Today's 'Polis': Urban Morphology in Mexico City

Urban Morphology is the study of the processes and formations of human settlements. Through this, the study seeks to better understand the characteristics and dimensions as well as spacial structure of cities, towns, neighbourhoods as well as metropolitan areas. This is done by examining the patterns of its most fundamental components and the way it has been developed. One particular city caught my mind when in comes to urban morphology, Mexico City. Here are a few photos which illustrates the ancient geometric plans which define the urban metropolis that is Mexico City today.

Seminar Six: Anglo-American town planning theory since 1945: three significant developments but no paradigm shifts

Myself and our fellow class member Skye Chan had the opportunity to present a presentation in this seminar about a topic which I found very profound in the sense of planning today. The reading Anglo-American town planning theory since 1945: three significant developments but no paradigm shifts by Nigel Taylor explains the great theoretical changes and understanding of town planning during the course of the post World War II era. These changes were brought about through, what Taylor calls, a 'paradigm shift'. This paradigm shift explained by Taylor is in reference to the shift from the modern to the post-modern era during the mid twentieth century. Taylor also explains about how theorists and academics applied this concept of a 'paradigm shift' to town planning. This article is simply a discourse between academics and theorists who believed that planning should be seen in a more systems analytical sense and the planners and architects who see it simply as an exertion of design. I believe that the new theorists were within their own rights to claim that the artistic elements of planning were in fact 'outdated'. How can planning be sustained if it were to continue to focus heavily on design alone whilst we live in a world of vast social, political, economical and environmental change? towns are always subject to change because of these elements which contribute heavily to them. For towns to be sustainable and conformable us planners must expand our tuition beyond the areas of design and be more aware of these much broader issues. This paradigm changed the strategic aspect of planning, from the more universal, longer term approach to the much short-term, localized approach. I believe that this was the most fundamental change for planning because planning cannot be universally implemented in cities and towns which range in difference complexity, population growth etc. For each town are each to their own, or distinct to one another.

The shift from modernism to postmodernism was also a topic of debate for theorists since 1945 and Taylor has given us a brilliant interpretation of how this shift was perceived during the last half of the last century. We must understand that, as I've shown in a video during the seminar, there is no exact definition for postmodernism. It is a complex term that can be interpreted in many ways in discourse to modernism therefore the reason why postmodern theorists such as Jane Jacob and Christopher Alexander accused the modern thinkers like Le Corbusier and Ebenezer Howard for their 'outdated' modern beliefs. 

How can we achieve sustainability and adaptive towns and cities when we are constantly faced with the paradigm which continuously exacerbates the changes we see today? Taylor's reading highlights the importance that we simply cannot allow to continue to believe or understand that planning solely serves the purpose of design alone. We need to be better equipped to understand change, albeit we like it or not, through elements such as politics and economics, because through that we can make a positive difference in our world.

A great example of how one generation perceives a paradigm shift to another generation. Funny that.

Seminar Five: The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation

This seminar's reading The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation by P Healy elaborates on the shifting change in the role of spatial strategy formation in the area of planning. Healy embodies 5 steps which he sees more suitable for planners in which they can engage with all parties involved in policy making or development proposals. These steps explains how members of the community should engage and the style these discussions should reverberate on in order for policies to be implemented and discussions to be seen as a success for all parties involved. Healy also attempts to identify the meaning of 'community' He also refers to two meanings of community; the first is more spatially based, whilst the second is more stake based. It is important to accommodate the stakeholders in discussions as they hold the key for what is deemed more beneficial for their community. Healy believe that, despite conflicting interests amongst parties of interest, a resolution/s can benefit ALL parties and not a singular party which we had previously discussed in past seminars. Inclusionary argumentation, which perceived by Healy, follows up from the 5 step proposal of consultation but is emphasized more on analysis of argumentation brought forward by each party. Healy also mentions the importance of language during these discussions.

