Unfortunately, this limits society’s ability to both comprehend the ‘issues’ and our responses to them.

*

CDS Building Movers provides a particularly insightful example – for it’s social ‘assumptions’ as well as real technical capabilities. The ’special project’ featured on their website involved the moving of five historic buildings from the campus of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario (1992).

This is a valuable learning resource.

Firstly, as the title states: ‘They said it couldn’t be done’. That is the common refrain. Most people don’t know what is possible, technically. Structural Moving is simply ‘off the radar’ of the general population. It is assumed that structures must remain ‘in place’, or be demolished … the thought of lifting/moving is, sadly, beyond peoples’ comprehension.

Even in this example at Queen’s University … where were the academic engineers and architects when it was assumed that the buildings must be demolished? Here, a university of ‘higher education’ is unable to determine the capabilities and possibilities – isn’t that (partly) what the education system exists for?

Yet, of course it ‘could be done’. It is possible to lift/move large heavy structures – as I’ve written about in previous articles, we’ve been capable of such technical marvels for ages. It ‘could’ve been done’ thousands of years ago. Aren’t the wonders of human technical capabilities a part of Queen’s University history courses?

It’s no wonder we’re in trouble, as a society, with many serious ‘problems’ … even the so-called arbiters of knowledge, skills are imposing artificial limitations on our abilities and ‘options’ in resolving situations.

Thankfully, in this case, some local residents knew better – or, at least, were willing to explore the options.

*

In this particular ‘move’ at Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.), the three largest brick buildings were between 275 and 400 tons, and up to 53′ in height. The move itself required a larger crew of 46, for crowd control, safety, etc.

Interestingly, the buildings were prepared and ‘loaded’ by a crew of six skilled technicians over a three month period. A crew of 6 over 3 months!

Now, imagine what this (or other) crew of six experienced and skilled technicians would be capable of in a typical residential subdivision. It may well be reasonable to assume that all of the buildings of a newly established typical residential subdivision could be moved in less time than it took to build them in the first place.

While this may seem fanciful – the complete removal of all houses from a residential subdivision – it is important to understand as a matter of technical principal: to understand the extent of the capabilities effectively establishes the ‘range’ of possibilities.

As a society we have come to assume the extensive suburban sprawl as an ‘intractable’ problem … when, in fact, it is entirely possible to de-sprawl or un-sprawl: the problem(s) of sprawl and the ‘form’ of subdivisions are definitely not ‘intractable’. Our ‘problems’ of sprawl and subdivision ‘form’ are manageable.

We can de-sprawl!

We can un-develop an entire subdivision if we want, with no waste of the buildings. If it is determined that a particular ‘tract development’ was inappropriate, and there are better uses of the land – open green space; agriculture; institutional; etc. – we can move the buildings and reuse them with no structural waste.

We can change the structural form of residential subdivisions. We can re-arange the houses of a subdivision in a new form to create a compact, integrated self-contained Community.

*

The first step is to establish a new common awareness of our (human) technical capabilities of Structural Moving. With a new understanding, we can approach our current eco/social situation with a new ‘lens’ to see options, opportunities and possibilities.

Structural Moving is an established industry of highly skilled professions and has a long history of optimizing existing resources and minimizing waste by saving/reusing entire buildings.

In ‘Part 1′ of this Introduction, the examples of ancient history – Stonehenge; Herod’s Temple of Jerusalem – highlighted our ancestor’s accomplishments in lifting and moving huge, massive stone blocks and positioning them with great accuracy. The largest, a foundational block of the Temple Mount, was an astonishing 600 tons!! And, 2000 years ago! (4000 years ago for Stonehenge’s 20-50 tons stones, and no wheel for transport!). Sheesh.

This serves to establish our human technical capabilities.

With ‘Part 2′ of the Introduction, a few examples from recent history will highlight the specific technical capabilities of lifting and moving ‘buildings’ – spatial constructed assemblies, as opposed to solid rock.

We are capable of lifting/moving large buildings (houses). We’ve been doing so for a long time, and we now have decades of highly experienced knowledge/skill and various modern equipment/machinery to utilize.

***

This online article describes a Massachusetts community through 1800s, in which the moving of entire houses was quite common.

Houses were moved ‘whole’, intact; divided into ’sections’ (gable ‘end’ walls; side walls; roof; interior walls; etc.); or, disassembled into components.

Houses were lifted with a ’screw-jack’ by human labour. Moving was by draught animal – often only two oxen or horses were necessary. Winter was a favoured time to moving, as snow/ice allowed for simple ’self-lubricated’ and smooth travel.

**

**

During the 1950s in Ontario, the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway (shipping) canal/lock and hydro-electric system required the relocation of numerous small hamlets and towns along the north shore of Lake Ontario – due to the flooding of over 8000 hectares (20 000 acres) of land.

The ‘Relocation Program’ for the St. Lawrence Seaway/Power Project began on Sept. 19, 1955 and affected 6500 people in various communities and 225 farms. New communities came into being, and some former hamlets combined to form new villages (Long Sault and Ingleside).

In total, 525 homes were transplanted … in addition to newly constructed homes in new, modern villages.

No time duration is given over which the house moving was completed. However, since the ’Seaway/Power’ project was operational in 1958, the relocation was completed in less than three years after it began in 1955.

Here’s the online resource.

*

This is an excellent example as it draws attention to the need for such structural change – systemic change in ’structure’ – to achieve beneficial results and progress.

Also, as a recent-modern coordinated move of numerous buildings, and the ‘recombining’ in new ‘forms’ (two or more communities combines to form new villages), this serves as a model of Urban Transformation.

*

*
Structural Moving is the basis of Urban Transformation.

We already possess the capabilities – the knowledge and skills – and we have these examples to look upon.

In our highly (and increasingly) urbanized society, with cities (urban, sub/ex-urban areas) both the site and source of so many of our ecological and socio-economic problems, it is essential that we re-build the form of our structural living systems.

We, as individuals and as a society, must be willing to undergo the disruption in our lives in the process of achieving a systemic beneficial change in structural form … towards a greater goal of better lifestyles for all … towards solutions … towards an ecologically sustainable society.

Urban Transformation … as a new industry … presents the means of creating effective structural forms for healthy lifestyles and vibrant local economies and culture.

The physical ‘form’ of our ‘built environment’ is based on the large structural ‘buildings’ … residential houses, and their arrangements; and the roads along which the buildings are located. Transformation, then, primarily involves changing the ‘form’ of those individual buildings; their ‘layout’ arrangements and orientation in combination(s); and, the ‘routing’ of the roads.

‘Structural Moving’ is the key to the re-building of structural ‘form’.

Structural Moving, as an industry, is well established with highly capable and professional technologists, and a long distinguished history of successful projects. In fact, they correctly refer to themselves as the ‘original reuse/recyclers’, by saving otherwise structurally sound building from demolition.

To truly understand the extent of the possibilities, and the real potential of Urban Transformation requires an appreciation of ‘Structural Moving’ as a primary technical capability.

In following blog posts, I’ll describe the ’state-of-the-art’ of modern Structural Moving, and provide weblinks.

For now, a look to some historical accomplishments will provide a glimpse of our ancestors’ knowledge and skills for a basis of comparison and knowledge to highlight our very real modern practical capabilities. Only with such a perspective can we truly appreciate the potential that exists for Urban Transformation.

*

*

Historical perspective:

We have many historical cases to learn from. A few obvious examples include:

Stonehenge.
Pyramids.
Herod’s Temple.

These serve to illustrate an important point regarding the lifting and moving of blocks of very large physical size and mass. This is particularly instructive due to the equipment and tools available to the people in their respective time(s).

With Stonehenge, 30 ’sarsen’ stones … the standing stones, measured approximately 4m X 3m X 1m thick and weighed around 25 tons!

And, to strain the imagination further, even more impressive are the 10 huge sarsen stones, of the so-called trilithons – each of two uprights joined by a top lintel. These uprights measured 4+ m above ground (and almost 2m below ground), and weighed up to 50 tons!!

These stones were likely transported at least 20-30 km away … this, over 4000 years ago – without the use of the wheel!

It’s freakin’ incredible.

Especially since the stones were positioned with precise accuracy, linked with ‘tongue & groove’ or ‘mortise & tenon’ joinery of the top lintels.

*

Another wonderful example of human technical capability is Herod’s Jewish Temple of Jerusalem.

Constructed around 20000 years ago, while most of the foundation blocks were about .8m X 1m X 4m and weighing approximately 28 tons, the largest was an astonishing 3m X 4m X 15m, and approx. 600 tons!! Six hundred tons!!

Yet, these were quarried to precise size, transported (human and draught animal power) and installed with precision.

*
*****
***
*
*
*

These accomplishments (and many others) by our ancestors serve as insightful and inspiring precedents. These were awesome projects even be today’s standards.

That people were capable of such large-scale and intricate structural projects so long ago, establishes the fact that we’re capable of the same, and more, today.

