POSITIONING COMPLEXITY THEORY WITHIN PLANNING THEORY AND
PRACTICE
CHETTIPARAMB. Angelique
Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
angeliquerajan@hotmail.com
Aim of the paper: This paper aims at examining the nature of complexity
theory and positioning it broadly within the domain of planning theory. The
practical domain of application of this positioning is then highlighted.
Approach: The argument is advanced in four sections. The first of these
examines complexity theory (through authors such as Gleick, 1987; Waldrop,
1992; Prigogine and Stengers, 1984, and so on) and draws general conclusions
- both epistemologically and ontologically - about the nature of the same for
the social domain. The second section examines some major trends within
social science theory in general and planning theory in particular, Examined
in particular are the systems, realist, post-structuralist, and post modern
movements (Chettiparamb, 2005). The third section combines the insights
from the previous two sections to result in advancing a position for complexity
theory within planning. The section discusses ways in which the theory is
being explored within planning identifying the trends and the directions of
development. These are then critiqued from a dual viewpoint - that of
'essentialism' and 'pragmatism' that draws upon a metatheoretical (for
instance Zhao, 2001, Bunge, 1973) positions and a parallel literature of
interdisciplinarity (for instance Klein, 1996; Aram, 2004) in general. The
fourth section looks at the domain of planning practice and reflects upon how
the theory as understood in the discussions in section three can then
contribute and inform planning practice.
Relevance of the work: Discourses on and with complexity theory are
increasingly gaining prominence within planning theory and thought. However
due to the diversity of ways in which it is used, the domain and usefulness of
the theory is not clearly understood in general. The paper contributes to
clarifying and ordering this domain.
References:
Aram, J. D. (2004) 'Concepts of Interdisciplinarity: Configurations of
Knowledge and Action' In Human Relations 57(4) 379-412.
Bunge, M. (1973) Method, Model and Matter Reidel: Boston Chettiparamb, A.
(2005) Complexity Theory and Planning-methodological Insights. Unpublished
PhD thesis submitted to the School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff
University, UK.
Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos - Making a New Science Abacus : London
Klein, J. (1996) Crossing Boundaries- Knowledge, Disciplinarities and
Interdisciplinarities University Press of Virginia: London.
Prigogine, I and Stengers, I (1984) Order out of Chaos- Man's New Diologue
with Nature. Fontana Paperbacks: London.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992) Complexity - The Emerging Science at the Edge of
Order and Chaos Penguin Books: London
Zhao, S. (2001) 'Metatheorising in Sociology' In Ritzer, G. and Smart, B. (eds)
Handbook of Social Theory Sage Publications: London.
DEALING WITH COMPLEX PROBLEMS
GRUNAU. Jens-Peter
University of Stuttgart, Germany, Stuttgart, Germany
grunau@igp.uni-Stuttgart.de
SCHÖNWANDT, Walter L.
University of Stuttgart, Germany, Stuttgart, Germany
schoenwandt@igp.uni-stuttgart.de
Many planners state, that we are living in an increasingly complex world with
increasingly more (socially constructed) complex problems. Research tries to
capture the nature of complexity in planning and its implications. But how do
we deal with complex problems?
It was essential for us not to limit ourselves to reflecting on problem-solving,
but to create a "guide" with explicit steps to problem-solving for universityteaching and use in practise.
Our approach to planning
Even though real problems are mostly unique, we use a transferable
structure, which describes the steps of planning and helps to handle complex
problems.
In short, the structure includes three key-elements that are not separable und
that influence each other:
-
A problem-solving-cycle ranging from the problem-definition to finding
solutions to implementing them to the evaluation.
-
the background to this cycle are the paradigmatic approaches of those
involved and the "professional community".
-
both points are embedded in an environment with its social, ecological,
economical, political and administrative aspects.
Experience has shown that four aspects are often the foundation of many
planning-processes. They set the scope and the view of the problem, methods
and solutions. Those who define these four points, have the power to define
the solution.
