Arun Jain, Urban Designer, Urban Strategist

ByPlanLab: Danske byers udfordringer 2012

Planning in an Uncertain World Innovation in a changing paradigm

December 6, 2012 Lund, Sweden

Arun Jain Urban Designer, Urban Strategist

Centre de rescherche sur l'Habitat

Rethinking our Urban Future Closing the gap between theory & practice

June 4, 2012 Paris

Cities have been created by a variety of circumstance and deliberation. Planning theories and the actions underlying their implementation continue their struggle to stay relevant. We are much better in reacting to reality than anticipating the future. Many of the strategies associated with each theory have assumed that the cultures of cities will adapt to them. Yet often the single minded clarity of one approach has been offset by its competition. This confusion explains our random and uncertain outcomes. The accelerated political, social, economic and cultural complexities of urban settlement today do not help. Perhaps it’s time for a change. Perhaps urban settlement has become complex enough to require planning to respond to the cultures of cities and not dictate them. What does this mean for the future? Can planning really be more responsive? Can an understanding of complex human systems and networks help? Are there other ways to think and pursue increasingly ambiguous, but greatly hoped for and urgent aspirations?

Orientation

1

Can only anticipate/respond to

behavior, not dictate

Can leverage design thinking to

solve complex “wicked” problems

Must make better decisions to

improve the quality of life of cities

Need better choices on our priorities

& innovation space

Huge gaps between need, want &

our ability to deliver

Active beliefs

Are we filling a gap or,

creating a need?

The nature of problems

Well Mannered

– Easy definition

– Clear & clean solutions

Tame

– Poorly defined, benign solutions

Wicked

– Difficult to understand

– No easy or unique solutions

HORST RITTEL

Most complex problems are “wicked”

Need to relate our

understanding of the

problem

with

How far we go with

the solution…

Social responsibility & contextuality

Delightful fetish?

Architecture as artifact?

Why do so many

designers talk mostly

about aesthetics?

Have they assumed the

“Artist’s prerogative of self expression?”

Work with or around…?

Do we

need or tolerate

vs.

accept

Understand boundaries

the outcome?

Does the method

match

Proportionality

Communicate better

Being explicit in your process

– Make design decisions less arbitrary

– make ideas & designs more defensible

Explicit assumptions

– Reveal hidden agendas

Consider the “Fit”

Context

Problem’s opportunities & constraints

Stated goals & objectives

The client’s intentions

The eventual user

between the result & the…

Assessing the worthiness of a project

Determining a problem’s appropriate level

Nature, complexity & degree of resolution

Extent to which desired objectives can be realized

Determining the nature of a solution

Design, management, fiscal, policy, social or mix

Avoiding side effects

Legal, environmental…

Evaluating the results

Remember things we don’t do well

Methodology SOILS WETLANDS VISUAL & SCENIC GEOLOGY & SEISMIC BIOLOGICAL (PLANT & ANIMAL) DRAINAGE/FLOODING/WATER QUALITY

NATURAL

OPPORTUNITIES

&

CONSTRAINTS

MAN-MADE

ASSUMPTIONS

WEIGHTED CRITERIA

CONTEXT

LAND USE ZONING UTILITIES LIGHT NOISE

TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION HISTORICAL AIR QUALITY ARCHEOLOGICAL MAGNETIC & EMF

LOCATION DESCRIPTION HISTORY IMAGE CULTURAL

ECONOMY DEMOGRAPHY PUBLIC SERVICES AESTHETICS NEEDS

DEVELOPMENT

THRESHOLDS

SYNTHESIS

SELECTION

ELABORATION

SUITABILITY

ANALYSIS

SOCIAL - ECONOMIC -

ENVIRONMENTAL - POLITICAL -

CRITERIA -

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES - MASTER PLANNING - DESIGN GUIDELINES -

POLICY & REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS - IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES -

ALTERNATIVES

A DECISION MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

EXPERIENCE

EMOTIONS

IMAGINATION

INTUITION

PERSONAL BIAS

WHAT DO I FEEL?

