The (anti) adaptive neighbourhoods. Embracing complexity and distribution of design control in the ordinary built environment

Abstract

While cities as a whole work as complex adaptive systems, the same cannot be said of many of their neighbourhoods constructed in the 20th century. The formation and perpetuation of anti-adaptive-neighbourhoods is a very recent and still under-explored phenomenon in urban history. The paper investigates the causes behind this phenomenon and suggests policy and design implications to generate neighbourhoods and built environments that are more adaptable. It demonstrates that contemporary discussions can be enriched if we pay more attention to certain underestimated urban factors that guarantee the incremental adaptation of the built environment: action, ownership, and time.

Higher Density Environments and the Critical Role of City Streets as Public Open Spaces

“…Such a natural urban morphology can often be seen in many traditional towns and cities that grow upon "private ownership, incremental development, and organic adjustments among different households" [69] After being abandoned in favour of big developers and large transformations instead of small ones, self-building practices that were very common before the twentieth century are now regaining popularity. Lloyd et al [68] found that in the Netherlands and the UK, the share of self-build buildings in new housing areas, amounted to between 10-15% in 2015 (in [69]). The return of selfbuilding practices not only provides a variety of lot sizes and housing types to cater for diverse housing needs [70], it also tends to create a walking fabric that accommodates more diversified functions and activities than does an automobile fabric [9].…”

“…Such a natural urban morphology can often be seen in many traditional towns and cities that grow upon "private ownership, incremental development, and organic adjustments among different households" [69] (p. 8). Figures 14 and 15 demonstrate this in some of the chaotic, intensively mixed yet attractive and understandable streetscapes of Seoul, South Korea, while Figure 16 depicts this in Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.…”

“…for the collective genius of ordinary people diminishes the intricacy, complexity, of the social order" (in [69] p. 12). As a result, it appears that "the more a city promises for the individual, the less it seems to have a public life" [65] (p. 116).…”

“…Instead of a place "where different, sometimes conflicting, lifestyles, interests and values are intermingled" [75] (p. 43), the primary environment has become a meaningless place, absent of diversity, spontaneity and surprise, and beyond the residents' grasp. Sanford Ikeda [80] explains that: "substituting the genius of the planner for the collective genius of ordinary people diminishes the intricacy, complexity, of the social order" (in [69] p. 12). As a result, it appears that "the more a city promises for the individual, the less it seems to have a public life" [65] (p. 116).…”

“…This vision of green streets is a timely response to the changing needs of city dwellers that prefer more amenities and opportunities in streets than in parks during utilitarian walking [96]. It also calls for urban green to be generated "only if strictly necessary, avoiding dullness and waste" [69] (p. 27), and to be created for all, preventing green gentrification. This is because it is problematic knowing with certainty how much green is enough to justifiably satisfy various and varied needs in different parts of the city [42].…”