multiple interpretations of the sustainable city —does the planner get lost?— lahti science day,...
TRANSCRIPT
Multiple interpretations of the sustainable city
—Does the planner get lost?—
Lahti Science Day, Lahti, 27 November 2007
Janne HukkinenHelsinki University of Technology, TKK Lahti Center, Environmental [email protected]
Introduction: Hiking in the city (1)
Homogeneous party of hikers Heterogeneous party of hikers
Introduction: Hiking in the city (2)
Homogeneous party Heterogeneous party
Members Hikers with destination and schedule
Historian H, naturalist N, engineer E, layman L
Objective ’Go from A to B’ ’Appreciate the cityscape’
Items to observe (indicators)
MapFeatures of the cityStreets with signs
H: traces of past human activityN: signs of urban ecosystem typeE: signs of potential construction sitesL: enjoyable items in the cityscape
Indicators assume scenarios ’Appreciating the cityscape’ is like ’defining the
sustainable city’: several well-reasoned interpretations
Scenarios (storylines) articulate different assumptions about what is valuable in built environment
Indicators are a way of expressing the value of things in several different dimensions
Indicators assume scenarios, because scenarios provide a series of reference points against which to assess the significance of specific indicator values
In practice, scenarios often go unrecognized in indicator systems
The PSR indicator system Indicators make sense to human beings: they enable
communication of causally rooted intent to action PSR (articulation of scenario with indicators):
there exists pressure (P) which is likely to induce a change in the state (S) of affairs, which calls for an intentional response (R) from human
beings
Pressure State Response
Scenarios in the debate on the future of built heritage in Helsinki (HS 27 Nov and 4 Dec 2005)
City of Helsinki (Pekka Korpinen)
Board of Antiquities (Mikko Härö)
Pressure Helsinki must double building base in 50 years to maintain current population
Helsinki is under development pressures
State Too stringent protection of built heritage
Post-war built heritage in Helsinki is inadequately protected
Response Compromise: relax protection and develop areas currently under outdated use (Santahamina, Malmi airport)
Synthesis: respect built heritage in development by innovatively combining knowledge, views and public debate
Indicators assumed by the scenarios of built heritage in Helsinki
City of Helsinki (Pekka Korpinen)
Board of Antiquities (Mikko Härö)
Pressure Required rate of increase in building base (sq-m/yr)
Rate of disappearance of built heritage (sq-m/yr)
State Area protected (sq-m); type of protection (legal binding)
Age structure of protected built heritage (sq-m per era); type of protection (legal binding)
Response Benefit-cost ratio of land use; zero-sum compromises
Deliberative design of land use; win-win syntheses
How many scenarios? ’Compromise’ and ’synthesis’ are two scenarios Is there an infinite number of scenarios in any given
case? Or can we make sense of scenarios, storylines, and
viewpoints by categorizing them? Cultural theory
Cultural bias based on group and grid (Douglas 1982)
+-
-
+
Group (member-ship)
Grid (control)
hierarchic: centrally guided decisions within homogeneous group
fatalistic: centrally guided decisions within heterogenous group
egalitarian: individually based decisions within homogeneous group
individualistic: individually based decisions within heterogeneous group
Cultural biases in the Helsinki debate
+-
-
+
Group (member-ship)
Grid (control)
hierarchicfatalistic
egalitarian: WIN-WIN SYNTHESIS IS POSSIBLE
individualistic: COST-BENEFIT COMPROMISE IS NECESSARY
Built environment as a hybrid of cognition and artefact Built environment is not ’out there’ being created by
different cultural groups ’in here’ Multidisciplinary evidence: physical environment
structures human cognition and action science and technology studies (Winner, Haraway) ecological evolution (Ehrlich) cultural evolution (Tomasello) cognitive studies (Gentner)
Built environment is an artefactual sign language—a code—of cultural bias
Evolving hybrid of built heritage: cognition↔built environment
How can we as members of built heritage make decisions about our own future?--Scenarios and indicators--
To understand debates over built environment, need to articulate underlying cultural scenarios and respective indicators
Each scenario has a unique set of indicators and each indicator has a unique bandwidth the set of indicators expresses which issues are
significant in that particular scenario the bandwidth of an indicator expresses the
permissible range of variation in indicator value
Scenarios, indicators, and bandwidths
Scenario A(indicators1,2,4,6)
Scenario B(indicators1,3,5,6)
Indicators1
2
3
4
5
6
BandwidthsScenarios
How can we make decisions about the future?--Coexisting subcultures-- The four subcultures/scenarios coexist Scenarios can articulate the challenge of modern
human habitats: hybrids with simultaneous demand for maintenance of built heritage, high technical performance, and protection of valuable ecosystems
Details of cultural bias in built environment: toward indicators
Hierarchic Egalitarian Individualistic Fatalistic
Myth of nature-culture relationship
Governed by wise rulers
Governed by agreement among individuals
Governed by powerful majority
Beyond individual control
Decision making process
Welcomes regulatory directive
Win-win deliberation
Zero-sum compromise
Tolerates regulatory directive
Criterion of fit between entities of built env’t
Enlightened governance
Negotiated agreement
Benefit-cost ratio, monetary compensation
Planning theories
Inter-changeability between entities of built env’t
Hero planners design optimal systems
Irreplaceable buildings and materials
Replaceable buildings and materials
Regulations determine replacement
Policy benefits of scenario-framed indicators of built environment
Improve legitimacy of policies over built heritage (transparency)
Improve quality of indicators of built heritage (inclusive expertise)
Application of indicators at appropriate scale (co-existence of cultural biases)
Articulate path dependence of current choices (ratchet effect of built heritage)
Deal with contingencies