Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

29 April 2020

Title
Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

Abstract
Urban planning is a multi-disciplinary, progressive and utopian concept. Over the decades, several planning theories, principles and models were conceptualized by various creators from diverse background. Subsequently, these planning concepts were experimented and implemented (wholly or partially) around the world to varying degree of success.

This paper will examine whether a city can be planned and built scientifically according to various planning models conceptualized. Furthermore, if a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, can the same concept be duplicated in another city?

What is Urban Planning?
There is no standard definition for urban planning. In modern context, urban planning can be defined as a multi-disciplinary, creative, geopolitical process that encompasses land use planning, architecture, economic development, social engineering, etc. The purpose of urban planning is to evaluate, design and organize proposed land uses and buildings into logical spatial arrangement to maximize land efficiency. Planners also aspire to create a new social order to assert control over the population and economy.

Historically, cities of ancient civilizations were planned, evident in the city wall and grid pattern. Modern urban planning originated at Europe in the late 19th Century. The successful industrialization of Manchester and rejuvenation of Paris fuelled the urbanization and spatial transformation of cities across Europe. However, the first comprehensive planning projects were experimented in colonies before implementation in Europe. (Rainbow, 1989) The invention of skyscrapers expedited the development of high-rise, high-density urban settlements.

Who are the Urban Planners?
Planning is such a diverse and ambiguous discipline that many “experts” tried to define through scientific methodologies. With the exception of Architects Camillo Sitte (“City Planning Accordingly to Artistic Principles”) , Le Corbusier (Radiant City) and Frank Lloyd Wright (Broadacre City), it is interesting to note that many inventors of revolutionary and influential planning theories are not academically or professionally trained in urban planning, urban design, architecture or geography.

For example, Ebenezer Howards, who invented the “Garden City” concept, ended his formal education at 14-years-old and was not trained in architecture or urban design. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982) Christopher Alexander, who invented the “Pattern Language” and co-authored the highly influential “A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction” was a mathematician before crossing over to architecture.

In addition, many bureaucrats and supporters who advocated, critiqued or implemented planning projects were also not trained in planning. Baron Haussmann, the Prefect of Seine who engineered the urban renewal of Paris studied law; Robert Moses, the “Master Builder of New York City”, studied political science. Similarly, opposer like Jane Jacobs was a journalist without training in spatially-related fields.

Since these planners were not trained in spatial discipline, it raise questions on the credibility and validity of the concepts proposed and implemented by them. While urban planning is a multi-disciplinary practice, it is still ironic if most of the fundamental concepts were not developed by professionals trained in relevant field. Nevertheless, these planners share a common goal: to invent a perfect urban planning model to guide the creation of an ideal city.

The Science of Urban Planning
Several major cities around the world are entirely planned and built from scratch; examples includes Singapore (1819), Sapporo (1869), Canberra (1913) and Brasilia (1960). In addition, many cities like Berlin, Hiroshima and Seoul were destroyed by wars or natural disasters in the 20th Century and were rejuvenated using scientific and systematic approaches.

Ebenezer Howard invented the “Garden City” concept in 1898, which is a compilation of existing ideas created to resolve assorted problems caused by capitalism and urbanization. Howard managed to see the connection between these ideas, adapted and compiled them into a coherent design. The “Garden City” aims to re-construct a new social-economic environment through decentralisation of cities, cooperation and re-distribution of wealth and power. (Fishman, Inventing the Garden City, 1982) Land is collectively owned and part of the rental income are deposited into a sinking fund for investment, maintenance and provision of services. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” is a tightly-organized, self-contained, low-density development where 30,000 dwellers live in the urban core. The “Garden City” is surrounded by farms or forest, where 2,000 farmers would supply food to the urban core and constitute an integral part of the cooperative economy. The countryside also doubles as green spaces for leisure and prevents urban sprawling. If the population grows, the existing “Garden City” shall not be expanded or intensified for the system to work. Instead, a new sister “Garden City” could be developed beyond the green buffer. Eventually, 6 “Garden Cities” would cluster around a main city to form a “Social City” network. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” concept is a simple and functional idea that can be easily applied. Howard founded Letchworth in 1903, the first New Town constructed based on the “Garden City” concept. The “Garden City” was eventually adapted into various decentralization concepts by planners worldwide. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982)

Modernist urban planning is generally a top-down process. Bureaucrats would identified urban issues and planners are tasked to conceptualize a plan to resolve these problems. Such process were criticized by planners, intellectuals and activists to be problematic and insensitive, because solutions were designed based on projected efficiency and profits, without taking into consideration environmental impact, social diversity, feedback, everyday life and memories of residents. This approach eventually leads to the failure of “big planning” projects. Therefore, Susan Fainstein, Oscar Newman and Paul Davidoff proposed new planning theories to counter these issues. These models focus on different planning process, perspectives and emphasis; each producing varied outcomes, with its pros and cons.