HOW SHOULD I

ACT/RESPOND?

• Economic Sustainability

• Environmental Sustainability

• Technical Feasibility

• Social Behavioral Norms

• Quality Of Life

WHAT DO I KNOW?

EXPERIENCE

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS

KNOWLEDGE BASE

RISK ASSESSMENT

HEARSAY

• Planning

• Economic • Environmental • Social • Law & Taxes • Community Initiative • Activism

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

POLICY

Closing gaps

Confronting uncertainty

Not knowing

Not knowing

The quality of your life is in direct proportion to the

amount of uncertainty you can comfortably deal

with…

Anthony Robbins

The limits of models

The limits of models

Portland Metro vs. Oregon State

Avoiding the “ostrich trap”

What is much more sensible, is to say, "Well, this is what I think now, but I am going to come back and look at this again and again. If, as the future comes nearer, I find my predictions were wrong, I am going to change what I did. Not only that, I am going to design my decision in ways which allow me to change easily."

Guy Burgess

Co-Director, Conflict Research Consortium University of Colorado, Boulder

An uncertain, new paradigm

Challenges

We can’t assume growth will happen

Continued global fiscal contraction

Declining resources

If we plan it, will it happen?

If we build it, will they come?

Can we implement everything we want?

Where could we be going?*

* 2010 Map of the decade, Institute of the Future

Option 1 – Growth

One step ahead of disaster

Option 2 - Constraint

Sustainable paths in a low-capital

world

Option 3 - Collapse

Local disasters, regional conflicts

Option 4 - Transformation

Super-structured systems

Opportunities

Catastrophes force us to re-think/rebuild

Forced frugality creates natural efficiencies

Forced frugality compels innovation

Survival pressure = strategic, clever adaptation

Business-as-usual isn't working!

Emerging Urban

Problems…

(Issues that will dominate us)

Complexity

Livability

Integrated thinking

Adaptability

Resilience

Coherence

Quality

Diversity

Balance

Infrastructure

Keep what we have

Manage what we want

Rethink what we need

Restructure

The public realm

Is it really public?

Are we designing it as

we will use it?

Radical change

Can we handle

sudden change?

Mobility

Mobility at all scales

Integrated systems

Resources

Money

Expertise

Comprehension

Will

Politics

The system

Human nature

Institutional habit/tradition

Culture/personalities

The challenges

of cities…

Uncontrolled growth

Irresponsible land development

Aging infrastructure

Obsolete development patterns

Social inequity

Loss of cultural heritage

Environmental damage

Loss of indigenous landscape & habitat

Under utilized industrial land

Dominance of the automobile

Global trends

So why do we prefer cities?

Opportunity

Choice

Synergy

Culture

Fun

Convenience

More!

Immediacy

A necessary evil…?

Reasons to be there!

Recent influences

on city design…

Contemporary planning & design

Advocacy Planning (Paul Davidoff ‘69) Citizen Participation (Arnstein ‘69) Planning as a social & political act that is not value neutral (Altshuler ‘65, Rabinovitz ‘69)

“Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning” (Horst Rittel ‘73) Transactive or inclusive planning (Friedman ’73) Synoptic or Systems Thinking (model based ends & means) Incrementalism (Charles Lindblom ‘84-)

Planning as an “apolitical” act designed to protect public interest

Introduction of social sciences & evaluation of the role of planning

Planning as process Decision theory “Satisficing” (Herbert Simon ‘45-’69) Limits of individual & social rationality

Theory

? Contemporary Planning Theory Education Richard E Klosterman, Florida State University

“The Production of Space”, (Henri Lefebvre ‘74, ‘91) “Theory of Communicative Action” (Jurgen Habermas ‘81) “Disabling Professions”, “Tools for Conviviality” (Ivan Illych ‘73) “Beyond the Stable State” (D. Schon ‘73) “The Reflective Practitioner” (D. Schon ‘83)

