Comments on: Cities in their landscape setting

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:11:56 +0000

Mmm. Long term is a good reference frame for cities. Would be interesting to know what is the average age of street patterns, buildings, gardens etc in different cities.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:12:34 +0000

‘Building’ is a pleasantly more practical word than ‘planning’ but it is also more short term. One of the things which appeals to me about a parental concern is that it is longer term, and one of the things which appeals to me about a spiritual concern is that it is very very long term.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 05:47:57 +0000

“Oberbaudirektor” translates as “Chief Director of Building”

By: Christine

Christine — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:35:10 +0000

Oberbaudirektor translates in English as director of construction? If this is the correct interpretation, no, unless there is a construction fault at issue any responsibility for the arrangement would lie with the designers. [Perhaps it was not well co-ordinated?]

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 07:58:09 +0000

I suppose this is different than the traditional masterplan approach which tends to think in block form and then colours in the blocks with buildings and landscape. I suppose this is a way to refine that thinking at the stage beyond heights, areas and forms.

As a physical planning approach to urban design I might imagine how an aesthetic or ambience might be created for a place through musing on both the surroundings of the site and the general feel of the architecture.

Perhaps like a story board approach to the site. Something between
[ http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/images/uxdeliverables/storyboards.gif ] and
[ http://www.shoedesign.co.uk/storyboards_large.jpg ].

This exploration would give me the a way of finding the opportunities of the site and how the various components might complement, contrast, enhance, juxtapose etc as well as link back to connecting elements outside the site.

These could then be explored and mapped in the traditional way [ http://www.archinect.com/images/uploads/alexander_plan_diagrams.jpg ] and
[ http://www.uwgb.edu/masterplan/spatial/images/1.jpg ] and [ http://www.uwgb.edu/masterplan/physicalElements/images/5.jpg ] and [ http://www.uwgb.edu/masterplan/appendices/A/images/9HighRes.jpg ]

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 07:04:20 +0000

I like the distinction between physical plannign and process planning. But I think it can work at the small scale as well as at the large scale. Humble examples are badly routed footpaths. It is common for blueprint designers to stare at a plan, often for as much as a minute, and then route the paths. Years later, the poor managers are still trying to stop ‘heedless’ pedestrians from walking on the actual desire lines. I think a Popperish-Alexanderish approach could avoid this problem. For example,on a university campus one could put down temporary routes, see where people walk and convert them to permanent routes. But this approach is not taught in schools (inc not by me!).

By: Christine

Christine — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:38:56 +0000

The distinction that needs to be made between physical planning and process planning is this:

* physical planning seeks a physical outcome ie. a masterplan for a site, a precinct or suburb plan for a group of sites or cityplan for an arrangement of sites both individual and grouped.

* process planning however seeks to set textual guidelines for desired outcomes ie. protection of the environment, the creation of communities or the promotion of economic development.

The success or otherwise of the implementation of the guidelines can only be measured once a designed response to them has been a) proposed b) evaluated c) built d) lived in.

So to piecemeal planning:

In Sydney in the late 1950s Mcmahons Point Redevelopment Scheme was proposed by Harry Seidler. Only Blues Point Tower was actually built.

Associated with the project is this poem by TS Eliot (1934) ‘Choruses from the Rock’

‘When the stranger says: ‘what is the meaning of this city?’
Do you huddle close together because you love each other?
What will you answer?
We all dwell together to make money from each other?
‘Or is this a community?’

A newspaper article in 1957 used the scheme to illustrate how a ‘Clean and Atomic Powered’ Sydney would look in 50 years.

Piecemeal planning is an example of the proposal and the vision for the future it was supposed to represent.

Perhaps incremental planning is the correct title for this phenomena?

Incremental planning is illustrated by what actually occurred – the zoning change (of the area), the construction and subsequent influence of Blues Point Tower (the first strata titled block of apartments).

This is what I mean by the notion that design excellence disrupts process planning. It can also disrupt physical planning.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:04:40 +0000

I think the piecemeal approach can apply to small projects, medium projects and large projects, and suspect it is the process Harris used to design his clock and Eddison et.al the light bulb, both of which were small items. But is not an approach which is taught or encouraged in the architecture and landscape design schools I know of. Instead of traditional craft-design they like to go research->concept->design->design details->specifications and I see this as a 'blueprint/master-planning/way-of-the-hunter/'masculine' approach.

By: Christine

Christine — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:59:36 +0000

Oh, I think this is a different question altogether, one rather of discipline, theory, scale & boundaries.

Rather than relating to design the question relates to a transition in thinking that occurred in planning which roughly co-incided with the beginnings of the profession of planning as a social science discipline rather than a design activity.

Process planning was advocated as “the systems view of planning derived from a concept of the environment as system.” Melvin Webber described planning as “a system for reaching decisions.”

Piecemeal planning as derived from Popper in ‘the Poverty of Historicism’ attempts to make incremental improvements by small adjustments and readjustments.

So as not to confuse (process) planning and design:

Design excellence can contribute to planning by demonstrating underlying principles which were not otherwise evident. However, it does not originate with planning but rather informs planning.
Potentially disrupting ideas of process planning.

Master planning as a design activity (not unlike blue print planning) is design on a larger canvas. It is similar to the foundational activities of town and country planning where designers produced plans which were often protected by covenants prior to planning regulations coming into existence.

So to Christopher Alexander:

Christopher Alexander from his work on the University of Oregon campus rather than producing a masterplan advocated developing a pattern language and then applying it ‘piecemeal’ when the situation arose.

This could be similar to Seidler’s approach, he developed rather a personal design language, which he applied and reinterpreted to new and varied design problems as they arose. He did this with his architecture…perhaps he also adopted this approach with his masterplans?

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:36:26 +0000

An individual might do one project from general -> particular and another from particular -> general (just as individuals can have ‘a masculine side’ and ‘a feminine side’). I think there is both a logical and a practical difference between the two procedures and that they produce different results. I can well believe that some individuals are equally capable in both approaches but I do not think all people are – and I think design schools greatly and wrongly favour the master-plan-before-details approach. Planners make the distinction between Blueprint Planning, as condemned by Karl Popper, and Piecemeal Planning, as advocated by Christopher Alexander.