In terms of Structural Moving, enlightened by the historical examples of Stonehenge and Herod’s Temple, the lifting/moving of ‘buildings’ – primarily residential houses is entirely practical. Especially considering the modern knowledge and technologies we have available to us now.

‘Structural Moving’ – the lifting/moving of whole buildings – is the basis of Urban Transformation.

By optimizing the knowledge and skills of current ‘Structural Moving’ professionals, we can develop Urban Transformation as a new industry, and fundamentally trans-form our cities/suburbs.

Indeed, simple ‘rules’ are a necessity of complex dynamical interactions. A common misunderstanding is that the complex interactions are a result of complex ‘rules’.

Emergent properties may be thought of as ’simplicities’ in the sense that they are the identifiable ‘things’ … whether properties (structural behaviour), patterns (of birds in flight, schoals of birds), or ‘problems’ … which result from the complex interactions of the dynamical system.

While the interactions of the system are complex, the rules which lead to the system’s behaviour are ’simple’. This is one of many counterintuitive aspects of complex adaptive systems.

‘Life’ provides the best and most obvious example.

Applying the lessons learned from the ‘rules of Life’, to the design of Communities (and resulting social lifestyles) is a high form of Biomimicry. The notion of having a few simple rules by which to design and construct healthy vibrant communities of immense diversity and resilience is confirmed by Life.

*

The entire ‘riot’ of life … the vast variety of life forms, from microbial to macro scale: flora and fauna … is based on nature’s ‘communication’ or information-flow ‘rules’ of DNA: the means of evolution is communicated in a code based on four letters, arranged in ‘four-letter’ words.

And think of the wide variety of life that exists … their wildly different characteristics.

Each life form is a ’simple’ emergent property of the complex interactions within and between the systems. The dynamical interactions are highly complex, yet the resulting ‘wholes’ or forms’ (emergent properties) are governed by ’simple’ rules.

By ’simple’, what is meant is a few clear, direct instructions regarding the interactions: what interactions may occur, and how.

With the genetic code of the four letters AGCT, and how they may be combined determines the vast variety of life.

In our social human ‘economy’, the few ‘rules’ of ‘price’ (to the extent that it is accurate) and the seeking of personal ‘betterment’ – to a large extent – ‘governs’ the complex dynamical interactions: no one person or group/government instructs the interactions … they simply ‘occur’ as a result of the rules.

So, with the design of Communities it is entirely possible to have a set of ’simple’ instructions to design a structure/form which enables/facilitiate the complex dynamical interactions … resulting in the ’simplicities’: the simple emergent properties of healthy lifestyles, vibrant local economy and culture, etc. etc. …

*

*

We need to progress beyond the existing monocultural residential subdivisions which are devoid of any commercial/industrial merchant activity, and thus no local economy … we need a design ‘code’ that results in highly effective systemic situations.

Highly effective and healthy Communities, with vibrant local economies and cultures can be achieved … in fact, can only be achieved through a thoughtful set of simple rules: ‘Life’, is the ultimate exemplar … let us learn and apply the lessons.

Community genetic code may consist of a few simple rules, such as:

. balance, diversity & integration

. proximity ‘factors’
. pedestrian ‘walkability’ infrastructure

. solar orientation of buildings (solar ‘frontage’ rather than ‘road frontage’)
. structural ‘assemblies’ (clustering of buildings for ‘heat sharing’; shading; etc.)

. Optimization: Maximum value/effect/etc. … with minimal cost, asset intensity, etc.

Possibly a few other ’simple rules’.

Community Form (Style)
Building Construction (Materials, methods)
Structure Arrangements (Complementary; integration)

*

Rules may be parametric based guildlines … ‘mini-Max’ ratios: with respect to pedestrian walkable design, for instance, there ought to be minimum number of access ‘points’ with maximum distances between.

The ‘mini-Max’ parametric rules will be detailed further in another post.

So, too, solutions can be fractal: an effective re-build of a system structure at one level can/will be result in solutions as emergent properties on various scales.

Communities … rebuilding the structure form of existing subdivisions, by design, to be real, integral communities … will lead to multi-scalar emergent solutions.

Indeed, an immediate ‘emergent solution’ of Urban Transformation as a new industry (industrial system) is the economic stimulus effect in terms of the innovative commercial/industrial investments and operations.

*

Nature’s systems display the ultimate in functional optimization, and provide a wealth of lessons from which to learn and reapply to resolve our ‘problems’ – this is systems approach of biomimicry. The first order of biomimicry is to learn about systems – in previous posts I’ve been prompting you, dear reader, to learn more.

*

*

Physical structure/form of a system is a critical factor in it’s functioning … whether effective or problematic (which is the existing reality). The improperly designed structural form of existing residential subdivisions are a primary component of our problematic situations, and lead to fractal ‘emergent problems’ of various scales/types.

Urban Transformation is the practical application of this system’s mindset – of utilizing ‘leverage points’ to achieve beneficial systemic change: transforming the structure of existing residential subdivisions into real Communities, by design, will achieve ‘emergent’ solutions of various scales/types.

By ‘various scales/types’ solutions, I refer to local, district, urban, regional and global scales; and types of ‘issues’ – arts/culture, economics, education, health (personal, family, community, nation, etc.), politics, institutions (libraries, hospitals, schools, etc.), etc. And all the combinations of types and scales.

For example:

Consider … the many inter-related, inter-dependent ‘problems’ that result from the structural form of the existing monocultural residential subdivisions. In particular, the actions and behaviours that are imposed on the residents: the automobile dependence for virtually all ‘trips’ … and, virtually all ‘needs’ requiring a ‘trip’ beyond the bounds on the residential subdivision.

The excessive roads – their linear distance; expanse in total area coverage – commandeers a disproportionately large amount of available land area. Also, the excessive auto-access resulting from roads imposes private parking needs.

This maximal road/vehicle-focussed design effectively minimizes pedestrian infrastructure, walking and human interaction.

And, the maximal (exclusive) monocultural, residential form … lacking a central core of commerce, industry, professional services … effectively minimizes walkable access to amenities/necessities: there is no local economy or culture.

Because the excessive amount of roads leave minimal ‘left-over’ for ‘all else’ … residential homes properties take up most of land area that remains, etc. Consequently, the various ‘underground’ utilities (water, sewage, gas, etc.) are buried beneath the roads … which must be continually dug up to access any one of the utilities for maintenance, repair, upgrades, etc. The result is that the roads which are very high cost to install, repair, maintain, replace are continually being dug up (damaged) and repairs – often requiring patches over patches until large section is repaired. So, the high costs of excessive road-focussed ‘form’ actually imposes yet further high costs of unnecessary damage and repairs (minimizing the service-life of the original road). Arrgh.

Of course, there’s the excessive rain (and snow melt) water runoff. The more roads – and other impermeable surfaces, the more water runoff, requiring catchment sewers and storm drains.

So, now imagine a real Community, with a structural Form based on maximal pedestrian infrastructure (minimizing auto/vehicle access/dependency); balanced and diverse central core of merchants within a convenient walking distance of all residents – enabling a vibrant local economy and culture.

It is the balanced diversity of commercial, (light) industrial, professional and institutional concentrated in a central core that will promote a vibrant local economy and culture, especially designed deliberately with extensive pedestrian infrastructure.

This pedestrian activity will result in increased health of individual people, families, communities and society, with lower health-care costs. The extensive pedestrian mobility at the local scale will drastically reduce auto-vehicular ’short-trips’, thereby relieving traffic congestion and opening road space/capacity for more appropriate longer/regional distance travel; also, minimizes the need for the existing excessive traffic signals which could then be removed … further improving continuous arterial ‘flow’. As well, there will be a significant reduction in petroleum fuel used – with, corresponding reduction in carbon emissions, pollution, noise … and, property damage, injury/death due to traffic collisions.

Such a community, with minimal roads/parking (other impermeable surfaces) would require much less land area than existing subdivisions – the land ‘freed-up’ could then be used in other ways. With minimal roads, there’d be less need for surface run-off water management and storm sewers. Also, with less road surfacing, there’d be more non-road area under which to locate the utilities so that they may be accessed without damaging the high-cost roads: we could have ‘green/utility-ways’ with underground water, waste sewers, gas, electrical, communications.

*

So, based on a system’s approach, a thoughtful design of Community ‘Form’ can achieve a the goal of a highly effective system function, with solutions as emergent properties of various scales/types.

And, as noted, the economic stimulus in creating an entire new industry of Urban Transformation – the commercial, industrial, finance, etc. – is of a primary ’solution’ to our current socio-economic situations.

The fractal characteristic (or scale-independence) of Complex Adaptive Systems is that features of the whole are present in each of the component parts … this is also known as ’self-similarity’ … patterns that repeat at different scales.

Our ‘problems’ are (in certain cases) fractal ‘patterns’ on various scales of our eco/socio-economic system. So, too, solutions can be fractal: an effective re-build of a system structure at one level can/will be a solution on various scales.