Consequently we focus on these aspects at first:
l) One step is to understand problems before finding solutions by defining the
"big mess" - the situation that someone considers negative and that should be
changed.
This situation is socially constructed and non-objective, thus neither wrong
nor right.
Knowing the "big mess" is relevant, because if you have not understood the
underlying problem, actually solving the problem is luck and not planning.
2) In planning, one never deals with the world “as such", but rather with
descriptions of the world. The used concepts vary from person to person and
between
professions. Concepts
are
thus
subjective
and can
lead to
misunderstandings.
Different definitions of concepts shed a light on different aspects of a problem
und eliminate others. They determine our thinking and actions.
3) If one does not know or ignores the causes that led to the ,big mess" it is
hard to do something against them. The problem will often persist or could
potentially arise again and again.
4) In planning, the underlying paradigmatic approaches of those involved are
important. There is no way around them, as everybody uses subjective
approaches.
These approaches are valuable but also lead to a narrower view of the problem
and the solutions.
Hence it often helps to reflect upon approaches to i.e. find new solutions by
adapting a different approach (reframing).
There are of course many other aspects beyond these four, i.e. defining goals,
finding solutions, deliberating on positive and negative effects of alternatives,
describing those involved and their interests, planning the path to implement
the solutions, just to name a few. But also topics and methods like
communication, participation, project management etc.
In our presentation we will describe how we convey our ideas, focusing on
"problem based learning", a series of questions which lead through our theory
along with content modules, peer to peer reviews, face-to-face meetings and
online elements.
References:
Bunge M. 1996: Finding Philosophy in Social Science
Luhmann N. 2004: Einfuehrung in die Systerntheorie
Schönwandt W. 2002: Planung in der Krise
URBAN PLNNING IN MEXICO: BEYOND THE RATIONAL-COMPREHENSIVE
PLNNING
GUTIERREZ, Juan Jose
UAEM, Toluca, México
Urbania_jj@hotmail.com
Central Topic
In México, it is possible to affirm that within the territorial studies field a very
significant thematic blank can be found when it comes to understand the
concept of the contemporary Urban Planning and to evaluate its scope. A
mechanical thinking process can be observed which is not aware of its origin
nd evolution and in most cases, it leads it to failure as way of anticipation
and conduction of the development and growing of the city.
In practice it has had several limitations, due to the fact that far from
supporting the inclusion of renewed technical criteria, or serving as a basis for
the scientific development of the field, its evolution has been basically directed
towards to increase the normative character of the Urban Planning in our
country It has only been possible to carry out plans on a large scale under the
influence of the rationality criteria promoted by the International Congress of
Modern Architecture (CIAM) and the Athens Charter.
The static character of the Mexican Urban Planning can be easily verified since
its conception as well as its contemporary practice has been historically
influenced by a diversity of paradigms and thinking schools which have suited
the consolidation of a paradigm of its own which supports it. Particularly, it
has been developed on the border of the recent developments of the Planning
Theory in spite of the fact that within our country Urban Planning is clearly
influenced by the Rational-Comprehensive Planning model, a classical base
model widely spread through previous decades whose critics towards its
excessive rational content have favored the construction and permanent
development of alternative models so as to respond the evident complexity of
the current world.
According to the previous, the study of the Planning Theory is emphasized as a
disciplinary base field since considering that Mexican planners have remain
indifferent to its recent statements, it is parting from them that this research
works suggest the fitting of the adopted Urban Planning style.
- Methodology and Data
Due to its scope, the suggested work is fundamentally based on the theoretical
revision of the Planning Theory as a central disciplinary point, although it is
also considered what is related to the mutual feedback relationship between
Urbanism and Planning, whereas the empiric basis has to do with the study of
the Mexican experience regarding Urban Planning from 1976 to date.
