quarta-feira, 28 de novembro de 2018

When Your Secret Spot (Lisbon) Becomes Overrun with Tourists



When Your Secret Spot (Lisbon) Becomes Overrun with Tourists

We were all intruding on one another’s authentic experience, one of the outcomes of mass tourism.

Thomas Swick
11.23.18 9:24 PM ET

Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast

Our Airbnb was on a narrow street, downhill from Bairro Alto. The stairs to the second floor suggested a nation of small-footed people. Opening the door to the apartment, we entered a bright, cheerful room containing a sofa, a table, and a bookcase. The kitchen and bathroom, at opposite ends of a brief corridor, were small and tidy. There was no bedroom; the bed occupied a space above the bathroom and was accessed by an outcrop of ascending wooden blocks.

We dropped our suitcases and headed outside. A yellow funicular, filled with tourists, glided past us as we climbed the hill on the stepped stone sidewalk. At the top, a crush of people stood taking pictures of the antiquated vehicle. We turned right and threaded our way down Rua do Loreto to Praça de Luís de Camões. Rows of tired sightseers sat at the foot of the great poet’s statue.

A friend who had been in Lisbon in June had told me about the large numbers of tourists. I assumed most of them would be gone by the end of September. One of the things I had always loved about Lisbon—this was my fourth visit—was its absence from discussions of great world capitals. Because most travelers went elsewhere, the few of us who came developed a private, proprietary attachment to the place, thanks in large part to Lisboners, who, unlike the residents of more frequented cities, seemed to appreciate the fact that we had come.   

My wife and I crossed the street to Largo do Chiado. The statue of Fernando Pessoa, sitting at a table eternally awaiting his order, still adjoined the terrace of A Brasileira, which hummed but not with the susurrations of Portuguese. Next door the Hotel Borges still stood. I walked into the lobby, widened since my stay there 28 years earlier, and inquired, out of curiosity, about the price of a room.

“For tonight?” the woman behind the reception desk asked. It was a surprising question in a city swelled with visitors.

In October 1989 I took my first trip as a newspaper travel editor. I flew to Spain and, after schlepping around Madrid, Barcelona, and Seville, boarded a bus to Portugal. Lisbon, I assumed, would give me more of the same, loneliness in the face of Iberian self-absorption. Instead I found a softness, the humility and curiosity of a once powerful people who still turned their gaze outward. I met a poet—Casimiro de Brito—who took me to hear fado in a Bairro Alto dive and translated the lyrics into beautiful English. In Spain, with my bad Spanish, I had been a tourist; in Portugal, with no Portuguese, I became a travel writer. For that alone the country would have won my affection.     

Every morning as we stepped out of our building we’d see other tourists leaving theirs. The prevalent sound on Rua da Bica de Duarte Belo was not of the funicular, which ran sporadically, but of suitcase wheels being rolled over cobblestones. The aisles of the mini-mart at the top of the hill were thick with foreigners stocking up on yogurt and bottled water. The smells on the street were of pizza and burgers.

This was our first time staying in an Airbnb and its chief attraction outside of the financial —the feeling it gives you of being a local—was rather lost on us. Inside we could feel vaguely indigenous—I had found a radio station that played mostly fado—but as soon as we went out (something that travelers are generally encouraged to do) we were joined by similarly thwarted vacationers.

We were all intruding on one another’s authentic experience, one of the outcomes of mass tourism. I had witnessed it before, but had often been able to minimize its effects. I am not an avid sightseer; when the proverbial friend of a friend met me and asked me what I’d like to see, my response was always: “Neighborhoods. I want to see how people live.” So I frequently went where the tourists didn’t.

Hania had never been to Lisbon and, naturally, I wanted to show her the best of it. Which is why, in the first hours, we headed to Praça de Camões and Largo do Chiado. Three decades earlier this flawless public space—cafes, churches, rumbling streetcars, patterned pavements, eclectic statuary—had not been a tourist haunt; the few tourists who came to Lisbon prowled Baixa—the Rossio, the Praça do Comércio, the shops in between—and climbed the hilly streets of Alfama, making sure to leave before dark. Then they’d head off to Belém and Sintra.      

Eventually we discovered less crowded spots. El Corte Inglés, the department store where Hania found her gluten-free bread, was not on people’s must-see lists, and Lapa was a quiet, residential area (though Madonna was rumored to be eyeing a house there). But in the evening we’d return to our everyday neighborhood of Airbnbs.

Walking to dinner one night we passed the restaurant where I had first met the poet: 1° de Maio. It now had a stylish shingle out front—the name used to be written minutely on the lantern above the entrance—but its array of dead fish still decorated the small window. In 1989, the interior featured a mural that a customer had started who couldn’t pay his bill. Every week he’d return and add something new, and locals would come not just to eat but to monitor his progress. The painting, I’m sure, was more famous than the chef.

The restaurant we ended up at, a few blocks away, was named for its chef, who had a number of restaurants in the city. Colorful figurines of sea creatures hung from the ceiling, and a large mural in tiles—depicting a party of pigs à table—filled one wall. We got talking to the young couple at the next table, a vacationing Dutch banker and his social worker wife.

People sometimes ask me if I’ve ever felt guilty for ruining a place by writing about it. I explain that I don’t write about “undiscovered” places; my specialty, if I have one, is the unsung: Warsaw; Iowa; Archer City, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Mobile, Alabama; Port-of-Spain, Trinidad. Today tourists are not beating a path to any of them.

Lisbon is the exception, and there’s a reason. Over the last few years, the glossies have given so much ink to Portugal—not just through advertisements but editorial content—that they seem to be trying to make amends for years of inattention. Travel magazines are in continual and often spurious search of the next new place, and in the age of anxiety, Portugal has become the perfect find. The feature that contributed to it being overlooked for decades—its position on the lower edge of the continent, far from the action (which now includes terrorism)— makes it sublimely attractive today.

The Portuguese have not changed; even with tourists now clogging their sidewalks, filling their streetcars, taking their homes, Lisboners are still remarkably friendly. It goes beyond rote politeness to a genuine interest in people. This is something that, unlike manners, cannot be taught; it is an ingrained part of national character. More than once, asking for directions we were drawn into conversations.