“Rise of the Network Society” (Manuel Castells ‘96) “Global City” (Saskia Sassen ‘91, ‘01) D

ec

linin

g r

ela

tio

nsh

ip

be

twe

en

th

eo

ry a

nd

pra

ctic

e

Planning practice

Planning is largely ad hoc and reactive

Future plans are increasingly based upon models

The current paradigm tends to be heavy on aspiration

A general obsession with growth

Planning as a “contact sport”

Inability to focus on only a few “achievable” goals

E. Howard 1889

Bauhaus 1919

Le Corbusier 1922 Sert 1928

Mumford 1938

Ed Bacon 1967

Ackoff 1974

Friedman 1979

New Urb 1989

MVRDV 1999

J Jacobs 1961

Theory

Design Manifestos vs. Social Scientists

THEN

Manifestos underscore the

importance of design

Imposed hierarchies

Utopian constructs

Aspirations, solutions without

knowledge

Architecture driven solutions

NOW

Consensus driven outcomes

Prediction based plans

Guilt driven responses

(environment)

Fast results & gains

Infrastructure as driver

Resource issues

Multidisciplinary responses

Apathy & fear…

Urban design practice

Theory vs. Practice

No patience for theory

No clear translations of theory to implementation

Failure of planning to plan for uncertainties

A lack of consensus on a common “social agenda”

A failure of education/comprehension/understanding?

What changed?

“The City is not a tree” – Christopher Alexander

“Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes with Morphological Analysis” - Horst Rittel

“Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning” – Horst Rittel & Melvin Webber

“The Architecture of Complexity” – Herbert Simon

Real Time Mapping, Graz- MIT Senseable Lab

Cities are more complex than we thought…

We got lazy

The slow leakage of contextuality

Architectural Pluralism

Impatience!

Any “landmark” will do!

Build it they will come!

Architecture is the experience!

Standardization of spatial distribution in

architecture

Interiors are more and more generic,

skins are variants

Identity is only manifest when space is

individualized by the occupant (more

subtle)

Global generica

No differentiation only complexity

Urban identity is more

subtle - its more social &

less from culturally derived

form

Our personal sense of

space & place defines

our meaning of it – less

the design

Sustained exclusivity

through design alone is

getting harder to

accomplish & maintain

The uncertain role of architecture

The full extent of complexity is no longer obvious

A lot of worries…

75% of world lives in Nairobi’s (Topfer)

Hard to change expectations (Topfer)

How do we fit 9 Billion people? (Topfer)

Preoccupation with guilt management

(Braungart)

A changing economic & social paradigm

Fear of change

The problem defined

Cities are too complex

for design alone to

satisfy their needs

But design thinking and

skills can help!

PDX

Scaled Thinking Basis for spatial planning

2

Methodology SOILS WETLANDS VISUAL & SCENIC GEOLOGY & SEISMIC BIOLOGICAL (PLANT & ANIMAL) DRAINAGE/FLOODING/WATER QUALITY

NATURAL

OPPORTUNITIES

&

CONSTRAINTS

MAN-MADE

ASSUMPTIONS

WEIGHTED CRITERIA

CONTEXT

LAND USE ZONING UTILITIES LIGHT NOISE

TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION HISTORICAL AIR QUALITY ARCHEOLOGICAL MAGNETIC & EMF

LOCATION DESCRIPTION HISTORY IMAGE CULTURAL

ECONOMY DEMOGRAPHY PUBLIC SERVICES AESTHETICS NEEDS

DEVELOPMENT

THRESHOLDS

SYNTHESIS

SELECTION

ELABORATION

SUITABILITY

ANALYSIS

SOCIAL - ECONOMIC -

ENVIRONMENTAL - POLITICAL -

CRITERIA -

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES - MASTER PLANNING - DESIGN GUIDELINES -

