Complexity Theory in Urban Design
some of my notes taken two years ago during the reading of the theory of complexity introduced by Prof. Michael Batty - UCL. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3473/1/3473.pdf
Cities grow from the bottom up in a concerted action of millions of individuals and agencies that generate structures of complexity that are virtually impossible to manage, control or design from the top down. Batty’s idea is a shift in metaphor to thinking of cities and societies as organisms and biological rather than physical systems. Moreover, A shift from thinking of cities as being artefacts to be designed to thinking of them as systems that evolve, that grow and change in ways that might be steered and managed but rarely designed from the top down.
However, One of the problems arose from the system approach is the congestion and the need to ensure effective transport, the idea that system could be controlled to meet certain goals was an extension of such logic. A major key challenge of complexity theory is how to understand and mange all the variables that evolve from the emergence of the cities.
Attention should be directed to establish an evolutionary method in planning, through which city planners can move methodically through the steps in a design process, and not merely rely upon more intuitive and unpredictable approaches, nor on rigid typological prescriptions as it is presented in lots of the ‘Plans’ listed above. Examples are clear, but I prefer to maintain anonymity.
The systematic evolutionary method should be driven by the need to cope with increasing complexity in globalized social activities, the changing relationship between state and society, sever environmental problems including climate change and water recourses, and the rising extension of urban centres. It is strongly believed that the old intuitive methods of design experts were simply not reliable enough to manage this complex challenge. Within this field, the scope of planning should focus on the decomposition of a design problem, and the synthesis of the parts into a new form on the basis of various design inputs. This methodology must therefore incorporate an argumentative process within a network of issues in which the planner is no longer the expert but a collaborator with the client and with other experts.
to be continued.
NoorAferinan- A.S ( Insaat - Ithalat ve Ihracat ) ?irketinde General Manager
9 年Tagi AminiMerheba Hoca hanim efendi cok guzel ve iyi.Basarilarin devamini arzu ediyorum.
Interesting topic. I am also into complexity theory and resilience in the cities. However, I am mostly trying to work with the conflict zones and how they are re-organizing themselves with the ever disturbances..transformation or adaptation? The last case I am working on is Baghdad. Will be very much interested how you continue. Regards.
Financing sustainable infrastructure
9 年I agree. The next paradigm in urban planning is moving on from intuitive design (although still important) into increasingly evidence-based methods that are flexible and adaptable to different contexts.
CEO & Founder at UrbanChain
9 年Thank you for sharing! Although many have talked about complexity theory, I think the main issue now is how to understand the complexity of urban systems; how to measure complexity; how to integrate the complexity methods in urban decision making process; how people benefit from these ideas. And I hope, our attempts in complex urban studies move from transport and land-use planning to complex social systems.
That is very interesting, I had been getting in trouble for the past 10 years for designing with the complexity system in mind. (Although I did not have a formal name of it) Glad to see that I had been going in the right direction. However I have one comment to add, law, finance regulating which govern private investement, and public spending are the extremely important drivers and should always be taken in consideration. I would also add issue related to human behaviour, which govern the success and failure of public space.