Of course, treating tourists like fellow human beings will only make them want to return.         

********

One day, walking down a quiet street toward the old Mercado da Ribeira—now the Time Out Market—we saw a banner strung across a second-floor balcony: “AIRBNB KILLS LISBON.” The popular tourist housing had overtaken not only our neighborhood but, we learned later, Bairro Alto, significantly reducing the number of apartments available to Lisboners, and changing the character of two prime sections of the city. Instead of a local, our Airbnb was making me feel like a spoiler.

But Airbnbs are not the only problem in Lisbon: The city is now visited by cruise ships. They dock at the foot of Alfama, letting thousands of passengers loose. Their economic impact is questionable—they don’t spend the night in hotels, and some return to the ship for their prepaid meals—though they do serve a purpose: They make Airbnbers feel superior.

Two ships were in port the day we visited Alfama. I was searching for a spot I had stumbled upon during my last visit—a winding street of modest restaurants and gorgeous views —but there were few locals to ask for directions. We climbed the steep hills and read the translated menus flanked by T-shirted and sneakered brigades.

They had as much right to be there as we did, and, unlike us, they weren’t hanging around for a week. But they highlighted a sad truth: It had been easier to love the city, or at least to feel a special bond with it, when it had had a smaller number of admirers. Yes, my affection was strengthened—but also now complicated—by the fact that this was the place where I had become a travel writer, the being now implicated in its rise to stardom, and piecemeal transformation.

               On one of our last nights we went to a club to listen to fado. It was not the dive I had enjoyed with Casimiro (that had closed long ago) but a place with a mix of locals and tourists. At the break we struck up a conversation with the people seated next to us, a recently retired couple from Hartford, Connecticut.

The four of us went for a nightcap to A Brasileira. The temperature was mild, so we took a table outside, near the entrance to the Hotel Borges. Though it was after midnight, two street musicians arrived and set up shop. I watched a young man enter the hotel and thought of myself, 28 years earlier, returning from my outing with the poet intoxicated by the triumph of having lived like a local—at least for a few hours—and gotten a story that would be different from any other about Lisbon.

The duo’s first number was Hotel California. We grabbed our drinks and headed inside, where—under the high ceiling—we shared our stories free of musical accompaniment. It was an altogether pleasant evening, one that, I thought as we walked back to our Airbnb, I will never write about.

Thomas Swick is the author, most recently, of The Joys of Travel: And Stories that Illuminate Them.       

Trump’s ‘Very High Levels Of Intelligence’ Draw Some Doubt On Twitter




Este é um velho e conhecido 'statement' de Trump.

Agora ele afirmou, numa entrevista ao Washington Post, após o relatório da sua própria Administração:

'In an interview with The Washington Post, President Trump says he is among those who "have very high levels of intelligence" but are not "believers" in climate change.'





Trump’s ‘Very High Levels Of Intelligence’ Draw Some Doubt On Twitter
The president also claimed in an interview with The Washington Post that America’s air and water are “now at a record clean.”
By David Barden


President Donald Trump claimed in an interview Tuesday with The Washington Post that his “very high levels of intelligence” have led him to not believe in climate change.

Trump, who also rejected the findings of his own administration’s report Friday on climate change, attempted to justify his position by adding that America’s air and water were “now at a record clean.”

“As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it ― not nearly like it is,” the president said.

Since Trump’s comments were published, Twitter users have questioned whether a man who gazed at the solar eclipse without protective lenses could claim to have “very high levels of intelligence.”

Fast fashion: 'How do you justify selling a £2 T-shirt?' / VIDEO:How fast fashion adds to the world's clothing waste problem (Marketplace)




Fast fashion: 'How do you justify selling a £2 T-shirt?'


27 November 2018
Big-name retailers have defended selling clothes for £5 or less, saying their ability to sell clothes so cheaply is down to business models.

MPs investigating the impact of so-called "fast fashion" asked the firms how they could justify such low prices.

Primark's spokesman Paul Lister said the firm spent nothing on advertising and had tight profit margins.

Representatives from brands including Boohoo, Misguided, Asos, Burberry and Marks & Spencer also gave evidence.

The Commons environmental audit committee (EAC) is examining the impact of clothes production, especially those items produced cheaply and quickly in response to trends - known as "fast fashion".

Labour MP Mary Creagh, chair of the committee, asked Primark's head of ethical trade and environmental sustainability, Paul Lister: "How can you justify selling T-shirts in your stores for as little as £2 or £3, and how can you be making a profit on those?"

He replied: "Primark has never done any significant advertising at all, and that can save us in any year £100m to £150m, compared to some of our larger rivals. That goes straight into price. That keeps our pricing low."

"It's our business model that takes us to a £2 T-shirt."

On waste, Mr Lister said Primark had very little unused stock and was planning to launch a take-back scheme for consumers next year, where old clothes can be returned and used again by overseas charities.

Ms Creagh suggested that by making garments so cheaply, they were being devalued.

But Mr Lister insisted: "Every item that we make, we're looking at durability… we are proud of the quality and durability of our garments, they're not built to throw away."

What is fast fashion?
The term describes our high rate of fashion consumption fuelled by the availability of new and cheap clothing.

Producing clothes requires climate-changing emissions. Global textile production produces 1.2bn tonnes of carbon emissions a year - more than international flights and maritime shipping.

Last month, MPs on the EAC concluded that the fast fashion industry was a major source of the greenhouse gases that are overheating the planet.

MPs believe that the throwaway nature of fashion is also fuelling fast turnarounds among suppliers, which may result in poor working conditions.

Elsewhere, Carol Kane, joint CEO of online fashion house Boohoo, was asked how the company could sell dresses for as little as £5 when the minimum wage was £7.83.

She said this only applied to a small number of dresses intentionally sold at a loss, to drive more traffic to the site.

Ms Kane, asked if consumers were now too accustomed to cheap, disposable clothes, said: "I believe this all comes back to consumer demand. I've been in the industry for 32 years, and in that time I've seen prices decline."