I believe that planning should always put all party interests on the table and not a singular interest at heart because a more engaged community will always produce better outcomes which will perhaps be more beneficial for all parties. Healy has re-emphasized this importance of citizen participation whilst also pointing out some other important aspects of spatial planning in which we had discussed before in previous seminars. Healy has demonstrated through his writings of this text that spatial form, despite its ever-evolving surroundings, is more pragmatic through citizen participation rather than simply just theoretical propositions.   

Seminar Four: Contested Cities - Social Process and Spatial Form

Hey guys and girls, I'm back again. Just another delayed response to a seminar however today I'll be reviewing seminar four's Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial form by David Harvey. Harvey, in this article, urges us current and future planners to make a more malleable approach in the way we plan to make cities "more flexible and adjustable" so that future generations can alter their surrounding based on 'their' current social, economical and environmental climate. He also discourages design as a means for solving social-related issues. He emphasizes the need for tuition in the terms that cities be seen as an exertion of process rather than simply just 'things'. One of Harvey's most elaborate themes in this text is the need to place further importance on communities. I have to agree on some of the aspects provided to us here by Harvey such as the importance to build communities that less 'alienate' people from amongst each other. I have never believed in gated communities (one of the examples provided by Harvey) because of the vast implications, albeit both socially and economically. One example of a gated community is based on my own experience where in the Sydney south-west area of Campbelltown (area of Sydney with very low socio-economic status) a large gated community exists where its surroundings are simply small wooden homes and large factories (half of them highly decayed). I've been inside this gated community and immediately realized the obvious difference between the inside and the outside. House are much larger, locals driving in BMW's and Mercedez and people are more acquainted with each other, where as on the outside, houses are much smaller, utes and Holdens dominate the automobile scenery and the most working people are dressed in fluro-coloured tradies shirts. It is these segregations and alienation which demoralizes the sense of community. Cities have a much lesser sense of community which needs to be addressed so that future generations yet unborn may experience that sense of community within their own cities and not the alienation in which we have and are currently experiencing. Process is the epitome of planning theory for us planners (well my opinion anyway) because short term plans which are adjustable and well sustained produce much better outcomes. Spacial form and social processes need to be better understood by planners in better light so that cities can become more functionable and well sustained.

Seminar Three: A Ladder of Citizen Participation

This article by Sherry Arnstein illustrates the deepening problem of planning development implementations in regards to the participation of citizens in many major cities (Arnstein used some major American cities as examples to her arguments). She has gone further on her criticism of this issue by developing what she called 'The Eight Rungs of citizen participation'. This ladder created by Arnstein can be seen as a form of hierarchy which illustrates eight levels of citizen participation; from the lowest form which is 'non-participation' of manipulation and therapy  (which she sees as those who are seen by the upper half of the hierarchy as uneducated and therefore needed to be cured of their ignorance) to the highest level of 'citizen power' consisting of citizen control and delegated power. She sees the highest form as the ones who generally 'obtain the majority of decision-making'. These people are generally of higher status or simply just wealthy. She has also argued about the growing hyperplaurism in some American cities. I have to agree with Arnstein's statement that many groups or community factions are overpowering government's functioning ability because their growing influence is actually hard to contain considering many citizens want to participate and have their voices heard. It is to my belief that this is perhaps the most sensitive topic of discussion of planning because one of the most fundamental aspects of planning, as planners, is to listen very carefully to citizen demands. The problem is that the citizen power of participation, who have the greater influence on decision making, are likely to have not visited a development site which is of discussion. Us planners need to be very aware that participation, regardless of where citizens sit on this 'rungs ladder', is very crucial when deciding on which is more suitable and acceptable when coming to development proposals. We cannot allow ourselves to distinguish citizens based on this ladder because the final development may not suit client requirements. Might as well go back to medieval times and plan according to merchant demands and leave out the voices of the majority who are of middle or poor class statuses.