The “Communication Model” juxtaposed top-down planning by using pragmatism and communicative rationality. Planners need to listen and mediate among stakeholders to reach consensus on differing viewpoints for a project. While this is ideal, the “Communication Model” is unrealistic, inefficient and time-consuming to obtain 100% consensus. This method results in biases, Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, domination by powerful grassroots and placing of unwanted facilities near community with weaker voice. (Fainstein, 2000)

“New Urbanism” is a neo-traditionalism design-oriented model that aims to use urban design to create an array of mixed-use buildings, housing typologies for different demographic groups and public spaces to construct a diverse and cohesive community. The basic planning unit is the neighbourhood, which has a defined boundary and focal centre where residents could access essential amenities within walking distance. “New Urbanism” believes that improvement in physical environment will enhance spatial relationship between living and working spaces. However, “New Urbanism” is market-driven and needs to rely on private developers to build and finance the projects. This often result in destroyed and displaced community, homogeneous development and ‘forced conformity’ among the people. These contradicts the emphasis on community, creativity and diversity. (Fainstein, 2000)

A “Just City” aims to resolve social inequality caused by capitalism through participation in decision-making and advocates for the needs and wants of the community. Planners need to identify a purpose and fight to achieve the spatial goal. However, the “Just City” is unpopular in developed cities as it ignores the interests of the middle-class majority and certain minority groups. Furthermore, the dismissal of economic importance makes the “Just City” model only suitable for cities with a mature economy. (Fainstein, 2000)

The “Defensible Space” concept deploys architectural design, spatial planning and behavioural psychology to create a safer environment that enables casual and continuous surveillance of the public spaces by residents. Planners of “Advocacy Planning” advocates an idea and opines that planning should be more pluralistic and democratic, with stronger participation from individuals, communities and interest groups. (Davidoff, 1965)

Planned City: A Study of Singapore
Singapore was a planned settlement, with the first town plan drawn in 1822. A Master Plan needs to have legislative power for effective implementation and regulation. However, early plans were merely records of existing developments, without anticipating problems and proposed plans proactively. (Dale, 1999) Urban planning only starts to take off after Singapore obtained self-governance in 1959 and Singapore was successfully urbanized and transformed within 30 years.

To a huge extent, Singapore is planned using a top-down approach based on ideas extracted from various planning principles. Ideas from the “Garden City” are echoed in the Koenigsberger Ring City Plan, New Town developments and Constellation Plan. The “New Urbanism” vision to promote social mixing of different racial, cultural and income groups was achieved by building public housing flats of various typologies next to each other.

Singapore’s success in urban planning is mainly due to the consolidation of power and the government owning majority of the land. The government is able to delegate its land, finance and power to certain ministries and statutory boards to plan, implement and regulate urban planning projects quickly, efficiently and effectively. (Dale, 1999) Such bureaucratic approach empowered the Housing & Development Board (HDB), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) to be master developers for public housing, urban renewal and industrial developments respectively and avoided the challenges faced by the “Communication Model” and “New Urbanism”.

Singapore developed a ring of New Towns around the Central Water Catchment. Each town is self-contained and comprises several neighbourhoods organized around a town centre. The provision of shops, hawker stalls and factories within the town allow resettled farmers and entrepreneurs to operate small business, provide services and employment opportunities for the community. Such initiatives were envisioned, but not implemented during Howard’s time.

Initially, New Towns were planned based on the neighbourhood principle, where approximately 100 blocks of flats are built within walking distance to a neighbourhood centre. In 1980s, HDB modified this principle by inventing the precinct as the smallest planning unit. A neighbourhood is de-cluster into several precincts; each containing about 10 blocks of flats planned around a precinct centre where essential shops and amenities are located. The precinct reduced distance to amenities, encourage closer social interaction, foster stronger sense of belonging and improve spatial identity. The layout of precinct, setup of Neighbourhood Police Posts and Community Watch initiative construct a “Defensible Space” that deters crime. The precinct concept was successfully piloted at Tampines in 1982 and was subsequently applied to other New Towns. These adaptation and improvement of the “Garden City” idea was in line with Howard’s vision for his invention to be capable of great improvement.

Similar to “Garden City”, Town Councils were formed to manage and maintain the common areas of New Towns. A Town Council is led by politicians and appointed councillors (who are residents), and run by a team of professionals for ground operations. Town Councils are primarily funded by Service and Conservancy Charges collected from residents. (Dale, 1999)

The New Towns are connected to the City Centre by a comprehensive transport network. Decentralization was proposed in the Concept Plan 1991, which mapped out a constellation of Regional Centres, Sub-Regional Centres and Fringe Centres radiating out from the City Centre. Each decentralized centre serves several neighbouring towns and reduces commuting by providing more amenities and alternative job opportunities closer to homes.

Tampines New Town won the World Habitat Award in 1992, a testament on the success of Singapore’s public housing and innovative urban transformation efforts. Singapore’s success in urban planning inspires several cities to rejuvenate based on the “Singapore Model”. While Suzhou Industrial Park, Tianjin Eco-City and Colombo Beira Lake District resembles Singapore physically, it needs time to evaluate whether the customized “Singapore Model” is successful in other aspects.

