view of global struggles over the future of public space in the neoliberal city. While improvements in infrastructure and amenities are welcome, they must be weighed against the erosion of democratic access, accountability, and spatial justice. A more balanced urbanism would recognize the value of collective, inclusive, and participatory governance over spaces that define the civic life of the metropolis.

Rather than seeing publicness and quality as incompatible, cities might explore hybrid models of stewardship that foreground civic values while enabling innovation. The legal challenge brought by Marques, whether successful or not, serves as a necessary reminder: parks are not merely urban commodities but socio-political commons whose fate reflects broader struggles over who gets to shape the city and for whom it is built.

Support

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1997). Dialectic of enlightenment (J. Cumming, Trans.). Verso. (Original work published 1947)

Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive identity: The new brand management for nations, cities and regions. Palgrave Macmillan.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2019). The cultural industries (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Landry, C. (2000). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. Earthscan.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)

Low, S. M. (2003). Behind the gates: Life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. Routledge.

Low, S., & Smith, N. (Eds.). (2006). The politics of public space. New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press.

Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Blackwell.

Zukin, S. (2010). Naked city: The death and life of authentic urban places. Oxford University Press.

[Support the Open Culture Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs.]

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of artificial intelligence tools, e.g., Gemini, Google, and ChatGPT, OpenAI (April 8, 2025).]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (April 8, 2025). Ibirapuera Park, Salone del Mobile, and Osaka Expo. Open Culture. Retrieved April 8, 2025 from https://oc.hypotheses.org/2790.

Thanks for reading The Substack Newsletter for the Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Support dialog