POLICY & REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS - IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES -

ALTERNATIVES

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY STUDY

REPUBLIC OF PALAU

Small nation scale

Papua

Philippines

Indonesia

Palau

Process of self-determination

Prior studies

Palau 2020-national master development plan (1996)

Economic development plan (1995-1999)

Sustainable development policies & actions plan (1997)

JICA report (2000)

State development plans & programs

Other prior work

Current development concepts & proposals

Setting

PROVIDE FRAMEWORKS FOR:

National & statewide resource management

Sustainable land use

Assessment of development proposals

Establishing development priorities

Objectives

Land-based detail

Relevant prior visions & plans

Evaluating national & state plans

Providing direction for additional studies

A decision tool

THIS STUDY…

Relied on existing information

+ Palauan involvement & guidance

Did not address land ownership questions

Was not a zoning or General Plan

This work was intended to be a basis for them

Limitations

LEADERSHIP, CITIZEN & AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & GUIDELINES

ISSUE

IDENTIFICATION & PRIMARY GOALS

- LAND RESOURCES

- INFRASTRUCTURE

- SOCIAL/CULTURAL

- ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

RESOURCE

INVENTORY

- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

- CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

- BUILT ENVIRONMENT

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT TRACK

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

• LAND USE • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • INFRASTRUCTURE • RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

& CONSTRAINTS

- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

- CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

- BUILT ENVIRONMENT

LAND/RESOURCE SUITABILITY

- COMMUNITY & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

- AGRICULTURE & RESOURCE HARVEST

- CONSERVATION/ PRESERVATION

NEEDS ANALYSIS

- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

- PUBLIC SERVICE & FACILITIES

- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

- NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

- CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

- BUILT ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED & FINAL PLANS

CIP ZONING PLANS DESIGN GUIDELINES ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION

SOCIAL/CULTURAL/ECONOMIC TRACK

Process

Obtain administrative, agency & public input

Refine goals, objectives & policies

Establish land & resource suitability

Assess suitability for candidate land uses

Develop resource management criteria & policies

Prepare draft & final study report

Steps

Methodology

Reasons for mapping

Criteria for resource management (suitability ranking)

Opportunity & constraints factors

Natural & cultural resources

Land use & development

Composite suitability analysis

Analysis

To avoid unintended consequences to

resources due to unsuitable siting or activities

To recognize the best ‘potential’ for limited

land and water resources

To reduce or reverse threats or loss of ‘unique’

species or habitats

Reasons for mapping

Assembly Natural & Cultural Resources

Hydrology

Soils

Vegetation & Wildlife

Cultural Resources

Marine Resources

Land Use & Development

Slope

Soils

Existing Land Use

Infrastructure

Cultural Tourism

Marine

Composite Analysis (Resource Suitability )

Natural Features Analysis

Man-made Features Analysis

Suitability Analysis

Suitability ranking

Natural & Cultural Resources Suitability for Development

Opportunity & Constraint Factors Least Suitable Potentially Suitable Most Suitable

Hydrology Streams Order 1 & 2 with 75’ setback

Streams Order 3 & 4 with 50’ setback

Lakes including setback area

Soils Eroding

Vegetation & Wildlife

Wetlands

Mangroves

Mangroves - setback

Designated preserves & reserves

Designated special management areas*

Designated Conservation Areas*

Candidate protection areas*

Cultural Resources

Sites on the National Register

Sites eligible for the National Register**

Sites of continuing cultural interest**

Marine Resources

Designated preserves & reserves

Designated special management areas*

Candidate protection areas*

* Potential uses limited by resource protection goals ** Potential uses may be limited subject to further study

Suitability ranking Land Use & Development Suitability for Development

Opportunity & Constraint Factors Least Suitable Potentially Suitable

Most Suitable

Slope > 30%

13 to 30%

< 13%

Soils Agricultural potential (+ old fallow sites) Special overlay – tradeoff decision required when potential overlaps with otherwise Most