Speaking on the same issue, Jamie Beck, from the Arcadia group, which includes Topshop, Dorothy Perkins and Burton, said: "These garments aren't designed to be a disposable item, to be bought for [just] a holiday. They're designed to be long-lasting."

During the hearing, high-end fashion brand Burberry also defended criticism from MPs for dumping clothes.

Earlier this year, the firm was strongly criticised for burning £30m ($40m) of stock. It admitted destroying the unsold clothes, accessories and perfume instead of selling them off cheaply, in order to protect the brand's exclusivity and value.

Leanne Wood, Burberry's chief of corporate affairs, told MPs the firm was "committed" to stopping the activity, but added: "It is an industry practice. We're the only luxury business that's reported it in their accounts… but it is something that happens in the industry."

Boohoo, Misguided and Asos were also quizzed on relationships with suppliers accused of exploiting workers in Britain.

Paul Smith, head of product quality and supply at Misguided, said the firm had cut the number of businesses it worked with in Leicester - where many of the factories are based - from 35 to just 20 due to concerns about pay and conditions at some sites there.

After the hearing, Ms Creagh said: "Evidence we heard today justifies our concerns that the current system allows fashion retailers to mark their own homework when it comes to workers' rights, fair pay and sustainability.

"Marks and Spencer are supposed to be a leading light in corporate responsibility, but even they pulled out of a scheme seeking to achieve living wages for garment workers through collective bargaining.

"Boohoo did not convince us that it had a grip on the potential illegal underpayment of their Leicester-based workers."

She added that it was "shocking" to learn during the hearing that Misguided staff who went to check on conditions at a factory were allegedly assaulted by its owners, adding that it "begs the question - what on Earth was going on inside?".

The seismic shock of Brexit will change the UK’s politics for ever / May’s Brexit deal is already doomed. Here’s how the Christmas meltdown could play out



The seismic shock of Brexit will change the UK’s politics for ever
Rafael Behr
Party politics is sailing into a constitutional hurricane, where many things will be thrown overboard – policies, MPs, leaders

 @rafaelbehr
Tue 27 Nov 2018 06.00 GMT Last modified on Tue 27 Nov 2018 07.03 GMT

Lightning strikes near the Houses of Parliament, in London, in July 2009.
 ‘The parties that emerge on the other side of this storm will not be the same ones we have now.’ Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA
Parliament’s verdict on Theresa May’s Brexit deal is struggling to match its billing as a “meaningful vote”, since no one can say what the prime minister’s defeat would really mean. It is especially unpredictable because the battles to come will not run along party lines. Many MPs decided long ago that their Brexit choices transcended attachment to a red or blue rosette. They might have party whips on their backs, but they feel history’s eye on them more keenly.

One Labour veteran, witness to many a parliamentary rebellion, describes loyalties in the Commons today as the most fluid since the repeal of the corn laws 172 years ago. That tussle over tariffs brought down a prime minister, split the Conservative party and created a new Liberal one.

Today’s Tories look more divided than Labour, but that is because a governing party has to do Brexit, while the opposition only has to talk about it. May has made unpopular choices that Jeremy Corbyn pretends do not need making. Labour’s policy is to engineer a general election, win it, then cook up an alchemist Brexit that keeps the benefits of the single market without the obligations of EU membership. The unavailability of that combination has been proven many times.

If Tory MPs cared only about party unity, they would rally behind May’s deal. Their goal would be to get over the finish line without sweating over the small print, mint the commemorative coins and change the subject – enjoying the respite of a transition period before too many people realised they had been diddled. But neither hardcore leavers nor remainers are prepared to play along. Tory Brexit ultras demand a new deal, knowing there is no time to get one. They are just flapping their arms in anticipation of a run at the no-deal cliff edge. But if that is the way things are heading, many pro-European Tories would take their chances on a referendum with a view to aborting Brexit altogether.

For the hard-right Conservatives, Brexit is one stage in a still more radical project – a hybrid of Ukippish nationalism and deregulated market free-for-all. Tory moderates dream of rehabilitating their party’s one-nation tradition and its social conscience. May is still in office mainly because a leadership contest would prise that ideological schism open beyond repair. No Tory can name a candidate to unite the party; many can think of someone whose victory would force them to quit.

Corbyn has more job security than May, but it is built on a devoted membership, not a loyal parliamentary cohort. Even if Labour MPs vote en bloc against the Brexit deal it will be for divergent reasons. Some share the leader’s ambition to provoke a dissolution of parliament. Others dread a general election, but think it unlikely and expect party policy to switch to a second referendum as the next best thing. A third tranche is torn between the impulse to satisfy leave-voting constituents and hatred of May’s government. They want Brexit done, but will avoid throwing the prime minister a lifeline when the waters are closing over her head.

Corbyn himself does not seem naturally interested in Britain’s EU membership. His most commonly stated preference since the referendum has been to leave on terms that remove the UK from single market rules on competition and industrial subsidy (a pretty hard Brexit). But he is mindful that many of his supporters wish he would rally for remain. Corbyn’s ideal outcome would probably be to get Brexit with none of the blame for Brexit. So the Labour leadership has circled over May’s government like vultures, watching a wounded creature crawl across an arid plain. There are worse strategies. Scavenging is an effective evolutionary model, albeit not an inspiring one.

Corbyn has reasons to avoid getting involved in the People’s Vote campaign. It would put him in public alliance with liberal Tories and Blairites, the kind of people with whom he does not share platforms (including the actual Tony Blair). The opposition leader’s team also suspects the People’s Vote movement of incubating a new party and sees no value in political insurgencies outside Labour’s control.

That isn’t entirely paranoid. There are Labour MPs who want a referendum but would not be too disappointed if their leader were to be seen to obstruct one. That decision would give moderate rebels a cause to break with the party on terms that might carry some sympathy with the membership. For Corbyn to be exposed as unequivocally pro-Brexit would test the faith of all but his most dedicated acolytes. The remnants of pre-2015 Labour would fall away and the party, for better or worse, would emerge purely Corbynite.