- Contributions to Urban Planning Teaching
In Mexico there are no actions which theoretically and methodologically
strengthen Urban Planning parting from the Planning Theory Therefore the
conceptual basis suggested in the present paper is hoped to function as a
contribution to the new knowledge generation within the Urban Research
context frame developed in the Mexican public University, and even though
this paper, particularly refers to the case of Mexico, it is thought to serve as a
basis to explore the conditions of Urban Planning in Latin America seen from
the Planning Theory approach.
References:
Allmendinger, Philip (2001). “Planning in postmodern times”.
Campbell, Scott y Fainstein Susan (eds.) (2002). "Readings in Planning
Theory".
Mandelbaum, Mazza y Burchell (eds.) (2000) "Explorations in Planning
Theory".
Ward, Peter (2004). "México Megaciudad: Desarrollo y Política, 1970 - 2002",
Garza, Gustavo (2003). “La urbanización en México en el siglo XX".
PLANS IN COMPLEX MULTIORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS
HOPKINS, Lewis
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, United States
L-Hopkins@uiuc.edu
Pre-organized session
John Abbott, "A Better Future or a More Certain Future: The Nature of
Metropolitan Plans"
Chris Webster, "Are Some Planning Transactions Inherently Sovereign?"
Nikhil Kaza and Lewis D. Hopkins, “In What Circumstances Should We Plan in
Public?"
References:
see individual paper abstracts
PLANNING AND PLANNING PROCESSES IN COMPLEXITY
HUYS, Menno
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
m.g.huys@tbm.tudelft.nl
GILS, Marcel
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands vangils@fsweurni
Complexity is a true buzzword in many scientific disciplines. All kinds of
accounts are made on what complexity might be and how could be dealt with
complex issues. Much is said about what complex issues are, but relatively
little time is spent to describe and explain the complexity in spatial
development (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). This description and explanation of
complexity seems to be necessary to reposition the role of planning and
planning processes under complexity.
In this paper the seaport of Rotterdam and the airport of Schiphol are used to
describe and explain the complexity in developing both mainports. The port of
Rotterdam is largest port of Europe (third largest of the world). The airport
Amsterdam Schiphol, is the fifth largest airport in Europe. Both ports are
labeled as mainports in Dutch spatial policies.
In this paper we answer the following question;
How can complexity in Dutch mainport development be described and
explained and what does this mean for the position of planning and planning
processes?
To answer this question the paper is split into three parts.
The first part elaborates on some fruitful theoretical concepts from sociology
and complexity theory (Castells, 1996; Holland, 1995). This results in a
theoretical framework that is applied to describe and explain Rotterdam and
Schiphol in the second part. In this part a picture of the two mainports in
their complex environment is presented.
After this we turn to the implications for the position of planning and planning
processes. The work of for example Byrne (2001) on planning and complexity
is central to this. Byrne's main contribution is that planning is to control the
parameters of directions in which spatial development moves.
The added value of this paper can be found in the thorough insight in the
complexity and the use of concepts from complexity theory that call for a
renewed look at planning in complex planning processes. We assume that this
new look can be a useful help for improving planning practices. The paper is
concluded with some ideas about how meaningful planning (processes) can be
organized in complexity (Innes and Booher 1999).
The paper is mainly based on desktop research. Theoretical works will be used
to describe and explain the complexity. For drawing the picture of both
mainports interviews with representatives of the main organizations in the
Dutch context will be held.
Part of PhD-research projects, drawn from approved dissertation proposals.
supervisors: Prof. G. Teisman, Teisman@fsw.eur.nl; Prof. B. van Wee.
g.p.vanwee@tbm.tudelft.nl
Both authors are part of the AESOP thematic group on Complexity and
Planning (de Roo, Karadimitiou).
References:
Byrne, D. (2001), Complexity theory and planning theory: a necessary
encounter. Planning Theory, vol (2)3: p. 171-178.
Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Hajer, M. and H. Wagenaar (2003), Deliberative Policy Analysis, understanding
governance in the network society Cambridge: University Press.