Suitable or Potentially Suitable Land Agroforestry potential (+ old fallow sites)

Existing Land

Use (includes

approved & pending uses)

Cities

Towns

Hamlets

Golf Course

Agriculture

Agroforestry

Aqua/marine culture

Mines & quarries

Ports & docks

Airport

Airport compatible use zone

Landfill

Power plant

Infrastructure Areas served by paved roads

Areas served by power

Areas served by water

Diversions

Areas served by sewer

Cultural

Tourism

Prehistoric/Historic sites with

interpretive/tourism potential

Interpretive/tourism potential

Marine Aquaculture potential (+ former sites) Special Overlay – potential tradeoff

Natural Features Analysis

Man-made Features Analysis

Suitability Analysis

Simplified Analysis

Development suitability

NATURAL ANALYSIS

MAN-MADE ANALYSIS

SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

Development suitability ISLAND SCALE

AIRAI STATE

Natural & cultural resources STATE SCALE

AIRAI STATE

Development resources

AIRAI STATE

Suitability analysis

NATURAL

ANALYSIS

MAN-MADE ANALYSIS

SUITABILITY

ANALYSIS

INTERPRETED SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

Development suitability STATE SCALE

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Development suitability LOCALIZED TERRITORY

New town scale NEW TOWN CONCEPT

JOHOR BAHRU, MALAYSIA

Assembly Natural & Cultural Resources

Hydrology/Stream Corridors

Soils

Slopes

Cultural Resources

Marine Resources

Land Use & Development

Solar Access

Existing Land Use

Highways

Utility Easements/ Corridors

Composite Analysis (Resource Suitability )

Suitability Analysis

CONCEPT

AREA DETAIL

New town scale

CONCEPT

AREA DETAIL

New town scale

DETAILED PLAN

COMPOSITE ANALYSIS

CONCEPT

MASTER PLANNING FEASIBILITY STUDY

CALIFORNIA

Local scale

City scale URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK

PORTLAND, OREGON

If you didn’t know anything

about the future

What kind of city would

you want anyway?

A framework for

Portland

HISTORY

PRECEDENTS

FALL ‘08 EARLY ‘09

EXISTING

PLAN

CURRENT

ISSUES EXISTING

CONDITIONS

BIG

IDEAS

DEVELOPMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

URBAN DESIGN

FRAME WORK

PLAN PRIORITIES BONES

FAR

Height

Skyline

88 Central City Plan

Development Capacity

Open Space

Transportation

Green City Infrastructure

Community Amenities

Cognitive Mapping

Portland’s Great Plans

Historical

Contemporary

Attractors

Corridors & Links

Nodes

Edges

Method

1. Urban Design Assessment Understand potential by assessing

2. Basis for Placemaking Identify needs and wants

3. Urban Design Framework Converge needs and wants

BROAD OBJECTIVE Create a basis for strategic investments to maximize public benefit

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK (locations with performance criteria)

CONVERGENCE Composite Overlay

Precedents Historical - relevant case studies

Contemporary - urban design plans (review)

History

1903 - 1988

Great Plans for

Portland

Existing

Conditions

Current

(Focus) Issues

Needs Wants

CONCEPT

• Urban “Bones”

• Perceived Districts

& Boundaries

• Preferred &

Potential Green

Corridors

• Development

Opportunities

Transit

Ridership

Concentration

Development

Opportunities

Existing Plan 1988 Central City

Plan analysis

Process

Portland’s Great Plans…

1903 Olmsted

1912 Bennett

1921 Cheney

1932 Bartholomew

1943 Moses

1966 Comprehensive Plan

1972 Downtown Plan

1988 Central City Plan

History

SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT

PROJECTS INCREMENTALLY?