What form that rupture takes is unclear. Volatility shakes up old allegiances but it doesn’t remove all obstacles to the establishment of new parties. The electoral system still punishes political startup ventures. A craving for different leadership doesn’t conjure ideal leaders into being. And the call of the tribe should never be underestimated. In an election, many MPs who claim now to have floating loyalties would drift back to their original side.

Many, but not all. Much depends on how long the turbulence lasts and how extreme it gets. England’s two main parties are sailing into a rare constitutional hurricane and it isn’t clear whether their vessels are sound. All manner of things will be thrown overboard – policies, MPs, leaders. Some will jump before they are pushed. The parties that emerge on the other side of this storm will not be the same ones we have now, even if they sail under familiar names and colours.

• Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist

May’s Brexit deal is already doomed. Here’s how the Christmas meltdown could play out

Matthew d'Ancona
Dark arts will be used to win support for the prime minister’s plan. But the key question is what happens when MPs reject it

Sun 25 Nov 2018 15.00 GMT Last modified on Mon 26 Nov 2018 11.56 GMT

 ‘Theresa May should have been wearing black and a mantilla.’ Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
It was a funeral masquerading as a baptism. In Brussels, Theresa May’s Brexit deal was welcomed into the world by the UK’s 27 soon-to-be-ex-partners and the priesthood of the European commission.

Yet she should have been wearing black and a mantilla. The deal is, as Tony Blair told the BBC’s Andrew Marr, a “dodo”. In her open letter to the nation, the prime minister declared that the agreement “is in our national interest – one that works for our whole country and all of our people … a deal for a brighter future”.

But this is an ex-deal. The only reason it is sitting on its perch is because it has been nailed there.

 It is dead because it simply cannot survive the ‘meaningful vote' in the House of Commons expected on 10 December
It is dead because – barring a truly dramatic realignment of parliamentary opinion – it simply cannot survive the “meaningful vote” in the House of Commons expected on 10 December.

Julian Smith, the government chief whip – who looks like a dentist who positively enjoys giving his patients insufficient Novocaine – is now May’s most important cabinet colleague by far. In the next fortnight he and his team must use every conceivable inducement and threat to reach the magic total of 320 votes: knighthoods, peerages, gongs and legislative time will be offered to waverers. Those MPs who oppose the deal will be asked whether their families would really enjoy reading about their sexual indiscretions in the newspapers. Most of this nasty work will be carried out by intermediaries (even whips need plausible deniability). But any and every tactic available to the government will be used; this is life and death, and no time for political squeamishness.

But I still don’t see how Smith does it. Some MPs, strapped to the dentist’s chair, will indeed give in when he holds the drill in front of their eyes and asks: “Is your vote safe?” But I have yet to be convinced that he can get from around 260 (if you assume, generously, the support for the deal of 15 Labour rebels) to 320.

What really matters, then, is not the first Commons vote, but the second. Let us assume that the PM is defeated next month: the political world is then plunged into an extraordinary Christmas crisis. May could, of course, force the issue with a confidence motion – or simply resign on the spot (unlikely, given her recent pattern of behaviour). Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, conceded to Marr that it was “not possible to rule out” the wholesale collapse of the government.

The PM might yet, in any case, face the more parochial challenge of a Conservative vote of confidence, threatening her position as party leader: Jacob Rees-Mogg only has the names of 26 Tory MPs in his elegantly tailored pocket, but that could easily increase to the necessary 48 if May’s deal was rejected by the Commons.

The EU would also have to consider its response. Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, declared that “this is the best deal possible. This is the only deal possible.” The history of diplomacy suggests that most such statements contain a footnote written in invisible ink: “Unless we have to amend it a bit.” One can still imagine a few scraps being thrown May’s way to show good faith.

But the fundamental controversies etched into the deal – the Irish border “backstop”, the continued role of the European court of justice, the prospect of the UK remaining indefinitely in the customs union – are not going to be removed by Brussels in a moment of shocked epiphany. Tweaks, maybe; core alterations, absolutely not.

Deplorably, senior government figures are actively hoping that the markets will respond with panic to the parliamentary failure of the deal, and, to adapt Dr Johnson, focus the minds of MPs sufficiently to deliver a majority second time round. The precedent cited in this context is the Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp) devised by George W Bush’s administration in 2008 to prop up the financial system after the crash. After its initial rejection by Congress, the US stock market fell by seven percentage points. Congress promptly endorsed the plan.

But this is a ridiculous parallel to draw. The crash was a clear and present danger. The Brexit deal is simply a damn-fool plan drawn up in response to the result of a referendum involving lies, illegality and foreign interference. The crash could not be halted by popular will: fortunately, with Brexit there is precisely that option, in the form of a people’s vote.

Expect the campaign for a fresh referendum to gather in strength after the parliamentary vote. Those who have always felt that a no-deal Brexit was the cleanest and most honest option – the oxymoronic “managed” no-deal of Dominic Raab’s fantasies – will shift up a gear. Within the cabinet, a new “gang of five” (Philip Hammond, Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Lidington) are reported by the Mail on Sunday to be ready to quit if a no-deal exit becomes a serious prospect.

Even as May shook hands with Jean-Claude Juncker, the political village was transforming itself into a noisy constitutional souk. At every stall, the traders offer alternative models: “Norway for now!”; “Canada ++!”; “Switzerland!”; “Get yer article 50 extension here!” None of these alternatives, it should be emphasised, has been seriously countenanced by the EU. But they are already being offered to curious MPs at early-bird prices.

What unites this cacophonous marketplace is the absolute assumption that the deal will fail in December. The 585-page agreement and its 26-page political annex are already regarded as redundant. The variables are dizzying, the stakes vertiginous. The worst news that May has ever had to confront is that the past two-and-a-half years were the easy bit.