Holland, J. (1995), Hidden order, how adaptation build complexity Reading:
Massachusetts: Adison-Wiley
Innes, J. and D. Booher (1999) Consensus building and Complex Adaptive
systems, a framework for evaluating collaborative Planning. Journal of the
American Planning Association, Autumn 1999: 65, 4. p.412-423.
CONTEMPORARY DEBATE ABOUT METROPOLITAN EVOLUTION IN THE
MEXICO CITY.
ISUNZA, Georgina
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México D.F. México
gisunza@ipn.mx
Two decades ago, Mexico City first city of the of the national urban system,
has dropped slowing down it's population growth and a fall of her ability to
concentrate respect to middle size cities that has attained greater dynamism
as consequence of the metropolitan decentralization process and the changes
of the migratory patterns.
The following questions have oriented this paper: Which hypothesis have been
formulated about these changes? ¿Which paradigms have influenced such
hypothesis and the urban research in México City? ¿Can these experiences be
compared with the existing in European or North American cities?
Some researchers allude to development of the mega-cities or extended
outskirts with the transition from a compact urbanization patterns to
dispersal organization territorial; from a nuclear or monocentric spatial
structure to polynuclear, poly-central or poly-nodal structures, Another
authors, which are inspired in the Berry and Richardson's proposes, explain
the inflection of the urban growth as a counterurbanization process or
polarization reversal. On the other hand, the Differential Urbanization Model,
proposed by Geyer, takes on special significance to explain the phases of the
urban systems evolution and the change of the relationships between net
migration and settlement size during a complete cycle of urban development.
Finally, an important stream of thinking, suggests that the urban process
trend,
change
in
the
concentration
scale,
from
the
metropolitan
to
megalopolis, proposed by Gottman, refers to overlaping two or more
metropolitan areas and the composition of a subsystem of cities or
conglomerates integrated by seven cities in the Mexico's central region.
This paper proposes a brief reflection about the main interpretations of the
recent evolution of the metropolitan process in the Mexico City, the theoretical
models that underlies in the urban research with the prospect to contribute in
the debate.
References:
Aguilar, G. A. “Las megaciudades y las periferias expandidas. Ampliando el
concepto en ciudad de México". En Revista EURE vol. 28 no. 85, Santiago,
Chile, 2000.
Connolly, Priscilla, "¿Cuál megalópolis?" En: Ramírez, Blanca y Delgado,
Javier (coordinadores) Transiciones Tomo I Territorio y cultura en la Ciudad de
México, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Plaza y Valdés, México, 1999.
Geyer, H. S y Kontuly, T. "A theoretical foundation for the concept of
differential urbanization" en: International Regional Science Review 17 (2),
1993.
Graizbord, B. y Acuña, B. “La estructura polinuclear del Área Metropolitana de
la Ciudad de México" En: Aguilar, G. A. (coordinador) Procesos metropolitanos
y grandes ciudades. Dinámicas recientes en México y otros países. UNAM,
Instituto de Geografía, CRIM, CONAM y Miguel Ángel Porrúa, editores, México,
2004.
Richardson, HIX "Polarization reversal in developing countries" Papers of the
Regional Science Association, 1980.
Vining y Kontuly "Population dispersal from major metropolitan regions: an
international comparison" en: International Regional Science Review No. 3,
PLANNING
FOR
CHANGE:
RECONSIDERING
PARTICIPATION
AS
AN
EVERYDAY LIFE PRACTICE
MONNO, Valleri
Politecnico di Bari, Taranto, Italy
valemonno@tin.it
In this paper I will discuss the complex topic of participation by reflecting on
multiple experimentations of strategic conversations which 1 have carried in
different lock-in planning contexts. Such experimentations aimed to sketch
participative development strategies at different scale, from the city region to
the neighborhood, but all were carried out in distressed urban areas or
neighborhoods.
Such experimentations suggest that in our neoliberal fragmented social and
political context, participative planning processes cannot be detached from a
reconceptualization of the city as a becoming, as a result of the co-evolution of
problems and solutions. The kind of social change that the participation will
brought about depends on the complexes relations between formal/informal
practices of participation, new modes of governance emerging in formal urban
policy making which shape urban development processes.