Urban Transformation is the practical application of this principle: the improper design of the existing residential subdivisions in a primary component of many integrated multi-scalar (fractal) ‘problems’ … we can transform the existing residential subdivisions into real Communities, by design, with solutions as emergent properties on various scales.

*

Actually, the concept of fractals was originally an academic methodology from mathematics and physics: fractal geometry.

‘Our’ interests concern fractals in nature, which are ‘approximate’ – rather than the ‘exact’ fractal forms/shapes generated with computer imaging from mathematical fomulae. Fractals in nature include, inanimate (geographic, geologic, etc.) and living organisms; also, social organizations … ’social organisms’ – groups of various amounts of ‘agents’.

*

Systems are generally ‘nested’ – with greater systems comprised of component ’sub-systems’ (in which, in turn, one or more of it’s components may be a system).

Furthermore, the ‘emergent property’ of a system – it’s ’structure’ or behaviour/pattern may be a nested system. For instance, the health of an individual person is an ‘emergent property’ of her/his physio/pyschological system: this person’s health affects the family, community, social healthcare system and socio-economic system as a greater whole. If a person has a health ‘problem’ it is fractal in the sense that the problems (taken as the aggregate of population) give rise to patterns on various scales: so, too, ’solutions’ will be fractal patterns.

So, the fractal ‘aspect’ involves the system ‘itself’, being of a fractal structure’, as well as the ‘emergent property’.

A primary characteristic feature of complex adaptive (fractal) systems, is of ’scale-invariance’. This refers to the resilience of a structure or emergent property (pattern) at a particular scale, while highly interactive fluctuations occur at other scales. This is what provides stability to an emergent structure – the stability of the whole, which is an emergent pattern of the highly interactive parts.

With regards to our purpose of resolving our ecological and socio-economic ‘problems’, the goal is to identify the appropriate fractal ’scale’ or ‘aspect’ in which to intervene in order to achieve the best ‘overall’ beneficial result (systemic change; improvement) at the least ‘overall’ cost, impact and time period.

We seek the most cost-effective ’solutions’, obviously.

And, the solutions we seek must achieve at least the minimal required beneficial systemic non-reveresible change. Preferably more than minimal. Really, we seek optimization.

A ‘problem’ is actually an emergent property of an existing ‘functionally problematic situation’.

When we speak of ’solutions’, what we really need/want/seek are ‘effective situations’ … in which a solution is an emergent property of an effectively resolved situation … a functionally effective situation is the ultimate goal.

Since systems and fractals, etc. are universal in nature, learning from nature and applying the lessons is the best (only?!) means of resolving our man-made ‘problems’. Learning nature’s lessons, and reapplying: this is biomimicy. Since nature is the ultimate in optimization, it is through biomimicry that we can optimize practical solutions.

*

*

*

The current residential subdivisions are a primary component of our problematic situations and lead to various fractal ‘emergent problems’.

So, transforming the structural form of the residential subdivisions into real, balanced and diverse Communities will lead to fractal emergent ’solutions’ on various scales. Transforming the community-scale system structure … achieving a beneficial systemic non-reversible change … will result in fractal solutions throughout various scales of ecological, social and economic systems.

Moreover, true integrated community systems will exhibit scale-invariance of stability: while the interacting ‘agents’ of the system fluctuate over time, the vibrant local economies and culture will be resilient. Similarly, the various scales of fractal solutions will be stable ‘patterns’.

Specifically, understanding Urban Transformation … the need for structural re-building of our physical communities, and the practical capabilities to do so … is a systemic change to a new mindset of possibilities.

*

It is by learning a sufficient amount and variety of component ‘pieces’ of information, and their interconnections …. attaining the appropriate ‘critical mass(es)’ of learning, in a critically appropriate (short) period of time … that the systemic change of mindset or ‘understanding’ is achieved.

Likewise, in turn, when a sufficient number and variety of people … the ‘critical mass(es)’ of people … develop a new understanding – and, in a critically short period of time, a new widespread social paradigm can be achieved.

Learning, understanding … mindset, perceptions and paradigms: these are all in the realm of the brain, mind, and psyche.

Roughly speaking, the following aspects illustrate the nested and fractal nature of systems:

- A person’s awareness, attitudes, beliefs guide her/his actions, behavious, habits: this is the behavioural psychological system on a personal scale.

- A society’s collective behaviours and norms represent the social organizational psychological system on a greater scale.

*

*

Donella Meadows, in her classic article … Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System details her twelve main leverage points of increasing importance with respect to their potential for achieving systemic change.

Re-building a system’s structure, while essential for achieving a higher-order of system functioning, is only midway on the list (#6, or so) because such physical construction is usually difficult and expensive. The top leverage points are all ’soft’ information-based leverage points and involve learning, guidance/goals/goverance, and mindset or paradigm … which, ultimately, influences all other factors on the list.

As Meadows explains in her article, the ’soft’ information leverage points actually hold greater potential for systemic change than the ‘hard’ physical aspects (structure).

Well, it is the the soft ‘information’ that will create the social conditions to allow the hard structural re-building to occur.

So, in this respect, the ‘positive feedback’ of learning/understanding … the systemic non-reversible change of mindset and acceptance of new goals and paradigms – are indeed primary, high order leverage points that will enable/facilitate the re-building of structural form.

*

*

*

Urban Transformation is the intended practical goal, towards greater solutions and a sustainable, thriving society.

Achieving a systemic change of mindset or paradigm is a precursor to a physical change of structural form.

It is essential for people, individually/collectively, to learn of the possibilities that exist and understand the benefits that stand to be gained in order to generate the widespread public ‘buy-in’ and support …

… which in turn, is necessary to influence and ‘pressure’ the political ‘process’

… which, in turn, is a fundamental enabler of high-finance industrial socio-economic activity.

This mindset or ‘paradigm of possibilities’ is, in effect, a fundamental ‘game changing’ technology.

In Meadows’ terms of Leverage Points, we’re establishing a new flow of information … directing the flow, by design – designing an ‘information flow system’ … to establish a new beneficial positive feedback loop of learning/understanding (for individuals; families; groups; … society).

To paraphrase Meadows, we’ll create a new loop to deliver (new) information to people/places it wasn’t previously going to, and effectively causing people to behave differently. We can establish new awareness of possibilities; new attitudes to current situations and demand for the beneficial change(s) we present; new beliefs and behaviours …

By creating a new flow of information we’re establishing a new beneficial feedback loop … a new situation of ’success to the successful’. People will be successful in their learning/understanding, and we will be the successful corporate entity that gains increasing success in launching Urban Transformation projects.

In terms of practical capabilities, we’re re-writing the rules of the industry. Actually, there currently is no identifiable industry for the endeavours I propose: we’re creating a new industry and writing it’s rules.

From Meadows’ list of increasingly powerful ‘leverage points’, the top three are: #3/ Self-Organization; #2/ Goals of the system; and, #1/ Mindset or Paradigm. Each, successively more influential than the one before.

* Self-organization … the ability of a system to change itself. This is a major aspect of complex systems. As Meadows describes, systems create entirely new structure or behaviours … allowing a system to change any aspect lower leverage points. Self-organization is the strongest form of resilience, since a system can survive through evolution by changing itself.

Therein lies an important fact – a system that loses it’s ability to self-organize, effectively loses it’s resilience and it’s evolutionary potential.

We must always keep this in mind. We must celebrate our ability to self-organize (self-orgainizing criticality, in ’systems-speak’) and develop/enhance/refine our abilities in this regard … this is creativity, innovation …

* Goals of the system … is even more potent, because, obviously, the goal determines the direction or form of the self-organization, or any other lower leverage point.

It is the goal of a system that gives it meaning … a purpose or outcome to work towards.

* Mindset or Paradigm … the basis of society’s belief structure (from which beliefs are established) … the underlying assumptions on/from which decisions are made and actions taken … society’s ideas and ideals … the kernel of society’s ’source code’ …

*

**

***

**

*

Through effective communications – a new flow of information, we can establish the positive feedback of learning/understand of the need for structural rebuilding, and the practical possibilities. We will achieve a widespread social understanding … a new social mindset … a ‘Paradigm of Possibilities’ …

With this new mindset, will come new goals to work toward: Urban Transformation as a new industry … to bring about solutions and a sustainable society.

To truly appreciate the potential for achieving systemic change … and, the potential for vast improvements, it is necessary to understand the underlying factors of our existing problematic residential ‘form’. In particular, the roads: the arterial avenues/roads, and, the ‘inner’ residential roads.

I’m focussing on roads as a primary ‘component’ because it represents a defining feature of the landscape – delineating the resultant land area that is ‘left over’ for all other uses; roads are a very high cost feature (initial construction, maintenance and repair); and, as a consequence of ‘form’, virtually all aspects of life both involve and impact roads.

In terms of systems, roads serve as a ‘boundary conditions’.

Yet, the roads are also serve as linear ‘centres’ of commerce and industry.

