Overcoming distance in design and planning methodologies and thinking in order to support climate adaptation strategies and projects to become local

Publications: Contribution to conferenceConference abstract for conferenceResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This paper is a reflection on barriers in architectural and planning thinking and methodologies that prevent us from seeing and understanding local potentials and resources in design and planning processes.
The reflection takes it point of departure in a question on the use of generic (‘objective’) methodologies in planning and architecture and the impact hereof on analysis results, and hence on our ability to understand and work with local potentials and resources, and thus to support and enhance local aspects in planning and architectural design.
This paper argues that the understandings and thinking behind architectural and planning methodologies, colors the way we as professionals look upon and interpret the site and information gathered. As a result hereof we may overlook important information provided by the site and the users but not articulated or visible - for us.
The reflection refers to two sources; the one related to the critique by Hajer and Reijndorp (2001) on the similarities of taste, background, preference etc. among deciding parties in planning and designing urban spaces, and hence designs that users don’t relate to or attach meaning to, i.e. public spaces, which do not function as public domains.
The other is more specific and refers to a recent PhD study at KADK that cleverly contributes to developing methods of mapping of people in public urban space in Copenhagen by using smartphones in tracking people and identifying the public urban spaces they spend most time in. It is argued (Scharnhorst 2015) that by using GPS tracking, we may gather information on where, what and how local non-professionals use the city, and the information gathered being more objective than information gathered through more traditional architectural survey studies and methodologies, and hence more representative for (real) city life.
These arguments hold true in several respects, but they also raises questions on how the information is processed and interpret.
Addressing these questions seems essential if we want to support and implement local site characteristics and local human capital in planning and design, especially in developing climate change adaptation measurements that will be
1. Locally anchored and accepted
2. Adapted to site specific conditions
3. Respecting and developing local land(-scape) use and perception
Due to the impacts of changing climate on the built environment an interest in understanding relationships and interdependencies between cities and their local land(-scape) now re-appears. Understandings hereof are essential in developing adequate climate change adaptation measurements. But even so the thinking behind is often situated in and drawing on an urban perspective (Krasny 2014), that is too one-side focused on urban questions and solutions, and therefore tends to reduce and simplify, or simply overlook, aspects, characteristics and potentials in both the land(-scape) itself but also local user information hereon, resulting in pure aesthetic interpretations of landscape features and green elements in the designs. The underlying notion (thinking) of nature may thus be described as purely aesthetic and thus overlooking other notions, among others of the local users notions.
The above-mentioned PhD study (Scharnhorst 2015) does, like many other urban space and city life studies and researchers, lean on analytical methodology and quality criteria set up by Gehl (2006), and J. Jacobs. Both these figures are regarded as authorities within their field, and their understandings and analytical methods are referred to and used globally across cultural and historical, economical, and social differences - their thinking and approaches may thus be described as generic.
An advantage about generic approaches and methodologies is that they provide a common ground and a commonly accepted ground.
A disadvantage is that in order to be generic they also tend to become insensitive towards specifics, here understood as local context and site specific – land(-scape) related - conditions.
Session 2.1
An example hereof is that some of the most interesting findings – characterized by their landscape features - in Scharnhorst’s study were left unnoticed; this may be due to low quality of the study and analysis (this was not the case), but it could also be due to an imbedded insensitiveness towards the specific site characteristics in generic analytical methodology and quality criteria used in analyzing the findings.
This assumption is supported by other researchers (Krasny 2014; Angle 2011), and suggests to me that a critical approach towards imbedded barriers in our thinking and methodologies is needed, so they become in sync with the challenges and problems we are facing adapting the built environment to climate change. This suggests an awareness of the balance between generic methodologies and solutions (for example best practice and evidence-based based) with site specific methodologies, and site specific conditions and resources such as the human capital, if planning and design solutions are to become locally anchored.
A first step in doing so is starting to uncover, explore and communicate material, notions and ideas on nature, land(-scape) green elements, especially with a focus on examples – texts, theories, methodologies, research - on the interdependencies and exchange between land(-scape) and cities, for example theory on Ornamental Farming and concrete projects; secondly, to discuss whether this material holds potentials usable in developing climate change adaptation measurements strategies and projects.
Original languageEnglish
Publication date2015
Number of pages1
Publication statusPublished - 2015
EventCITTA 8th Annual Conference on Planning Research - CITTA, The Research Centre for Territory, transport and Environment, Faculty of Engineering, of Porto, FEUP, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Duration: 24 Sept 201526 Sept 2015

Conference

ConferenceCITTA 8th Annual Conference on Planning Research
LocationCITTA, The Research Centre for Territory, transport and Environment, Faculty of Engineering, of Porto, FEUP, University of Porto
Country/TerritoryPortugal
CityPorto
Period24/09/201526/09/2015

Artistic research

  • No

Cite this