Friction in Amsterdam’s living room

Friction for thought and growth
Public space is where the magic of a city can be found, not in its polished surfaces, but in its friction. This magic is found when we encounter other ways of living and thinking; in unexpected interactions that collide with our assumptions and moments that widen our perspectives. This magic thrives within a public space understood as a commons: a collective, non-commodified space. There, we live and interact with each other, not for the purpose of economic activity but for connection and social growth. This collective magic can be found within a liberation day festival in Westerpark, a Keti Koti emancipation day celebration in Dam square, or neighbors bringing their tables outside to enjoy a meal in the fleeting summer nights. 

Public space’s magic comes from its contradictions, from voices that grate against each other, yet still share the same bench, street corner, or park. These contradictions are not obstacles; they are sparks that inspire much-needed thought and democratic communication, setting the groundwork for increasing social ties and social growth. It is through these moments of disagreement and discussion that urban problems are confronted and recognized, where uncomfortable truths are brought into the light and we collaborate to improve our city. Public space as a commons is constantly changing, a co-production of whoever is existing together at a certain time. This collective creation allows the city to progress with the evolving needs of its residents. Amsterdam’s 2017 Ruimte en Duurzaamheid plan¹ echoes the value of a commons, stating public space should be the living room of all Amsterdammers. In contrast to passive streets you move through on your way to work, the shop or home; in public space, we come together. If this living room is to be worth having, it must be one where we think aloud, and hear others to negotiate our shared urban reality.

Convenience Prioritization 
The increasing pressure of privatization and commodification poses a threat to the magic of public space as a commons. There is an accusation that public space is becoming smoothed [see Renee Boer, Smooth City], meaning agreeability and consumption convenience are prioritized over collectivity and thought. Where a collective living room has elements of difference, Amsterdam public space is becoming frictionless. This means space is designed to be exclusive and commodified; bridge pavements are roped off for fries queues, the city is meticulously manicured for perfect attractiveness, and we can use Thuisbezorgd to avoid interacting in public space at all. While agreeable spaces and convenience are nice, the smoothing of the cityscape creates an inauthentic veneer. When public space and urban life is designed and designated for consumption the city becomes exclusive for the rich and loses space for spontaneity and interaction. The Kunst en Cultuur 2023 plan² echoes the effects of smoothing, stating Amsterdam is facing increasing isolation and polarization. Without space for community reflection and experimentation, the city risks social stagnation, unable to address urban problems.

Cityscape Communication 
While there are many elements of public space where the tension between commons and commodification take place, the communication in Amsterdam’s visual landscape is an important focus. Communication in the cityscape matters; it may be the only time we interact with ideas outside of our algorithmic internet echo-bubble. Messages you read while biking, walking or busing through the city are the same as the person next to you, at least for now [see data-driven OOH advertising]. Communication varies from municipal signs dictating bike parking zones to corporate product advertisements to venues show posters. These messages not only reflect urban society, they also influence and shape our behavior. That’s why advertisers rent out bus stop billboards and special zuilen spaces. If smoothed public space is an implicit advertisement to spend money, it is no surprise that advertisers wield an unquestioned dominance of communication in the public landscape. The risk is that these advertisers’ messages drown out anything that might provoke thought, lulling us into passive consumption instead of reflection and questioning.

Graffiti is not meant to create space that everyone agrees with or adds profitability to the area, rather, to call attention to something unsettling, urgent, or overlooked.

Communication Commons   
In opposition to agreeable, privatized cityscapes, graffiti reclaims space for discourse and disagreement. Graffiti creates visual interruption, halting the mindless movement from one location to another and forcing us to stop and think. Where advertisers exploit the cityscape for profit, graffiti artists engage in anonymous efforts to activate the urban consciousness. Graffiti is not meant to create space that everyone agrees with or adds profitability to the area, rather, to call attention to something unsettling, urgent, or overlooked. These messages are often dismissed as ‘vandalism’ or ‘ugly’ but should be valued for calling attention to and validating ugly realities. 

The above images show examples of anonymous authors defying smooth communication norms and enforcing a democratic communication commons. They take back space dedicated for advertisers and walls that would otherwise be unnoticed to catalyze thought. These statements set an example that public space can be a collectively produced commons. They use the city as a canvas to generate conversation that anyone can take part in. Graffiti writers break through the inauthentic smooth city image and bring urban problems to the forefront of our public consciousness. This is not decoration, it is democratic discussion. We need to prioritize thinking and disagreement in public space to widen our perspectives and imagine a better city. 

Lessons in Radical Intervention
What can we learn from graffiti and what can we do as Amsterdammers to promote public space for thinking? Draw inspiration from the way graffiti writers boldly assert a right to collective participation in public space. Take part in the conversation. Let the ‘ugly’ or ‘contradicting’ message we see prompt the question, what is the underlying social problem this is pointing to? Instead of experiencing inconvenience and friction as a nuisance against our need to get to the next location, let it be an opportunity to take part in the present and notice the space around you. What do you disagree with, what could be improved, what is hidden? Without disagreement and thinking, we will forget how to discuss and reflect, but most importantly we will forget how to change. 

1) www.assets.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/869895/visie_openbare_ruimte_2025.pdf
2) www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/kunst-cultuur/hoofdlijnen-kunstenplan-2025-2028/