These are two conflicting functions, and as I believe, the source of much of our social, transportation, traffic congestion ‘problems’.

*
*
Identifying and understanding the boundary is crucial in resolving any systemic problems. In natural sciences - biology, ecology, geography, etc. - boundary conditions are generally the most ‘active’ and ‘interesting’: the boundary between forest and prairie is active with the species of both bioregions, as well as those that live in the boundary itself; the boundary between water and land; and, for that matter, the boundary between the surface of our planet and the atmosphere.

Originally, a goal of the roads was to guarantee a ‘right of way’ to property owners, to avoid the possibility of trespass that may otherwise occur. Well, that is certainly an appropriate goal.

In our current socio-geography … our built environment, the arterial roads serve as boundaries between residential subdivisions.

Since there is no central core of socio-economic merchant activity within residential subdivisions, all such commercial, industrial and institutional ‘elements’ must be located along the arterial roads. All merchant activity is either located directly along the arterial roads (individual buildings; multi-unit ’strip’ plazas); or, in dedicated ‘complexes’ (medical offices, etc.) and malls located on large real estate along the roads.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with such activity along the roads.

However, the problem arises when ALL such activity takes place along the roads … and none within the residential areas.

The ‘problems arises … as an emergent property, as a function of a greater social-structural dynamic system: the monocultural residential subdivisions, with no central core of merchant activity … and no pedestrian-focussed design. The auto-based residential form, in turn, is a primary factor in excessive arterial road traffic loads and consequent congestion.

The result is all needs require ‘trips’ outside the residential subdivision with multiple destinations, and all ‘trips’ require a (motor)vehicle.

So, the arterial roads which were originally a mode of long distance, high speed travel and also served as a ‘boundary condition’ – defining the land area (and it’s uses) … have now become destinations since they are the location of merchant activity and are expected to accommodate massive flows of local, short-trip travel.

The increasing local-resident ‘destination’ service – with it’s low speed discontinuous-flow (entry/exit, turn and intersecting ‘interactions’) – reduces the capacity of the road continuous flow high speed regional commuter travel.

With each successive residential development over the decades/generations, there is a major increase in both the absolute road travel use, and, especially, the multi-destination trips by local residents.

***

It is the absolute traffic volume and ‘conflicting uses’ that is straining the road capacity. The duality of ‘competing modes’ – is incompatible at such volumes.

It is impossible to optimize a single infrastructure for two (or more) types of uses.

Even the recent planning for massive investment in public transit will not resolve these problems that are ‘emergent properties’ of our systemic ’structural form’. At best, such investment may alleviate some symptoms, but likely at the cost of creating new ‘problems’.

***

In terms of ‘boundary condition’ … the problem is of a dual nature: that the roads as originally a boundary condition have become a ‘continuous destination’; and, the residential subdivisions lack the socio-economic ‘boundary conditions’ of a central core with it’s merchant activity.

In terms of complex systems … scale is a fundamental feature: a complex system is comprised of an appropriate scale of components and connections … enough, but not too much.

The arterial roads are being used for too many ‘things’: too many ‘modes’ and too many destinations … requisite variety is exceeded

and,

The residential areas are used for too few ‘things’: lacking a pedestrian-based central core  there is no local merchant activity … so, the requisite variety is non-existent.

*

*

*

Only a structural ‘re-build’ of our residential system’s ‘form’ … a systemic transformation … will resolve many of our problematic issues, simultaneously.

Moreover, true solutions … as ‘emergent properties’ of the dynamical system … will be fractal – with elements of the whole will be represented in all the components. In this way, transforming our monocultural subdivisions into true Communities will be multi-scalar solutions (as nested systems) for various large(r)-scale ecological and socio-economic problems.

*

This post continues the discussion based on Donella Meadows’ classic publication …           ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’. Below are a few key quotes.

“The only way to fix a system that is laid out wrong is to rebuild it, if you can.”

“Physical structure is crucial in a system, but rarely a leverage point, because changing it is rarely simple. The leverage point is in proper design in the first place. After the structure is built, the leverage is in understanding it’s limitations and bottlenecks and refraining from fluctuations or expansions that strain it’s capacity.”

While these statements are applicable to all systems, in this case the focus is on the structural form of our residential ‘community’ subdivisions and the problems that result as emergent properties of the complex system of interactions.

In order for us to  appreciate the need for new, properly designed ’structures’, and understand how to achieve the systemic changes, we need a deep understanding of both the lack of proper design of the original system structure (specifically, residential subdivisions) and lack of understanding of it’s limitations which has lead to the currently strained capacities … and, the ‘emergent problems’.

*

*

Roads are primary, since, obviously, all development follows in time/place as a consequence of the roads. So, roads are an essential aspect to understand ‘improper design’, ‘limitations’ and ’strained capacities’ of our built environment ’system’.

The roads were not originally laid out decades/century ago with current residential subdivisions in mind. Rather, the roads were a way to divide the land for agricultural purposes (or other resource extraction) and allow farmers to bring their produce to market (and other commercial/industrial transport: equipment, etc.). Also, the roads serves as ‘boundaries’, delineating the land for easier surveying/parceling of real estate.

Okay, fine.

These roads, then, became used as ‘feeder’ roads to bring people to new developments … one tract development after another – on/along each and every arterial roadway.

Again, okay: nothing inherently bad about that.

Our ‘problems’ truly begin with the ‘improper design’ of residential subdivisions – even, the improper ‘placement’: poor design on larger scale.

Once the respective tract subdivision populations were ‘installed’, however, those residents have had no choice but to use the roads for each and every vehicular trip: and every personal/social ‘need’ requires a vehicular trip since the structural form provides absolutely no local ‘centre’ of commerce/market/professional.

The ‘improper design’ is the ‘monocultural’ aspect of  residential subdivisions which lacks an integrated ‘centre’ or ‘core’ of merchant activity (commercial, professional, etc.) within walking distance of local residents. The ‘improper design’ includes several components: lack of scale in requisite variety – in terms of merchants, commercial, professional and institutional activity, as well as demographics; lack of central core within which the commercial merchant activity is located; lack of proper physical scale – too large, geographically, for pedestrian access of ‘whole’ community; lack of scale of pedestrian network. And other aspects.

As a result, obviously, there is no local ‘economy’; no single ‘place’ to shop for groceries, etc.

Everyone must go somewhere else … for virtually everything … because no-one has a local ‘place’ to acquire necessary goods/services for daily living.

It’s absurd.

*

*
So, the same roads (though, wider; more lanes) – same road configuration - which were originally laid out primarily to access land are now expected to serve the needs of massive population base for a multitude of destinations.

In terms of ‘leverage points’, the improper design imposes limitations and strained capacities … which are not well understood … prompting reactionary design that is improper, with more limitations and strained capacities that further compounds the problems … and on …

The roads are limited in their traffic capacity – especially when there are two (or more) competing traffic ‘uses’: long distance continuous (coherent) ’single/few destination(s)’ flow; and, short distance discontinuous ‘multiple destination’ (turbulent) flow. It is impossible to optimize for both ‘goals’. In fact, existing roads aren’t designed to be optimal for either. Yet, we expect that we can achieve both. Impossible.

Existing roads which brought the residential subdivisions and population increases, are now expected to carry vastly increased regional commuter traffic … AND!, a massive amount of local multi-point trips involving many mergings from parking lots, left/right turns; crossings; and intersections. These are mutually incompatible needs/goals.

The ’seemingly’ excessive capacity of the original roads had practical limitations that weren’t understood. As a result, improperly designed residential subdivisions have been built that ’strain’ capacities in various respects (land use; agricultural productivity; traffic; environmental pollution; etc.).

Most infuriating, perhaps, is that ‘our’ current lack of understanding of the system – it’s structure, limitations and strained capacities, combined with the governments’ strained financial capacities is prompting further ‘improper design’ in the form of more development. In pursuit of increasing the ‘tax base’, municipal (and other) governments are actively encouraging/facilitating further population increases – and, in much the same form.

We’re chasing ‘tax base’ in form of the same residential subdivisions ‘forms’ that impose the ‘high asset-intensity’, ‘high cost’ limitations imposed by precisely the improperly designed subdivisions in the first place.

*

We’re F^@!ed.

*

We need new innovative ‘forms’ of Community.

Doing so, we will achieve beneficial systemic non-reversible (transitional) changes on various ’scales’, simultaneously: this is a natural result of ’systems approach’ … Solutions are the ‘emergent properties’ or patterns

In the same way that the ‘problems’ or problematic situations are ‘emergent properties’ of the complex system – so too, solutions are ‘emergent properties’ of the transformed system … the resultant ‘whole pattern(s)’ of the new system’s dynamical interaction.

In this sense, the ecological/socio-economic solutions are ‘fractal’ (scale independent): that is, features of the ‘whole’ (solutions; benefits) are represented in each of the various scale ‘components’ (’component wholes’).