Barcelona

Edinburgh

Old Kyoto

Glasgow

Philadelphia

Savannah

Precedents

ARE THERE BETTER WAYS TO

LOOK AT THE CITY?

Criteria

Cities with recent downtown plans

Cities with central city & urban design elements

Cities with distinct attitudes

Precedents

POLICY 12

RICH PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENTS

EXCELLENCE IN BUILDING DESIGN

HUMAN SCALED BUILDINGS, STREETS &

OPEN SPACES

DISTRICTS WITH DISTINCT CHARACTER

& DIVERSITY

CLEAR & PROTECTED PUBLIC VIEWS

HIGH DENSITIES AROUND TRANSIT

CORRIDORS & TRANSITIONS TO RIVER

CONCEPT PLAN

FOCUS ON THE RIVER

CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT

ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS

RETAIL OFFICE CORES, LOW

DENSITY COMMERCIAL AREAS &

INDUSTRIAL USE

A CLEAR & COMPREHENSIVE PARK

& OPEN SPACE SYSTEM

CENTRAL CITY PLAN MAP

CENTRAL CITY GATEWAYS

MAJOR ATTRACTIONS

EXISTING & PROPOSED TRANSIT

CORRIDORS

Current Plan

Districts

Landmarks

Paths

Nodes

Edges

Cognitive mapping

HOW DO WE CAPITALIZE

UNIQUENESS?

Existing Conditions

Inconsistent Plans

ENHANCE CREATE PRESERVE

Civic intuition

Height (ZONED VS LIKELY)

What the

standards allow

What’s more likely

ARE THERE BETTER WAYS TO

LOOK AT THE CITY?

Better questions (without presumptions of the solutions)

What the

standards

allow

What’s

more likely

Better questions (without presumptions of the solutions)

Skyline today

What the

standards allow

Likely maximum

outcome

Skyline & Visual Identity

Focus issues

People congregate because they have…

A “need” (i.e. transit hubs)

A “want” (i.e. something uniquely appealing)

Assess why people want to be there!

Designed

Evolved

Appropriated

A. Identify convergences:

Understand and map where people

congregate or could congregate (need vs. want) Identify which places are the most able to become great places (criteria)

DESIROUS LOCATIONS

(want)

PLACES OF NECESSITY (need)

AREAS OF

GREATEST POTENTIAL

TRANSIT RIDERSHIP CONCENTRATIONS

PREFERRED GREEN CORRIDORS

PERCIEVED DISTRICTS & BOUNDARIES

OUR MENTAL MAP (COGNITIVE)

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Assembly

Assembly Wants

Urban “Bones”

Perceived Districts &

Boundaries

Preferred Green Corridors

Development Opportunities

Composite Analysis (Resource Suitability)

Suitability Analysis

Needs

Transit Ridership Concentrations

Reasons to be there….

=

Assembly

NODES

GREEN RINGS

MAJOR CORRIDORS STREET

& TRANSIT

ATTRACTORS

B. Link convergences:

Identify where links and connections

will reinforce the convergences (place-making nodes) Identify “green” networks and preferred movement corridors that compliment convergences (place-

making nodes)

Framework concept

Urban design framework

“Great ”fountain plaza

New Buildings

Existing landmark

Extended Sandy Blvd

Morrison Bridgehead

MLK Grand Ave Corridor Green Network

Places as catalysts

Ground level emphasis

Flexible approaches

Intent vs. Outcomes

Urban design framework

Directing development..

Riverfront

Infill

A basis for intelligent dialogue

Bridgehead

Things we can do Approaches we can develop

3

Cities & the role of

technology

Gaps

Monetize core

competencies

Realize economies of scale

Capitalize data & related

services

Grow

Provide basic services

Better inclusivity

Assure and improve

quality of life

Do more with less

Tech Providers Cities

Where tech can help

Better inclusiveness

Credible

information

Equitable access to

information

ISSUES TOOLS

What’s needed Role of technology

INNOVATION

SPACE

Reliable outcomes

Comprehension

Credible options

Diagnostics

Monitoring

Decision support

Management &

maintenance

Opportunity

Value

&

Tech hype & hopes…

There is an “app” for everything

Informatics is a big solution so data

management is a challenge

The “Smart”-er we are, the more real world

problems we solve

Digital Dualism? – virtual vs. real

Smart issues

Cost barriers

Low and mid tech?

