* sustainability is a widely used concept, grounded on Economy, Environment and Society, none of them has a predominant role. Spatial planning must be based on those EQUALLY IMPORTANT milestones. As a consequence, it is NECESSARY THAT a number of different specialists, with different backgrounds, work on spatial planning projects WITH OVERLAPPING ROLES AND SAME IMPORTANCE. This because the predominance of the technical approach imposed by architects and engineers is without doubts the major problem spatial planning has been facing in the last 50 years. It is NECESSARY to overcome such an approach, otherwise cities will dramatically contribute in the worsening of peoples' lives.
* integrated to me means both to take advantage of available resources (structural and infrastructural, of course, but also of different origin, such as cultural and economical) and to strategically PLAN the development of a city considering structural and infrastructural projects not only simultaneously, but functional to each other.
* Development doesn't mean growth. There is actually a lot of confusion between the words “growth” and “development”. The first term is quantitative, the second qualitative. Development is the outcome of a different (more intelligent, and more appropriate to a given socio-economic and historical situation) use of current available (not only economical) resources, for bettering current situation. Efficiency, for instance, is an outcome of an organisational and/or technological development. A growth, on the contrary, is just the numeric incrementation of the status quo. In fact, development may also occur with a zero growth, or even in case of economic decline. We shouldn’t dare to forget that it is development that improves the human condition, not growth. This is the reason why it would be not surprising at all to have a development together with a de-growth. Or better, a development should naturally lead to a de-growth in economical resource usage. Development is a synonym of progress and civilization, and a true human prerogative. Growth is just a natural event (as for all earthlings) within that life cycle that precedes decline and death.
* URBAN PLANNING is a complex matter, and NOT complicated, therefore cannot be led back to some mathematical models. The "atomization" of the environment done with just quantitative research tools is fruitless.
* zoning is bad for urban areas: the spatial separation of residential areas (dormitories), shopping areas (malls), office areas (the so-called "city") and zones of leisure is among the worst things one can plan for an urban area. On the contrary, diversification of functions and services is essential for a sustainable urban environment.
* "dense" doesn't mean "compact". I am against dense cities (skyscrapers thrown in the middle of green areas) but on the contrary I pursue compact cities, small buildings quite close to each other... more or less what has been happening according to the Mediterranean culture (both Arabic and European), for fomenting people interactions (NO malls and YES squares and open-air markets). Sociability MUST be central in a sustainable environment.
* we MUST consider p2p planning and bottom-up planning. Such an approach is not just necessary for using available resources (both economical and intellectual) dispersed in a given territory, but also for sharing FOR REAL the planning process with a wide number of stakeholders. So far technicians have sold as "participation" what in reality was just "consensus building", missing the great potential that a territory can offer. The REAL resource of an area is ITS territory, and with this I also mean a social and cultural territory. Let's put an end to gurus' and archistars' dominion.
Once we realize this, we MUST reformat the whole planning process, and start from scratch again. Putting aside "projects" for investing in "ideas" and "strategies". In not rare cases people's social behaviour precedes what urban planners "discover" around 15 years later, when it is too late and the socio-economical environment has changed again... For a good planning process it would suffice to properly analyse people's "interpretation" of the territory (in terms of residencies, economical distribution of activities, etc.), but most spatial planners don't care about people, who merely consider function of their silly (and dangerous) mathematical models.
Sustainability MUST be the mantra for any possible development, tackling the deleterious concept of growth. Sustainability is the revenge of "local" against "global", of "scientific" against "technical", of "economy" against "finance", of "respect" against "exploitation", of "human beings" against "mathematical regressions". Sustainability is the only synonym of future.
I stop here, hoping of having provided an explanation (although generic and superficial) of such a complex matter.
If you feel like deepening your knowledge on the matter, I suggest you reading Nikos Salingaros articles, written by a true genius. Take also a look at http://www.biourbanism.org/ and at the studies led by Luca Bertolini (professor in Amsterdam) in the field of integrated planning (land use and mobility infrastructures) in European metropolitan areas.
As a final note and to provide a practical example, Sustainable Integrated Development is just the opposite of what archistars keep on doing: designing copies of their own work and building structures which look the same all over the world, despite the given historical and cultural specificities of the environment where they are built in.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.