*
*

As I discussed in the previous article (part 1), the physical structure/form of a system (in this case, the form of our Communities) is a critical factor in it’s functioning … whether effective or problematic (and, problematic is the existing reality). Moreover, the function of our local communities is a critical factor in the functioning of the various scales of society as a ‘whole’.

According to systems analyst Donella Meadows, “The only way to fix a system that is laid out wrong is to rebuild it, if you can.”

Well, we can … and so we must.

This is the premise of Urban Transformation.

It is my work, now, to describe the possibilities and to explain how it can be done. To communicate this message, I must also draw attention to the flawed thinking of various ‘conventional approaches’ and current plans. In this series of posts I will make the case that such Urban Transformation is not only possible, but eminently practical and may well be the only way to truly resolve our systemic problems.

***

In the previous post, I quote Meadows’ from her publication: ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’:

“Physical structure is crucial in a system, but rarely a leverage point, because changing it is rarely simple. The leverage point is in proper design in the first place. After the structure is built, the leverage is in understanding it’s limitations and bottlenecks and refraining from fluctuations or expansions that strain it’s capacity.”

We have so many systemic ‘problems’ now, precisely because of the lack of proper design of ’subdivision’ structure in the first place, and, compounded by lack of understanding of it’s limitations … resulting in a hyper-straining of it’s capacity.

Yet, we continue to be told (by current planners, politicians) that we need more of the same. We’re told we need more housing developments to provide more ‘tax base’ to cover the cost of building/maintaining the infrastructure and ’servicing’ … yet, there is seemingly no deep understanding that it is precisely the poor design of our physical ‘form’ that is of very high ‘asset intensity’ and imposes the high costs of initial construction, continual maintenance, while also straining various eco/socio-economic ‘capacities’.

Here we are, in the present, and generally speaking, ‘we’ still do no understand the lack of proper system design of the original ’structure’ and it’s limitations. Worse, we’re moving forward without an understanding of the current limitations … and actually continuing with the same improperly-designed system ‘form’.  It is simply absurd.

So, it is essential for us to learn/understand, now, the situation as it exists and how/why it has come to be.

Only with such an understanding of the lack of proper design of the original system structure (specifically, residential subdivisions) and lack of understanding of limitations – leading to the currently strained capacities … can we appreciate the need for new, properly designed ’structures’, and understand how to achieve the systemic changes.

***

The physical structure or form of a system is a critical factor in it’s functioning … whether the functioning is effective/efficient, or problematic.

And, problematic is what we currently have … ecological, social and economic.

As systems analyst Donella Meadows writes in ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’:

“The only way to fix a system that is laid out wrong is to rebuild it, if you can.”  ”Often you can’t (rebuild), because physical building is usually the slowest and most expensive kind of change to make in a system.”

“Physical structure is crucial in a system, but rarely a leverage point, because changing it is rarely simple. The leverage point is in proper design in the first place. After the structure is built, the leverage is in understanding it’s limitations and bottlenecks and refraining from fluctuations or expansions that strain it’s capacity.”

From Meadows’ quotes, above, the primary leverage point of a system’s structure/form is in it’s “proper design in the first place”.

For an existing system’s physical form/structure, the leverage is “in understanding it’s limitations and bottlenecks” – it’s ‘constraints’ – and “refraining from straining it’s capacity”.

Well, here we are faced with a serious conundrum. The physical structure/form of our residential subdivisions were never designed well in the first place (designed poorly, in fact, or not designed at all); and, our problematic situations are compounded by not understanding it’s limitations and straining it’s capacity.

So, we really have no choice but to re-build the structural form: inasmuch as we ‘choose’ to deal with our issues and resolve our problematic situations, we must, therefore, inherently ‘choose’ to re-build the system’s physical structure.

Meadows’ quotes, above, that the physical re-building of a system’s structure is ‘rarely simple’ and ‘usually the slowest and most expensive kind of change to make in a system’ … may well be true: that usually, it is the slowest and most expensive. And, certainly, it is rarely simple.

This can be deceptive and misleading.

Slowest and most expensive … compared with ‘what’?

With regards to our highly urbanized society and our current (and pending) eco/socio-economic ‘problems’, we have not been presented with any other viable systemic solutions.

For comparison: cities are investing heavily in public transit, or planning to. In principle, that is entirely appropriate (I’m all for public transit). However, much of the transit infrastructure in discussion is applied as an addition to a ‘flawed’ physical form: Relieving the symptoms – resulting from the poor (or, lack of) design of residential subdivisions – is, realistically, the best we can hope to achieve. And even that is not likely to be achieved. It’s mostly wishful thinking. This is not ’systems thinking’, so it is inappropriate to begin with.

These public transit plans (including Transit Oriented Development – TOD) are extremely expensive with lead times of many years … and they simply do not address the many underlying local issues that result in larger-scale ‘problems’. Slow and expensive.

Yes, structural change of urban/suburban form will be difficult … though, in all likelihood, achieving large-scale systemic social changes any other way will be even more difficult – if, indeed, other practical options exist.

*

*

As Meadows’ states, above, “The only way to fix a system that is laid out wrong is to re-build it … ”        ”… if you can.”  We can!

We can re-build!

With a ‘whole systems analysis’ it well prove to be the most cost-effective and timely means of change.

With such a rigorous ’systems mindset’ Urban Transformation may well prove to be the only means of systemic change to a sustainable society of thriving lifestyles.

It is this ‘duality’ – in a fractal sense – that presents an opportunity of enormous potential.

Communities represent a key ‘leverage point’ …  as a means of establishing large-scale beneficial systemic change.

In fact, this is a uniquely vital ‘Dual Leverage Point’: as an ‘end’ goal of resolving many practical ‘issues’ for local residents (a means of improving their lifestyles); and, on a greater social scale, the improvements of local behavioural interactions serves as a means of establishing large-scale transitional systemic socio-economic changes.

*

*

Our problematic situations are systemic, and many eco/socio-economic ‘issues’ are a result of the form of our existing residential subdivisions.

Subdivisions, specifically their lack of coherent, integrated design – as I’ve discussed in previous articles – has resulted in a physical form that predetermines many our daily behavioural actions/habits as primary contributors/sources of our problematic eco/socio-economic situations (’problems’).

The ‘problematic situation’ is an ‘emergent property’ of the whole system dynamics – the ‘problem’ exists as a function of the dynamical interaction of the interconnected components. Likewise, a systemic solution is an ‘emergent property’ that exists as a whole, resulting from the systems interactions.

In order to resolve our greater large-scale eco/social problematic situations, ‘localized’ problematic situations of our residential subdivisions must be resolved … subdivisions require a systemic ‘non-reversible’ change to become true integrated Communities. Transforming subdivisions into real Communities can/will achieve a systemic solution … resolving a variety of ‘issues’, simultaneously.

Transformation, as the word implies, is a change in form … a transitional change, and permanent. In ’systems theory’, this is a ‘non-reversible’ systemic change.

In this way, a systemic change to transform residential subdivisions into Communities, in turn, becomes the impetus for greater urban and regional transformation(s), as well as socio-economic transformation.

**

**

In terms of Complex Adaptive Systems:

‘Community’ (a social structure of a higher-order than neighbourhood) is an ‘emergent’ property, and ‘invariant’ … resilient amidst fluctuating parts.

And this resilience and sustainability is precisely what we need and seek to achieve on a larger social scale(s). This is the fractal nature; scale-independence … characteristics of the ‘whole’ represented in each of the component parts (’component wholes’).

Transforming our subdivisions into integrated Communities, by design, will resolve many eco/socio-economic ‘issues’ for local residents, and in turn, will serve to establish the non-reversible systemic change to a resilient sustainable society.

A real resolution of our problematic situation(s) implies ‘change’ … a transitional change … and, permanent change: In systems science, this is referred to as a ‘non-reversible’ systemic change.

After all, it’d do no good to change ‘for the better’, only for the system to revert back to the same (or similar) problematic situation.

This is a true transformation – transforming the ‘whole’ system to achieve a ‘non-reversible’ resolution to the problematic situation(s).

Understanding systems and requires great effort to learn: there are various types of systems, each with many ‘aspects’ or component parts, and interconnections; there is the issue of ’scale’ and ’scope’ (scale of breadth and depth).

An excellent explanation is … ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in Systems‘; by, Donella Meadows, founder of Sustainability Institute. This classic document provides a summary of dynamical systems by detailing the means by which they may be ‘changed’. Accessible for all readers, yet stimulating and insightful for specialists.

The notion of ‘leverage points’ is characteristic of ‘Systems Thinking’ and represent critical component aspects of systems that offer potential to initiate transitional systemic change.

For now, I’ll mention two particular ‘leverage point’ aspects of complex systems:   ’Sensitivity to initial conditions’,and, ‘positive feedback’.

* ‘Sensitivity to initial conditions’ refers to the characteristic of dynamical systems, in which a small input or ‘change’ in the ‘initial condition’ can/will achieve a large output or result.