Participate is not only a question of deliberating. It as a multiform an everyday
practice of city construction rather than one of the "tools" available for the new
governance style characterizing formal policy making process. Following
Deleuze, I will argue that participation is the result of the continuous
transformation of smooth surfaces into striated ones and thus, it cannot be
considered just as a step in a sort of linear deliberative process or a separate
piece in the puzzle of different modes of governance. Rather it should be
reconsidered as a way to reconnect knowledge and action and an unstable
field of practices whose existence needs to be continuously nurtured by
multiple views and voices, contestations and experimentations in the every
day life.
1 will argue that planning to become a creative process should be based on a
concept of participation as sketched above. Strategic conversation, if intended
as in-depth explorations into strategic critical issues and prospective changes,
can enable and encourage such creativity.
References:
Hillier
J,
2005.
Straddling
the
post-structuralist
abyss:
between
Transcendance and immanence? Planning Theory, 4(3), 271-299
Amin A., Thrift N.2002. Cities: reimaging the Urban. Polity Press
Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (2004) 'Spatial Phenomenotechnics: Making Space
with Charles Booth and Patrick Geddes', Environment & Planning D, Society &
Space 22: 209-28.
Patton P 2000. Deleuze & the Political. London, Routledge.
COMPLEXITY IN SPATIAL PLANNING PRACTICE AND THEORY
NILSSON, Kristina
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
kiistina.nilsson@sol.slu.se
Planning practice has today a situation of numerous tasks and requirements.
The situation is caused of both global and local changes together with
requirements of a more sustainable development and higher involvement of
inhabitants. This interconnected and multi-dimensional context is not only
complicated but also complex. The complexity refers to unpredictable
outcomes when different natural, technical and social conditions are
integrated with values from various actors and stakeholders - a great number
and variety of elements and interactions in the society and planning. Planning
administrations and planners have as actors to manage and improve methods
to handle the growing complexity in planning practice.
The paper concerns the actors' perspectives of the complexity and how it is
managed in planning practice. It is a critical and reflective scrutiny of the
dichotomy; on one hand managing the manifold and complexity and at the
other hand limit the context to be able to manage local planning practice as in
a mixed-scanning perspective. Power relations, governance and regime
coalitions between the actors are studied. The relation of complexity and
theories of planning and decision making is discussed in the paper.
The empirical findings are collected from a case study of a northern local
authority. The small town is located in hard climate conditions because of an
ore mine as the main industry in parallel with space technology and tourism,
There is an on-going process of comprehensive planning based on the plans to
move or rebuild one third of the built environment. These plans are caused by
an interest from the mining company to mine iron ore under the existing town.
This scenario is related to the global iron price. The local authority spatial
planning is dependent on the prognoses of future requirement of employees in
the mine together with development of space technology and regional tourism.
The existing town is surrounded of natural environmental interests, national
infrastructure as well as fields for nomad people's reindeers. The planning
process is expected to improve a sustainable development and a deliberative
process for all actors and stakeholders. Altogether these conditions give an
extreme complex context for the spatial planning situation.
The results presented are expected to give new knowledge valuable for
planning practice as well as for educating planning students. The result will
hopefully give a contribution to the planning theory discussion. Key data
sources are found from documents and plans, available statistics, together
with semi structured interviews as well as participative observations. The
findings are interpreted in an abducted and retroductive perspective.
References:
Dyrberg, 1 B. (1997). The circular Structure of Power - Politics, Identity,
Community. London & New York, Verso.
Etzioni, A. (1973) Mixed-scanning: A "Third" Approach to decision-making. In
Faludi, A (ed.) (1973) A Reader in Planning Theory Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner. Massachusettes Institute of
Technology
Jessop, B. (2001). The Governance of Complexity and the Complexity of Gover
nance: Preliminary Remarks on some Problems and Limits of Economic
Guidance, Paper presented at website Http://www.comp.lancaster.ac.uk/
socioiogylsocO24rj.htmi. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University.
