POSITIONING COMPLEXITY THEORY WITHIN …



POSITIONING COMPLEXITY THEORY WITHIN PLANNING THEORY AND PRACTICE

CHETTIPARAMB. Angelique

Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom

angeliquerajan@

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 Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, UK.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 university-teaching 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@

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 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@.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@.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

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download