* ‘Positive feedback’: increasing returns … “success to the successful”; “winner takes all”; “s/he who has, gets”.

Without a sufficient understanding of the particular system, it is possible to put great effort into changing the wrong ‘component’ … only to achieve a small output/result … or worse, to further exacerbate the ‘original problem’, and/or complicate with the addition of new ‘problems’. This is ‘unintended consequences’ that is so prevalent. Such wastefulness (and potential harm) draws attention to the need for understanding systems.

A small change in initial conditions can establish a new positive feedback – a situation in which ‘getting’ provides the conditions to get more … which begets yet more.

Important! Whether this is beneficial or detrimental is another matter: ‘positive feedback’ refers to the cycle of ‘increasing returns’ in terms of quantity, and is not qualitative (good or bad). The word positive is purely quantitative, and simply means the systems undergoes a cycle of increase (the output is ‘cycled’ back in for another round of input). Compared with ‘negative feedback’, in which a system is ’self-regulating’ or ’self-balancing’ – ‘positive feedback’ is ’self-increasing’, so to speak.

**

**

To achieve true sustainability and resilience, requires systemic solutions to our eco/socio-economic ‘issues’.

Such solutions are systemic non-reversible changes … transitional: achieving a transformation to a new sustainable ‘form’ of society.

Understanding ‘Systems’ … particularly, Complex (Adaptive) Systems … and, by consequence, systemic change is absolutely essential is we’re to truly design real solutions.

Such an ‘understanding’ may well be the crucial ‘leverage point’ … this learning may be the ’small change’ of ‘initial conditions’ that sets about a beneficial ‘positive feedback’ of understanding with which society may actually progress in designing

Indeed, the ’small change of initial condition’ … in terms of learning about complex systems, sets in play a beneficial ‘positive feedback’ of understanding: this is a non-reversible transitional change of the complex adaptive neural system of ‘your’ mind … achieving a transformation of learning/understanding.

And this is very much a ‘fractal’ (structure) … features of the ‘whole’ are present in each of the various scaled components (’component wholes’).

‘Your’ mind/set is a complex adaptive neural system; ‘your’ learning/understanding is a sub-system.

Likewise, ‘your’ mind/set is a sub-system of a larger scale complex adaptive Social system (which includes economy, etc. as a social subsystem).

So, ‘your’ learning about complex systems and systemic change … is an instance of ‘Initial Condition Sensitivity’ that sets in play the beneficial ‘positive feedback’ of learning/understanding on various fractal scales … as ‘you’ come to see the world differently, and speak with family, friends, etc. … the learning is a positive feedback in which the initial ‘learning/understanding’ begets ever more.

And, the more people learn/understand, the more a transitional systemic social change is achieved in which society ‘as a whole’ has a systemic ’social mindset’.

Moreover, with this new emergent property of a new social understanding of systems will come both greater demand and capability for the very beneficial systemic transformational changes we need.

Get it?!

*

*

*

By seeking to learn/understand systems, the ‘Initial Condition Sensitivity’ sets in play a ‘Positive Feedback’ that transforms ‘your’ mindset … and on to transform Society to a Systems Mindset.

There is a duality to the ‘emergent property’ to this complex adaptive system: With this Social Systems Mindset, we’ll have achieved the systemic transitional change of both recognizing the need for systemic change and have improved our capability for designing systemic Solutions.

The first step of learning about complex systems … can/will achieve a quantum leap toward a sustainable society.

*

And, really, such a systems approach to designing solutions – achieving beneficial systemic change – is biomimetic: Systems are natural, and, by learning from and emulating nature is what biomimicry is all about.

Both ecological and social systems are complex adaptive systems, and even more so together in a greater eco/soci-economic system: we are dependent on ecological systems for our lives (air, water, nutrients, etc.), and, our actions in turn affect ecosystems. Furthermore, our socio-economic systems depend entirely on the inputs of ecological resources as ‘factors’ of productions (and ’sinks’ for our waste by-products).

Moreover, the problematic eco/socio-economic situations are complex adaptive systems.

So, if we’re to truly resolve our eco/social ‘problems’ we can do so only with a systems mindset – by resolving the complex adaptive system ‘as a whole’.

As difficult as it may be to learn about and understand systems, especially complex adaptive systems, we must do so in order to design practical workable systemic solutions.

*

*

As with the previous article – Systems: A Primer – this is not meant as a detailed description, but a mere introduction to guide readers on to further learning.

Please, follow the links below and read more about complex adaptive systems.

A few points to consider about Complex Adaptive Systems:

* There is an ‘emergence’ in the system as a whole of properties that cannot be assigned to any one of it’s components.

* There is an ‘invariance’ of the whole even though it’s components fluctuate … a ‘resilience’ of the ‘whole’ pattern.

* There is an ‘irreducibility’ of the whole emergent pattern … the behaviour of interest exists only as a function of the whole system.

Complex behavioural ‘patterns’ emerge as a result of ‘whole’ system of collective ‘actions/decisions’ … based on simple ‘rules’. It is the interactions/interconnections of the ‘agents’, and their highly distributed ‘decisions’ – no controlled ‘plan’.

It is this decentralized ‘decision-making’ that results in the characteristic ‘Self-Organization’. Ecological examples include the patterns formed from flocks of birds or schoals of fish; social examples include ‘the economy’ as a self-organized ‘form’.

Learning about Complex (Adaptive) System is, in itself, a form of Biomimicry with which we can develop an appropriate mindset to design practical solutions and progress to a resilient, sustainable society.

Resilience … invariant, sustaining ‘patterns’, after all, are key characteristics of Complex Adaptive Systems. So, seeking these characteristics in a new ecologically sustainable society is ‘Biomimicry’: in order to learn how to mimic nature’s lessons in designing our social system solutions, we must first learn and understand nature’s complex adaptive systems.

*

**

***

Here are some links:

Complex Adaptive Systems

Complexity

Santa Fe Institute of Complex Systems

New England Complex Systems Institute

In fact, even amongst the experts, there is no single classification for all types of systems, or for all purposes of analyses.

My intent with this article is not to provide a ’specific’ definition or even to describe ‘what’ systems … rather, my goal here is to help you, dear reader, to learn and develop an understanding of systems (prompting further study), and ultimately to ‘think’ in terms of systems with a ’systems mindset’.

‘System’, according to Wikipedia: an integrated, structured ‘whole’ composed a set of interacting component parts.

Systems share a few characteristic factors: Structure, Interdependence (of component parts), and Behaviour as a ‘whole’.

‘Structure’ requires that a system be defined – as an ‘whole’: we identify a system by defining it’s boundary. Identifying the ’structure’ … the ‘boundary conditions’ is crucial skill for all further systems analysis. As I mentioned in a previous article, it’s all about ’scale’ and ’scope’: the scale in amount, and/or, the scope in variety of components … getting this correct is vital for understanding the interconnectivity/interdependent integration, and the behaviour as a whole.

As a basis of understanding, systems are classified as being ‘open’, ‘closed’, or ‘isolated’: this refers to the exchange of inputs/outputs to and from the ’surroundings’ (beyond the boundary of the system: another reason for understanding the boundary condition). Most systems are ‘open’ with all energy/matter and information flows between system and surroundings; ‘closed’ systems exchange energy/information but not physical matter; and ‘isolated’ systems are purely theoretical for mathematical modeling.

There are different categories and definitions for systems according to different academic disciplines and even particular specialists. So, there is no single definition. In fact, it is acknowledged that attempting to generalize about systems can be dangerous – in terms of the danger of misunderstanding: in this way, the issue of ‘boundary condition’ comes into play right at the start with how we determine the structure of our definition of systems … how we define the bounds of what a system is.

Yes, it can be quite confusing.

Systems can be natural, scientific, man-made (engineered), human (social), and theoretical.

A very simplified categorization is of  ’hard’ and ’soft’ systems: ‘Hard’ systems are primarily easily ‘quantifiable’ components of physics, chemistry for the purpose of mathematical modeling. ‘Soft’ systems, involve elements which are difficult to quantify – having qualifying relationships in multi-dependent interconnections – as in natural systems, especially human (society, economics, psychology, etc.).

Systems can be mechanistic … a clock, for example: a mechanical system with direct ‘one-to-one’ interactions between the component parts. Such mechanistic systems are obviously deterministic – any input will have easily determined outputs. And, the outputs are proportional to the inputs. Such mechanical systems are ’static’ in the sense that the parts are ‘fixed’ in relation to each other.

Systems can be dynamic … technically, this is a mathematical definition of systems which involve ‘time’: a dynamical system is a mathematical model used to describe the temporal evolution of a system. Dynamical systems, generally, are classified as either deterministic, or, when involving probability, such dynamic systems are ’random’.