Maintenance & management vs. long term

planning

Reach and accessibility

Sustainability vs. Growth

Dilemmas & polemic

Economic growth = consumption:

Can we manage with less at the same time?

Sustainability is learning to not consume at all

Helping the infrastructure of cities handle shifts

in demand vs. convincing people to change

behavior

Knowledge Cities

&

Do we undertake

innovation &

knowledge sharing

for the sake of it,

or….?

Infrastructure…

Technological

Social

Physical

Cultural

Political

Intellectual Art

Economic

Environmental

Going deeper

Too much data, not enough

knowledge

Wisdom takes time

Data

Information

Knowledge

Wisdom

Knowledge

Understanding

Re-learning learning

How can we better understand complexity?

How should we embrace uncertainty?

How do we restructure our ways of sharing

knowledge and making more informed

decisions?

Innovation New ways to think & do

Cities need to…

Manage expectations

Balance a wide spectrum of need with

shrinking means

Provide and assure basic services

Assure and improve quality of life

Suggested Attitudes

Embrace complexity

Cities are collections of

organized complexity

The key to working with

complexity is embracing not

simplifying it or fearing it

It’s easier to make

boxes..

Boxes are bad

Politics

Community Finance

Social

Infrastructure

This means…

Shared

responsibility and

concern…

Co-own the problem

Rethink the problem

Too many solutions

looking for a problem

Stay away from

formulas – do what is

specific to your

problem

Avoid branding

before working it all

out

Work across territories

Rethink management

& maintenance

Solve by problem, not

by department

Rethink governance

Invent better tools

Think integrated

Urban Mobility

Rail Solutions

Components & systems

Metros

Trams & Light Rail

Commuter & Intercity Transport

Road Solutions

Parking Management

Service

Tolling systems

Traffic control & information

Flow optimization

Planning

Cross platform Integrated custom solutions Cities need advice on how to optimize mobility across platforms

Rethinking our approach to mobility

Tighter collaborations

Philanthropies Resources

The Market Efficiency

Government Endorsement

New & integrated

sectorial dependencies

Relatively small

cooperation space

Increased need for

strategic approaches

NGO’s Delivery

Where innovation is

most helpful…

Innovation space

Adoption problems Inside the paradigm “Embraceable”

Shifted Paradigm

Clues from other disciplines

What is absolutely needed for success?

What will guarantee failure?

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4

… In conclusion

Avoid heavy dependencies (e.g. energy, bandwidth, data management etc.)

Maintain accessibility (for the largest audience)

Compensate & fill needs, avoid creating

random new wants

Factor in behavior & human nature, don’t try

to alter it

Cities need

Better strategies 6

More focus

Scalability & resilience

Avoid obsolescence (design in the ability to adapt)

Adjust to shifting priorities (help crisis management)

Help phased strategies be self-reliant

Create resilient business models

Better strategies 5 Cities need

If we have to stop will we have a disaster… but if we continue will we have a bigger one?

Does improvement always have to be

about growth?

Is your solution driving the problem?

Better strategies 4

Circumspection…

Cities need

If we want to avoid generic cities

then we must stop having generic

approaches and responses to them

Better strategies 3

Uniqueness…

Cities need

Thinking about uncertain futures means

being able to imagine many versions of

them in our solutions…

Better strategies 2

Adaptability…

Cities need

We need to respond and serve the

culture of cities, but not dictate them…

Better strategies 1

A reality check…

Cities need

It’s all we have…