Stone, C. (1989). Regime Politics - Governing Atlanta. Lawrence: Kansas
University Press.
HISTORIAS DEL URBANISMO COMO HISTORIAS DE LA CIUDAD
NOVICK, Alicia
Universidad de General Sarmiento, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
alicianovick@arnet.com.ar
El trabajo examina el tratamiento del "urbanismo" en las historias de la
ciudad elaboradas durante el siglo XX en Argentina, construyendo un
panorama de los temas tratados y los ausentes. A partir de una bibliografía
escrita por arquitectos o planificadores, caracterizada desde sus referentes
internacionales, se distinguen problemática y cronológicamente tres ciclos: la
"evolución urbanística" del ciclo de entreguerras; la inflexión de temas y
problemas que suscitó la sociología urbana y la historia "desde abajo"; (a
recuperación reciente de las alternativas del urbanismo como dimensión de los
estudios culturales, las historias de la ciencia y de los campos disciplinares.
Sin reivindicar las "historias del urbanismo" que son auto justificaciones
profesionales ni restringirse a una lectura crítica de ese registro, el texto
rescata la potencialidad de éstas como uno -no el único- de los insumos
necesarios para la construcción de la historia urbana, gracias a su aptitud
para dar cuenta de muchas de las lógicas que gobiernan las formas de pensar
y actuar sobre la ciudad.
References:
GORELIK, Adrián, "Historia de la ciudad e Historia intelectual", Prismas.
Revista de Historia Intelectual, N' 3, 1999.
LEPETIT, Bernard, Les formes de l'experience. Une autre histoire social, Albin
Michel, Paris, 1995.
NOIRIEL, Gérard, Sobre la crisis de la historia, Frónesis- Cátedra, Universidad
de Valencia, Madrid, 1997
PIZZA,
Antonio,
la
construcción
del
pasado,
Celeste,
Madrid,
2000.
SUTTCLIFE, Anthony, The History of Urban and Regional Planning: annotated
bibliography, Mansell, London, 1980.
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE HISTORY OF THE CITIES AND THE HISTORY OF THE
URBANISM THEORY
ORTEGA-CHAVEL, German
Faculty of Architecture, Mexico D.E, Mexico
german_hola@yahoo.com.mx
Hypothesis: Even the twentieth century Physics admit that absolutely
everything is interdependent and connected. But that does not mean that, if
we could not dissociate, it is very important to distinguish. As this, in the
Study of the History of the Urbanism Theory, and the History of the History of
the Cities is of considerable significance not to dissociate these two Subjects
but of important consequence to distinguish clearly, their differences and
nature.
The nature of the matter in Theories is what Ken Wilber calls the Interior
collective reality" (the "ensemble of meanings, values and interior identities we
share with others that form a similar community than ours, meaning a tribal
community, a national community or a world wide community") and in the
case of History of Urbanism the nature of the subject is the "exterior collective
reality" (`the external institutions and material forms of, and created by, the
community" constructed and projected by the community-), their economic
and technologic foundation, their styles, forms and urban designs, the size of
their population, and so on. Trying to summarize; one can say that their
functionality are "external", material realities. (Wilber A brief history of
everything, 1996, chapter V).
To accomplish a satisfactory approach we need to make our analysis from an
historical, linguist and philosophical method.
The relevance of this work to planning education, practice and scholarship is
to make clear the difference of these subjects that are so close but are also so
dissimilar.
References:
Wilber, Ken, Una Teoría del todo (A Theory of Everything), Barcelona, Kairos,
2001.
Wilber, Ken, Up from Eden, A Transpersonal view of human Evolution,
Boston, Shambhala, 1986.
Acebo Ibañez, Enrique del, Sociología de la Ciudad Occidental, Buenos Aires,
Claridad, 1993.
Toynbee, Arnold J., Ciudades en Marcha, Madrid, Alianza, 1973