Complex Systems – a form of dynamical system, give rise to collective behaviours …  that are constantly evolving over time …

Complex Adaptive Systems are special form … comprised of diverse and multiple-interconnected components, which adapt: they have the capacity to ‘learn’ from experience and change accordingly. Social systems, cultural; ecological; etc. Classic examples include ant or bee colonies; ecological systems; human social systems – economic system as a subsystem; neural systems, psychology, etc.; commercial organizations; etc.

It is these Complex Adaptive System which are our primary concern, in regards to our ecological/social ‘issues’.

*

**

***

**

*

Some helpful links to learn about systems:

Wikipedia, of course, is an excellent place to begin (as with any topic).

Systems

Dynamical Systems

Complex Adaptive Systems

Systems Theory

Systems Thinking

Santa Fe Institute of Complex Systems

New England Complex Systems Institute

Article from ‘Encylopedia of Earth’: Complex Systems; lead author, P.F. Henshaw

So, there’d be a sense of Place, both from afar and within. The community core would be visually evident and obvious, so that with a glance from a distance even a visitor could easily/immediately locate the centre.

A self-contained community, then, can be thought of as a fractal structure – in which, the features of the whole are represented in each of the various scaled components. Community; district; city; region … are (ought to be) representative ‘wholes’ of increasing scale. This will be a topic of further discussion in a following article.

This ’self-similarity’ or, ’scale-independence’ is a fundamental aspect of dynamical, complex adaptive systems … a (successful) feature of nature; a replicable model … so, why then aren’t we adopting/adapting natures successes?! This is an aspect of Biomimicry that deserves serious attention.

Furthermore, the ‘notion’ of community provides a basis of identity for all residents to ‘identify’ with and share (another shared need and goal). Identity, from a complex systems perspective, is actually a primary aspect/notion of all organisms/organizations.

The shared identity is ’self-similarity’ in a social-organizational context: identity being both ’self-referencing’ and ’self-referential’, simultaneously: by this, is meant that people (or, generally, ‘players’ in a system) gain their sense of identity from the system while also contributing to the system’s overall identity.

Please forgive me, dear reader, for the jargon and techno ‘mumbo-jumbo’.

It is important, though, for two vital reasons:

* a sense of identity with a place and each other is critical for people to feel a sense of belonging; respect; and responsibility to that place and their fellow citizens … this is vital for a place/community to be sustainable and resilient, because it is the people themselves (individually, and collectively) who will sustain it/themselves/eachother …

* a sense of identity is crucial for the ‘process’ of creating that very place/community in the first place (either a new development, or, transforming an existing development).

Form, then, actually serves a function, in/of itself … to give a sense of place and identity.

*
*
*

In the same way that cities, and specifically downtown cores are engaging and dynamic, with vibrant socio-economic and cultural activity … communities can be ’self-similar’, as a fractal model, on a small scale.

We can transform the existing monocultural subdivisions into (similarly) engaging and dynamic Communities, with vibrant local economies that are sustainable and resilient.

We can create Thriving Communities.

A vibrant Community, being a complex system, is comprised of a multiplicity (amount and variety) of components and connections.

In the previous blog articles, ‘Systems Approach to Solutions’ (Parts 1 & 2), I briefly described the nature of systems, especially complex systems, and the ’systems approach’ to designing meaningful solutions.

Our ecological and socio-economic ‘issues’ are truly complex, involving many interconnected component aspects.

In the subdivisions of our urban/suburban societies, our lifestyle behaviours represent a primary component of our problematic situation(s): our auto-dependent … highly mobile, yet also highly sedentary lifestyles and excessive processed food result in many health ‘issues’; energy-intensity (electricity; petro; etc.) causes ecological/economic impacts; and on …

Our lifestyles, though, are ‘pre-determined’ in the sense that we’re constrained by the physical form of the built-environment in which we live … so many (most) of us live in subdivisions (inner suburban sprawl of a previous generation; new suburbs); and, the suburbs are so similar.

So, residential subdivisions as a physical ‘form’ are a major component of our problematic situations, imposing major negative ecological, social and economic impacts.

Subdivisions are physically monocultural … predominantly, an flat expanse of single-family houses of equal/similar size/shape.

Subdivisions, are also an economic monoculture, comprised almost entirely of residential houses. There may be a school or community centre (probably imposed by municipal planners as condition for approval of building permit). There are no commercial or industrial ‘components’.

It is the lack of a vibrant local economy that may well be the single most important factor in our problematic ecological-socio-economic situations.

By forcing people to travel beyond convenient walking distance, the auto-dependency is effectively ‘locked-in’; the excessive costs (monetary; personal/social economic costs; etc., etc.) of the prevalent auto-dependency bleeds us dry of our financial lifeblood. The excessive land area devoted to auto infrastructure to facilitate auto use … is a positive feedback effectively imposing/guaranteeing auto-dependency … this is a perverse situation that facilitates not just auto use, but it’s actual dependency.

And, really, it’s all a result of ‘lack of scale’.

Automobiles are immensely important and valuable ‘tools’ of society. The ’scale’ of optimal use, though, is for cargo/distances far beyond the human scale.

*

*

The real ‘issue’ here, is that people/humans are complex life forms, living in complex ‘greater’ societies/civilizations; we engage in complex socio-economic dynamics in our commercial, industrial endeavours … yet, we’re effectively forced to live, on a local scale, in simplistic monocultural subdivisions … with monocultural interactions.

Being human, though, we naturally compensate for this local monoculturalism by maintaining our innate complex social systems on larger auto-dependent geographical scales … with disastrous eco-socio/economic results.

We’ve allowed the construction of residential communities that are of the wrong scale in several respects: they lack the socio-economic ’scale’ in terms of ‘variety’ of commercial, industrial, and professional ‘components’; they are generally too large in geographical scale, with excessive distances to nearest merchant amenities; the ’scale’ of physical auto infrastructure is far too large with a corresponding human infrastructure far too small, and to small a ’scope’ of human infrastructural components. And more.

We need to understand systems, and design real Communities as a complex system … with an appropriate scale/scope of components and connections on appropriate geographical scale.

Moreover, with this understanding of systems and community Design, we need to Transform existing residential subdivisions into real Communities.

Doing so we can/will resolve many of our problematic ecological/socio-economic situations.

Thriving communities are the basis of a sustainable resilient society.

This is Urban Transformation.

So a real community – as a complex adaptive system – requires the necessary critical mass of components and connections.

Actually, we could think in terms of the main ‘component’ sub-systems: physical infrastructural system; social system; and, the greater ecological/environmental system.

Scale and scope … of the subsystems and their components and connections. In fact, scale and scope of each of the ’scales’ and ’scopes’.

The ecological/environmental system: biodiversity … appropriate scale/scope of plants – amount, type and age (from saplings to mature trees; etc.). In terms of the physical features: private gardens, public manicured parks and natural space.

The ‘mix’ of parks to natural space, for instance, would vary according to the factors in each community … with a scale of ’scales’: for instance, tiny quiet gardens within the core of the community (even, just a ‘nook’ tucked out of the way), balanced with large sports fields or fairgrounds and natural spaces. And, a range of ’sizes’ in between. A large number of small spaces, balanced with a few large spaces.

The physical infrastructure system: human/pedestrian infrastructure – walk’ways’, cycle’ways’; courtyards, squares, plazas, etc. Children and youth fun facilities: playgrounds, skate ‘pools’, etc.

Emergency vehicle access ‘ways’. Automobile access and parking courts/garages.

Scale of ’scales’, again: as a general design principle, it may do well to strive for a large amount/number of ’small scale’ (human/pedestrian) infrastructure, balanced by a small amount/number of ‘large-scale’ automobile infrastructure.

**
***

The social system, is comprised of residents, as well as the commercial (merchant), industrial (creative, fabrication, etc.) and professional aspects which compose a local ‘economy’ … a localized ’socio-economic’ system.

Even within this economic sub-system, the various components – commercial, industrial and professional – must comprise a sufficient ‘amount’ and ‘variety’ for a healthy vibrant local economy.

It is not simply that these commercial/professional ‘players’ serve the residents. Rather, the residents and merchants/professionals/craftspersons are all ‘active players’; the residents ’serve’ the merchants by supporting their business, while the merchants ’serve’ all the people (residents, visitors, and fellow merchants) by providing the business. It is the mutually beneficial relationships that are self-reinforcing and work together to create a vibrant local economy.

This is what is meant by the ’self-referencing’ and ’self-referencial’ duality of complex self-organizing systems: all of the local people, residents and merchants/professionals develop their sense of identity/place from their interactions and relations, all the while, it is the totality of the interactions and relations of the people that imbue a sense of identity and place which they draw upon.

In my opinion, this is lacking in even the most ’successful’ arterial road commercial strips of our existing residential subdivisions. While there is some sense of identity/place, I believe it is shallow. Shallow, if for now other reason that the commercial vitality is dependent not merely on the local residents, but from a larger geographical scale: commercial catchment. This in itself isn’t bad, but when all such commercial ’strips’ are dependent on extra-resident catchment, then it presupposes mechanical transportation as essential.