• Matthew d’Ancona is a Guardian columnist

terça-feira, 27 de novembro de 2018

From Airbnb to city bikes, the ‘sharing economy’ has been seized by big money



From Airbnb to city bikes, the ‘sharing economy’ has been seized by big money
Evgeny Morozov

To flourish, the informal digital networks providing new services needed to be protected from the market
“When Uber, Airbnb and similar platforms were young and tiny, it was easy to believe that a global revolution would liberate more informal economic activity. Out with professional drivers, limousines and hotels; in with amateurs, bicycles and shared couches!”

Tue 27 Nov 2018 06.00 GMT Last modified on Tue 27 Nov 2018 07.04 GMT

‘The year 2018 is to the sharing economy what 2006 was to user-generated content: it can only go downhill.’ Illustration: Mark Long
Of all the ideologies spawned by Silicon Valley, that of techno-populism – the making of empty promises on the basis of seismic digital disruption – is the strangest. Promising a world of immediate and painless personal empowerment, techno-populism is ambiguous enough to unite big tech firms, startups, cryptocurrency aficionados and even some political parties.

The history is murky, but we do know the date when it went mainstream. It can be traced to Time magazine’s selection, in 2006, of “You” – the millions of ordinary people behind the user-generated web of the 2000s – as its Person of the Year. That choice ingrained techno-populist themes deep into our collective unconscious.

While actual contributors to sites such as Wikipedia or Flickr were relatively few, the celebration of them delayed and deflected questions about corporate power and the durability of the emerging digital utopia. Just a few years later, that utopia was no more: highly centralised and dominated by a handful of platforms, the web was a shadow of its former eccentric self.

 When Uber and Airbnb were young, it was easy to believe a global revolution would liberate informal economic activity
In 2018, the omnipotent creative user of 2006 has become a zombie-like content junkie, lethally addicted to scrolling and liking, forever trapped in the invisible cages of data brokers. A noble effort to make everyone an honorary member of the Bloomsbury group has instead condemned all of us to the eternal rosters of Cambridge Analytica.

So the myth of the user-as-an-artist is gone. But today the spirit of techno-populism thrives on two subsequent equally potent myths: those of the user-as-entrepreneur and the user-as-consumer. They promise a lot – more decentralisation, efficiency, informality – while concealing the actual dynamics of the digital economy. As a result, the digital future that does await us – one of centralisation, inefficiency and control – is harder to discern.

When Uber, Airbnb and similar platforms were young and tiny, it was easy to believe that a global revolution would liberate more informal economic activity. Out with professional drivers, limousines and hotels; in with amateurs, bicycles and shared couches!

It was an appealing vision, rooted in the countercultural rebellion against authority, hierarchy and expertise. That vision, however, lacked one thing: backing from political parties or social movements. Those parties, once in power, could have ensured that local platforms had adequate public funding not to be subject to the brutal laws of competition, protecting them from deep-pocketed commercial competitors.

A similar effort in the previous century, a political project par excellence, gave us the welfare state. Instead of opening the provision of education or healthcare services to private providers, we deliberately sealed those domains from the pressures of the market.

The welfare state that emerged had some hierarchical excesses, but it was a reasonable compromise, given the political and technological limitations of that era. Today, one can imagine a more horizontal provision of such services, more respectful of local autonomy, democratic decision-making and individual idiosyncrasies. The same goes for the economy as a whole.

New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas says the state will receive approximately $760,000 under a $148 million nationwide settlement between 50 states and Uber. The settlement announced Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2018, by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan stems from the ride-hailing company’s yearlong delay in reporting a data breach to its affected drivers about the theft of their personal information. The states sued Uber, saying the company violated laws requiring it to promptly notify people affected by the breach. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)



‘The need to achieve profitability means Uber will have no qualms about ditching its drivers for fully automated vehicles.’ Photograph: Seth Wenig/AP

Digital platforms, as intermediaries of interaction between citizens and firms, and also citizens and institutions, should be of great importance to this transformation. However, no similar political project – aimed at keeping the newly democratised state and economy decommodified – emerged. As a result, the laudable aims of empowerment, localism and horizontalism were to be achieved by cosying up to a mighty but treacherous ally – by synchronising the heartbeat and needs of digital platforms with those of global capital.

It worked nicely, at least in the beginning. Car-sharing, bike-sharing and flat-sharing all exploded, thanks to huge injections of capital, much of it from sovereign wealth funds and venture capitalists. How nice it was of Saudi Arabia to pour its oil revenues – through deals with Japan’s SoftBank – into subsidising ride-sharing and food delivery all over the world.

Those offering services or goods on digital platforms, as well as those buying or renting them, had reasons for jubilation. The former got a way to monetise their idle resources, from vacant apartments to free time. The latter got discounts on rides, meals and bookings. Many struggling municipalities could now count on digital platforms to extend or replace crumbling infrastructure and facilitate tourism.

This fairytale has come to an end. The year 2018 is to the sharing economy what 2006 was to user-generated content: it can only go downhill. Platforms won’t disappear; far from it. However, the initial lofty objectives that legitimised their activities will give way to the prosaic and occasionally violent imperative imposed by the iron law of competition: the quest for profitability.

Uber may help some make ends meet through occasional driving gigs. The need to achieve profitability, however, means that it will have no qualms about ditching its drivers for fully automated vehicles; a company that lost $4.5 bn in 2017 alone would be silly to do otherwise.

Airbnb may have presented itself as an ally of the middle classes against entrenched economic interests. But the drive for profits already forces it to partner with the likes of Brookfield Property Partners, one of the world’s largest real-estate firms, to develop Airbnb-branded hotel-like residencies, often by purchasing and converting existing apartment blocks. Few entrenched interests – save, perhaps, for the tenants who see their apartment blocks become Airbnb-run hotels – get disrupted here.

Given the huge sums involved, the most likely outcome of current battles in sectors such as ride-sharing will be more centralisation, with just one or two platforms controlling each region. Uber’s surrender – in China, India and Russia, as well as much of southeast Asia and Latin America – to local players, many of them also backed by Saudi money, suggests as much.

And the old and hierarchical industries will not stay idle for ever, as the experience of the previous digital revolution teaches us. Just look at the recent acquisition of Spin – a promising electronic scooter startup – by Ford.