Problems of Urban Planning Concepts and Models
Scientific problems are controlled and hypothesis can be tested and proven. In contrast, planning challenges are “wicked problems” that cannot be clearly defined and there are no right or wrong solutions. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planning problems are inter-related and decisions might have consequences on other issues. (Dale, 1999)

An urban analysis is never comprehensive, because information was researched based on problems identified by the planner. It is difficult to design a development that would resolve future problems that could not be predicted accurately. Furthermore, every site is unique and the same solution might be incompatible for similar problems. (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

A solution can be classified by different parties as good and bad simultaneously. A planning decision may benefit the majority, but affects some in the name of public good. Big planning also proved to be impossible without loss of liberty and equity. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) For example, urban renewal, land acquisition and resettlement were essential for Singapore, but was disruptive to the resettled villagers, as they could no longer stay at their kampong and farm to be self-sufficient. They need to adapt to urban life and work in unfamiliar jobs to finance HDB mortgages. Fast-forward a few decades, it is interesting to note that most Singaporeans wants their flats to be selected for Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme, which is a form of resettlement with lucrative benefits.

Planning is fuelled by capitalism and efficiency, which is to use minimum land to achieve maximum development potential. Efficiency can be quantified by Gross Plot Ratio, population density and land utilization rate etc. While capitalism has merits in promoting pragmatism and desire for improvement, capitalism is also the root cause of social inequality, unhealthy competition, consumerism, wastage, environmental damages, poor physical and mental health etc. Decision-makers should not approved projects solely from an economic perspective, else residents will be deprived of non-profit-generating amenities near homes and direct bus routes to town centre will be removed. The government could subsidize private operators to ensure services will still be provided for the convenience of the community. In fact, it is controversial to privatize essential service providers, because their main objective would switch to profit-making after privatization.

As the economy and society mature, it is necessary for planning strategies to evolve accordingly. (Dale, 1999) Since 2000, there is a gradual shift towards collaborative planning and participatory design. Planners would organize community workshops, walking conversations and pop-up engagements to gather feedback. While such shift is ideal, planners needs to filter NIMBY noises from feedback and be firm with the initial planning objectives when necessary. To discourage NIMBY, planners could encourage protesters to submit a counter-proposal for consideration. Planners should evaluate alternatives, manage powerful voices and balance feedback objectively in the general interests of the community.

Policy-makers attempt to improve effectiveness by inventing unnecessary systems, which complicates the problem and does not necessarily produced better solutions. Agencies either operate in silo, has overlapping functions, (Dale, 1999) or create ‘grey area problems’ not within anyone’s purview. Consolidating planning into the same organization might not lead to greater efficiency, as departments might have conflicting objectives or lack internal coordination. (Dale, 1999) These necessitate coordination to resolve issues that may not be complicated. Policy-makers might lose touch with the ground and advocate “white elephant” projects that residents do not need or want. Nevertheless, the public will always complain that planners did not solve problems that planners claimed they could solve.

Planning is never perfect, as there are alternative ways to parcellate a site (with accompanying opportunity costs). Furthermore, it is impossible to experiment a land use plan without building it. However, there is no threshold for trial & error, because solutions implemented are usually irreversible and could have severe consequences. Plus, measurement of success and impact is never immediate. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planners must note that the view of society changes in response to time, economic development and social diversity. Hence, what was right in the past might be contentious now or in the future.

The Art & Science of Urban Planning
Urban planning is an art and science on balancing: planners need to achieve equilibrium in land use, social needs, economic needs, efficiency, feedback and aesthetics to construct an ideal city. Ideally, the planning process should start with site visits and detailed analysis to understand the existing on-site conditions and identify gaps. This is necessary for conceptualizing functional planning proposals that address gaps.

A city can be planned and built scientifically using a hybrid of planning theories, principles and models. Planning theories are not mutually exclusive; (Fainstein, 2000) most cities are planned using a hybrid of planning models that are customized to fit local context. The strategy is to adopt the pros of a model and replace the cons with the pros of another model. If a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, the same concept can be duplicated in another city, but it must be customized to suits the different on-site situations and local needs.


References
1. Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review, 451-478.

2. Fishman, R. (1982). The Ideal City Made Practicable. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 23-26). Cambridge: MIT Press.

3. Fishman, R. (1982). Inventing the Garden City. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 27-39). Cambridge: MIT Press.

4. Fishman, R. (1982). Design for Cooperation. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 40-51). Cambridge: MIT Press.

5. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

6. Dale, O. J. (1999). The Government as Planner and Entrepreneur. In Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City (pp. 71-115). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

7. Rainbow, P. (1989). Governing Morocco: modernity and difference. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 32-46.

8. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 331-338.

[This is my Final Paper submitted for "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" module on 29 April 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP) and is taught by Prof Lee Kah-Wee.]

Labels: , ,

Can a city be planned and built scientifically?   © 文彬 2004~2023. All rights reserved.