Such developments contradict the techno-populist rhetoric. They also generate a lot of waste, with piles of abandoned bikes proliferating across the globe. Increased traffic on clogged streets – the consequence of letting global capital conquer ride-sharing instead of developing far more efficient public transportation – is already here.

Mountains of waste generated by delivery startups is hardly the sustainable future advertised by techno-populists. The heavily subsidised fares and meal prices – the temporary consequence of intense competition – will not last; heavy losses will need to be recouped by the few winning firms – most likely, via higher prices.

Today’s myth of the omnipotent consumer-entrepreneur is dead. Techno-populism, however, will survive, making sweeping promises about the blockchain, artificial intelligence or the smart city.

Many of these promises will look appealing. But without a robust political agenda – an agenda that harbours no illusions about the ability of global capital to promote social emancipation – they will produce the opposite effects. We can’t buy our way to a more democratic society – and certainly not with Saudi money.

• Evgeny Morozov is the author of To Save Everything, Click Here

"Os hóspedes do alojamento local gastam muito menos dinheiro e geram muito menos empregos"



"Os hóspedes do alojamento local gastam muito menos dinheiro e geram muito menos empregos"

ENTREVISTAS VISÃO 24.11.2018 às 7h57


 Juan Requeso Liberal esteve em Lisboa enquanto orador da Conferência Património Cultural – Desafios XXI, realizada no âmbito do Ano Europeu do Património Cultural, na Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian

Diana Tinoco

Leia ou releia a entrevista ao espanhol Juan Requejo Liberal, especialista em turismo, planeamento territorial e ambiental e também em estratégias de desenvolvimento

VÂNIA MAIA
Jornalista

Adora fazer analogias entre a comida e o turismo. Afinal, em ambos os casos é essencial definir a quantidade certa. Mestre em Economia e em Geografia, pela Universidade Autónoma de Barcelona, Juan Requejo Liberal é especialista em turismo, planeamento territorial e ambiental e também em estratégias de desenvolvimento. Aos 63 anos, já aconselhou vários governos e autarquias nestas temáticas, incluindo em Portugal, e igualmente organizações internacionais, como a Comissão Europeia e as Nações Unidas. Residente em Sevilha, esteve em Lisboa, cidade que conhece bem, enquanto orador da Conferência Património Cultural – Desafios XXI, realizada no âmbito do Ano Europeu do Património Cultural. Crítico do alojamento local, identifica alguns sinais de alarme na capital portuguesa. Tal como o movimento slow food surgiu em oposição à fast food, acredita que também haverá uma mobilização para viajar melhor, em resposta ao turismo massificado.

Gostamos de fazer turismo, mas não de turistas?

Não creio que não gostemos de turistas. Não há qualquer problema nos territórios onde o número e a forma de os turistas se comportarem são adequados. O problema surge quando determinadas zonas recebem um excesso de visitantes, tendo em conta a sua capacidade de acolhimento.

É inevitável que os centros históricos das cidades se transformem em parques temáticos para turistas?

Esse fenómeno tem-se desenvolvido muito rapidamente, assente na combinação entre voos low cost e plataformas de alojamento de curta duração. O comportamento nas grandes massas urbanas tem algumas semelhanças com a indústria da fast food: as pessoas alimentam-se de calorias, ficam obesas, mas não resolvem os seus problemas nutritivos. Uma boa parte do fenómeno turístico massificado está relacionada com esta conduta. Os centros históricos das cidades podem ser recuperados, na medida em que sejamos capazes de garantir que só lá chegam visitantes interessados numa experiência cultural densa, e não numa visita banal de colecionismo, tipo fast food.

Mas sem turismo os centros históricos não estariam condenados ao abandono?

Absolutamente. É necessário alimentar a Humanidade, mas não é preciso torná-la obesa. Com o turismo passa-se o mesmo. As cidades podem utilizar o turismo em seu benefício, seja para gerar valor seja para incentivar a interação cultural. Nas condições atuais, tal interação não é possível, uma vez que há um desequilíbrio absoluto entre o número de visitantes e o de habitantes. Os residentes não contactam com os visitantes porque não podem viver onde eles estão. Os preços do arrendamento são-lhes inacessíveis, e os proprietários vão viver para outras zonas das cidades, alugando as suas casas e ganhando dinheiro suficiente para a subsistência.

Defende que as plataformas de alojamento temporário prejudicam o interesse público. Porquê?

O Estado é constitucionalmente responsável por não dormirmos na rua e por termos alojamento digno. O parque residencial deve ser habitado pelos residentes das cidades. É do interesse público que assim seja. Depois há o espaço público: se o perdemos, porque o comércio já não é para nós, mas para vender o que os turistas precisam, o interesse público é afetado. Curiosamente, também há um efeito ricochete relativamente ao interesse turístico. Visitar uma cidade onde só existem turistas e lojas para eles não é o mesmo do que visitar uma cidade onde vivem pessoas com a sua singularidade cultural.

Mas o alojamento temporário foi fundamental para a sobrevivência de muitas famílias, durante o período da crise económica.

Sem dúvida. O que eu tenho defendido em lugares históricos, como Santiago de Compostela, é que a solução passa por alugar as casas, sem se perder o residente. Na origem, estas plataformas de alojamento temporário pretendiam fomentar a economia colaborativa e não uma economia especulativa. Ainda que sejam famílias a especular, não deixa de ser especulação.

Atribui, então, ao turismo os problemas habitacionais das cidades?

Totalmente. Milhões de pessoas com poucos recursos viajam para as cidades e provocam que os habitantes mais vulneráveis desses locais fiquem mais pobres. Isto gera um conflito entre populações consumistas pouco endinheiradas e populações residentes com poucos recursos, que têm de dedicar uma fatia cada vez maior dos seus parcos rendimentos para pagar aos senhorios.

Como se resolve esse problema?

É fundamental ter uma estratégia turística bem definida. Atualmente, os movimentos massificados geram um visitante de baixa rentabilidade. Os hóspedes do alojamento local gastam muito menos dinheiro e geram muito menos empregos. E o turismo interessa-nos pelo seu potencial de criar riqueza. Temos de encontrar fórmulas através das quais o uso do território seja desconcentrado, no espaço e no tempo, com uma importante participação de turistas com um gasto médio diário alto.

Isso não será elitista?

Pode soar elitista, mas não é. O comportamento dos turistas está estudado, e quem viaja não o faz gastando o último euro que lhe resta. A questão não é: se não viajar desta forma não o pode fazer de outra maneira. Em vez de fazer oito viagens por ano, por exemplo, pode fazer três, mas mais interessantes, profundas e culturais. Não queremos que gastem dinheiro em elementos de luxo, mas no pagamento a pessoas que permitam conhecer o património e vivenciá-lo. São empregos que se criam. Não é elitista; é uma decisão de consumo.

Mas não podemos impedir as pessoas de viajar...

Claro que não, mas em vez de comprarem oito camisas baratas, as pessoas podem comprar duas boas camisas. Quer dizer: não é necessário viajar tanto, nem que tanta gente viaje ao mesmo tempo ou que todos se movimentem nas mesmas zonas exíguas das cidades... Temos de tomar decisões diferentes: menos viagens, mais bem planificadas e com experiências locais.

Não é uma interferência na forma como as pessoas querem viver?

Sim, é. A comunidade também pode interferir nas grandes decisões, tal como fazem as empresas. Devemos condicionar e influenciar as opções dos nossos amabilíssimos e desejadíssimos turistas a nosso favor.

Temos esse direito?

Temos, sim. Em primeiro lugar, porque temos direito às nossas cidades. Em segundo, porque temos o direito de procurar que as nossas cidades respondam às estratégias que nos servem melhor, e não apenas aos interesses dos operadores turísticos ou dos proprietários de alojamento local.

O que quer dizer quando se refere ao “turismo sem inteligência”?

É o turismo passivo. A inteligência é perceber que, se está a acontecer uma coisa que não é interessante, se os direitos dos turistas estão em conflito com os direitos dos habitantes das cidades e com a conservação do nosso património, então temos de pensar no que podemos fazer de diferente.

É inevitável que os destinos turísticos sejam cada vez mais parecidos uns com os outros?

Inevitável não é, mas nós sentimos essa pressão. Tal como sentimos com a fast food: será que ela vai provocar o desaparecimento da cultura gastronómica espanhola ou portuguesa? Depende de nós. A “american way of life” continua a impor-se. A China ainda não quer influenciar a nível linguístico e cultural, mas se desejar ter uma posição hegemónica não poderá ignorar estes fatores. Teremos de ver como tudo isto se relacionará.

Parece-lhe que Lisboa compete pelo melhor preço ou pela diferenciação da oferta turística?

Não tenho conhecimento suficiente para dar uma resposta conclusiva. A minha perceção é que Lisboa está a sofrer uma grande banalização, mas ainda conserva muitos elementos valiosos na diferenciação da sua oferta. No entanto, está numa situação de risco bastante elevada.

Quais são os sinais de perigo?

Vi alguns números sobre o abandono dos habitantes citadinos. Uma cidade que não tenha habitantes não é uma cidade viva. E o número crescente de visitantes... Já se sente a temperatura a subir e, quando isso acontece, temos de fazer um diagnóstico.

Como pode o turismo ser mais sustentável?

A palavra sustentável é problemática. Utilizamo-la para nos referirmos ao que fazemos sem provocar danos, mas, mais do que desenvolvimento sustentável, devemos falar de desenvolvimento compassivo. O turismo tem um elemento básico de insustentabilidade: as viagens aéreas. Agora, podemos desenvolver formas de turismo mais adaptadas. Em Navarra, criámos uma ponte aérea com Frankfurt e chegámos a acordo para cada turista pagar uma taxa que, depois, é aplicada na reflorestação. Temos de entender o turismo como o principal instrumento de redistribuição da riqueza mundial. Em qualquer parte do mundo, por mais pobre que seja, quando alguém pensa em melhorar a sua vida, pensa no turismo – mas é um “material altamente inflamável”. É preciso manejá-lo com muito cuidado.

O património pode ser uma das principais vítimas do turismo massificado?

O aumento de intensidade do turismo faz com que ele passe de uma função nutritiva para uma função predadora. As ramblas, quando eu vivia em Barcelona, eram o nosso local de encontro, e os turistas também lá estavam porque elas eram um lugar cosmopolita e atrativo. Agora, não há nenhum barcelonês nas ramblas. Os turistas devoraram tudo. Os culpados não são os turistas; somos nós que deixámos que isto acontecesse. São turistas a ver turistas.

Como imagina o turismo do futuro?

Com o desenvolvimento da Ásia, o fenómeno turístico será muito mais intenso. Atrás virá a América Latina e África. E a maior pressão de visitas será sobre a Europa. No entanto, acredito que é possível ter um turismo inteligente, por exemplo, em aliança com as novas tecnologias. Podemos utilizar a Inteligência Artificial em nosso benefício; em vez de trabalharmos todos em função de Silicon Valley, podemos utilizá-la de forma mais humana, identificando os padrões de consumo que interessam, por exemplo, a Lisboa. Agora, para conseguirmos alterar as potentíssimas tendências de mercado, vamos precisar de toda a ajuda do mundo: regulatória, tecnológica, social...

Concorda que o turismo é uma indústria de paz?

Sim, absolutamente. Tem perigos consumistas, mas não é intrinsecamente consumista. É uma indústria de paz e também de intercâmbio cultural. Quando não estamos a falar de viagens superficiais, de colecionismo -‒ essas geram muito pouca interação.

Conhece bem Barcelona, um exemplo de gestão turística desastrosa. O que resta da identidade da cidade?

Resistem ícones mortos. Gaudí converteu-se na identidade de Barcelona, mas Barcelona não é apenas Gaudí. A cidade era enormemente atrativa devido à sua condição mediterrânica, à sua tolerância e ao seu cosmopolitismo. Tudo isto se ressente bastante. Muitos visitantes já só veem outros estrangeiros. Não há contacto social e humano de qualquer tipo. Só se identifica Barcelona com os azulejos de Gaudí.

Como se poderia ter evitado essa descaracterização?

Quando se decidiu tirar mais partido do turismo, depois da oportunidade gerada pelas Olimpíadas [de 1992], acelerou-se a fundo. O problema foi ter corrido demasiado bem. Além disso, Barcelona teve a má sorte de estar sincronizada com o advento das multidões – e elas devoraram-na. Demorou-se a reagir, alguns pensavam que eram resistências injustificadas de alguns cidadãos intolerantes, mas agora todos estão conscientes do problema. Há empenho da autarquia para se inverter a situação. Perdeu-se algo essencial: a identidade – mas será recuperada.

Continua por esclarecer de quem são os terrenos onde está o maltratado jardim das traseiras do Fórum Picoas



Continua por esclarecer de quem são os terrenos onde está o maltratado jardim das traseiras do Fórum Picoas
Samuel Alemão
Texto
27 Novembro, 2018

Passado quase um mês sobre a revelação da existência de um diferendo entre a Câmara Municipal de Lisboa (CML) e a Altice a propósito da manutenção do espaço público ajardinado situado nas traseiras do Fórum Picoas, a dúvida subsiste: a quem pertencem estes terrenos? As duas entidades têm, até ao momento, negado deter o direito de propriedade sobre esta fracção situada num local bastante central da capital e que serve de ligação entre a Avenida Fontes Pereira de Melo e a Praça José Fontana. Razão pela qual, aliás, ambas se têm vindo a recusar, nos últimos dois anos, a cuidar da mesma, contribuindo assim para o seu progressivo estado de degradação. Sabe-se, entretanto, que já ocorreu uma operação de manutenção do jardim, a 6 de Novembro. Ou seja, após a divergência de versões ter sido revelada, a 2 de Novembro, por O Corvo – que, desde então, tem questionado de forma reiterada a CML sobre os direitos de propriedade daquele terreno -, na sequência dos factos tornados públicos na sessão de 30 de Outubro da Assembleia Municipal de Lisboa (AML).

Nessa reunião do órgão autárquico, Sá Fernandes, vereador com o pelouro da Estrutura Verde, garantia que, ante o estado de degradação daquela parcela de espaço público – reabilitada, no início de 2017, no âmbito das obras de requalificação do Eixo Central entre Marquês do Pombal e Entrecampos -, a câmara teria tentado por diversas vezes que a empresa multinacional arranjasse o espaço verde. Como isso não aconteceu, o caminho só poderia ser um, assegurou então: “A alternativa que está a ser estudada e, em breve, deve ser aplicada é a de a própria câmara arranjar o espaço e apresentar a conta à Altice”. Foi com base na suposição de que os terrenos eram da empresa, aliás, que todos os partidos abordaram a questão durante a referida sessão da assembleia. Discussão surgida da apresentação pelo CDS-PP de uma recomendação para que a gestão e manutenção do referido espaço fossem assumidas pela autarquia – e que acabou por ser chumbada pela maioria dos deputados municipais.

As dúvidas instalaram-se, porém, após a multinacional ter contraditado de forma evidente, nesse artigo d’O Corvo, a versão dada pelo vereador. Questionada sobre as razões do alegado abandono do espaço e sobre as medidas que estaria a pensar tomar, fonte oficial da Altice Portugal respondia: “A propriedade da Altice acima do solo confina-se às paredes do ‘Fórum Picoas’, sendo que o jardim é propriedade da Câmara Municipal de Lisboa. Portanto, a responsabilidade pela manutenção dos referidos espaços cabe, em primeiro lugar, à Câmara Municipal”. E não se ficava por aqui. Revelava ainda a realização de uma suposta reunião entre o presidente da autarquia, Fernando Medina (PS), e a administração da empresa, durante a qual o responsável máximo pela câmara municipal da capital portuguesa teria assumido culpas pelo estado de degradação da área ajardinada e se comprometera a mudar tal estado de coisas.

Segundo a versão da companhia de telecomunicações, “este tema foi colocado pela própria Altice Portugal em audiência com o próprio Presidente do Município, em que este se penitenciou pelo estado em que se encontram estes espaços verdes”. A empresa garantia ainda que “sempre se demonstrou disponível para o encontro de uma solução, sendo que até ao momento não obteve qualquer resposta às pretensões e preocupações deixadas em sede de audiência”. Exposta tamanha contradição, O Corvo perguntou por escrito à Câmara de Lisboa, ainda a 2 de Novembro, data da publicação do mencionado artigo, a quem pertence, afinal, o referido terreno: à autarquia ou à empresa? Apesar da insistência mantida desde então – a última tentativa foi no passado dia 23 de Novembro (sexta-feira) -, a questão continua sem resposta. Entretanto, a 14 de Novembro, O Corvo interrogou novamente a Altice a propósito da referida reunião entre a sua administração e Medina, nomeadamente sobre a data exacta e o seu local da realização. Fonte oficial da empresa disse que a empresa não tinha mais informações a acrescentar sobre a matéria, confirmando, porém, a realização da mesma.

Perante a persistência das dúvidas e contradições expostas por O Corvo, os deputados municipais do CDS-PP apresentaram recentemente (19 de Novembro) um requerimento, pedindo uma clarificação por parte da autarquia, “a bem da qualidade de vida de todos aqueles que utilizam e usufruem daquele espaço”. Além de questionarem a câmara sobre a quem pertencem efectivamente os terrenos, os centristas lançam outras perguntas, entre elas se prevendo a possibilidade de os mesmos serem afinal detidos pela empresa de telecomunicações. “Sendo da Altice, os mesmos têm usufruto público? É da responsabilidade da Altice a conservação e manutenção do espaço?”, perguntam, sem esquecer que a mesma poderá até ter sido consultada no âmbito da intervenção ali realizada aquando da requalificação do Eixo Central. Mas no documento também se pede à CML para esclarecer se a tal reunião entre Fernando Medina e Altice aconteceu mesmo e que diligências daí terão resultado para assegurar a manutenção do espaço verde.