Herein lies the crux of our existing problematic situations: it is the ‘lack’ of a real systemic Community – the lack of a commercial core and vibrant local economy.

Building residential (subdivision) developments based on mechanized transportation infrastructure – whether automobile or public transit – we become ‘locked-in’ to large commercial catchments and road congestion.

By relegating economic activity to arterial roadways – commercial ’strips’, we are left with a high asset-intensity; high-cost; high-impact (eco/enviro) built ‘form’ … that is limiting/restrictive of both mobility and socio-economic dynamics.

Conversely, a integrative Community design based on human-scale pedestrian infrastructure and a central commercial core promotes/supports a vibrant local economy … yet it preserves the freedom of mobility of residents (even, enhances/enables mobility abroad), by relieving road congestion.

***
**
*

We can design and build real communities … as complex systems.

Moreover, we can redevelop existing residential subdivisions into sustainable thriving communities: Urban Transformation.

Without a sufficient understanding (in breadth and depth) of the system as a whole, we cannot alter or change any ‘one’ component and expect a drastic beneficial result … even a drastic change to a single component will not necessarily fundamentally alter the whole … it may, but not necessarily; even changes to two or more components, individually or independently, is likely insufficient to achieve fundamental system change.

This is tantamount to ‘tampering’.

In fact, changing one or more individual components without ’sufficient’ knowledge of the whole system may result in a worsening of our problematic situation and/or the introduction of new ‘problems’.

A problematic system may actually be within it’s ‘normal’ range of function. In which case, the system ‘itself’, as a whole, must be ‘brought’ to a new ’state’, to resolve the problematic situation. Depending on the situation and/or the system, a transitional change may be achieve through one or more of various ‘means’: change(s) to one or more ‘key’ components – leverage points, for instance.

[A detailed explanation of General Systems Theory; Complex Adaptive Systems; etc. is far beyond this article.]

For the purpose of this article, it is important to note some fundamentals:

It’s all about Scale … scale and scope (the scale of breadth and depth of variety) … in regards to the amount and variety of components and their interconnections.

Understanding a system as a ‘whole’ requires a knowledge of the ‘critical’ components/connections. Knowing what to include as key important ‘critical’ is essential to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Determining the scale of a system … specifically, the scale of ‘critical components/factors’ of a system – and, determining the ‘critical relations’ among the components – is fundamental to identifying the ‘whole’.

[In this way, we're assigning 'bounds': boundary conditions - this, in itself, is a key aspect of dynamical systems to keep in mind. Moreover, boundaries help to establish the notion of 'identity' - another key aspect of dynamical systems.]

There may be (probably are) primary components … as well as secondary and tertiary. These primary components are the most important either to the functioning of the system, or alternatively, to the presence of a/the problematic situation.

So, we must first determine or ‘identify’ the appropriate scale of a system … as a ‘Whole’ (it’s critical components and interconnections). Only then can we analyze and sufficiently learn/understand the system and problematic situation to know how best to resolve the ‘issues’.

*
*

As a society, we must develop and refine our ability to recognize systems, determine the appropriate scale of ‘wholeness’ and sufficiently learn/understand the underlying components/connections.

Our goal of a sustainable resilient society will depend on developing and effectively utilizing these new skills.

To achieve this sustainability, our many ecological/environmental and social ‘issues’ must be resolved.

Our eco/social ‘issues’ are interconnected and interdependent … this is the realm of complex, dynamic systems: resultant ‘wholes’ comprised of a variety of component ‘parts’ which have a variety of interconnections/interdependence.

So, our eco/social ‘issues’ must be understood as a ‘whole’.

To achieve a lasting beneficial change toward a sustainable resilient society, requires a ’systemic change’ … specifically, a ‘non-reversible’ systemic transitional change. For systemic change, the system ‘as a  whole’ must be addressed.

A ’systems approach’ … with a ’systems mindset’ … is a prerequisite to truly resolving our problematic situations.

*
Note: Large complex systems can never be ‘fully’ understood. However, we can and must seek to understand as fully as possible, to the best of our ability.
*

It is no surprise that people have difficulty understanding (and believing) that a systemic solution is possible when we continually fail at solving ‘individual component problems’ … yet, this is precisely the crux of the matter: it is because we haven’t taken a ’systems approach’ that almost guarantees that we never achieve real solutions.

Real solutions are systemic by the very ‘definition’/meaning. A true (systemic) solution is one in which the problematic situation ‘dissolves’ away … as a result of the ‘interdependence’ of the component parts and their interaction.

Taking an individual problematic ‘component’ aspect ‘out of context’ … ‘out of system’, almost guarantees that even those individual ‘issues’ are not (can not be) resolved.

And this is what we continue to do!

With a narrow, compartmentalized view we continually take component ‘parts’ out of context of the ‘whole system’ … often (usually?!) without even acknowledging the system!

*
*

Actually, speaking of ‘problems’ limits our understanding and, thus, our ability to resolve the issues: the word ‘problem’ implies – or, at least, prompts people to think in terms of – a singular identifiable ‘whole’ in/of itself.

It is much better to speak/think of ‘problematic situation(s)’, since the word ’situation’ implies a system of components/elements acting together in such a way to be problematic.

Making this ’systems mindset’ commonplace is vitally important so that we’re in the best position to understand the ‘issues’ and work toward meaningful solutions.

Understanding systems, and a ’systems approach’ to solutions is absolutely key to achieving a sustainable resilient society.

This transformation of mindset is a precondition to a transformation to sustainability.

To the extent that physical form of modern subdivisions are (or, can be said to be) ‘designed’, it is really only the linear aspect of the roads in the planar realm – the linear geometric shapes of the flat ground level roads, as seen from above.

Foolishness! A geometrical layout as observed from where no-one sees! A ‘visual’ design that has no beneficial effect … in fact, these silly layouts may well have detrimental impacts on daily living.

Furthermore, subdivisions (even the ‘mature’ subdivisions of a previous generation) lack the balance and diversity of commerce, industry and arts/culture/etc. to be true communities.

*

Similarly, the commercial/professional ‘components’ as they exist suffer from a ‘lack’ of design.

Not only are the socio-economic and cultural aspects not an integral part of the residential development(s), they are not even located within the actual residential area: the commercial and professional activity has been left to the periphery … the boundary regions.

[A boundary condition is a fundamental feature of nature - specifically, a property of Dynamical (Complex Adaptive) Systems ... and will be discussed following posts.]

Even the most prosperous roadway ’strip malls’ or plazas weren’t designed … the neighbourhoods that we’re familiar with exist by default, for the most part.

The residential area is a monocultural expanse of largely single-family detached homes … bounded by commercial/arterial roadways/avenues, on which the merchants and professional offices are located. The roads delineate the residential areas; and, form boundaries between adjacent residential areas … so, the boundary – the road – has become the ‘place’ of commerce, and socio-economic activity.

[There may be a sense of place, but it is by default and of a low value.]

The linear roads have become the socio-economic ‘centres’ or ‘areas’, by default (from a ‘lack’ of design) … but, in fact, a ‘linear’ feature is not an ‘area’: an area, by definition, required breadth and depth.

As a result, many people within the residential areas are at a significant distance from any one road; and, being a linear feature, the commercial avenue and it’s merchant/professional activity is spread in a linear form along the road.

Walking to several stores/destinations isn’t convenient precisely because there is no single ‘identifiable’ place where stores/etc. are located; there is no centre/core … there is only unending linear ’strip’. And pedestrians have only ’sidewalks’ along the roads. There is negligible dedicated pedestrian ‘ways’ that are direct, convenient and enjoyable.

There is no/negligible public transit service within the residential area to take people to the ‘commercial strip’ of the road; and, once ‘there’, public transit is ineffective in serving multiple destinations … plus, a return journey is required.

So, people hop in their cars. And, once in their car, people are no longer limited to the local vicinity: they may as well drive to a big-box store, etc. since the parking is probably easier than along the commercial strip!

Thus, we’ve created a detrimental positive feedback … all resulting from a ‘lack’ of design.

*
**

Lack of integral commerce/industry and professional amenities – and, lack of a central ‘core’ as a location for these amenities; lack of pedestrian infrastructure; lack of pedestrian ’scale’ in geographical size of area … all of this leads to excessive automobile use for very short trips.

This excessive local auto dependency contributes to auto traffic on the arterial roads – which, consequently, are used for private parking of autos to serve the commercial ’strip’ … which, prompts local residents to drive longer distances to more convenient parking/shopping of malls … exacerbating the traffic situation (otherwise local traffic becomes regional).

The excessive traffic (residential; arterial) makes walking unsafe and unappealing and leads to yet more auto use.

And so it goes.

And so it is.

**
*

We can create true communities. We must.

The good news is that, by design, we can create a beneficial positive feedback … an upward spiral.

Moreover, we can Transform our current ‘monocultural’ subdivisions into true communities with vibrant local economies that are sustainable and resilient. We can create wonderful communities of healthy lifestyles.

Designing for people includes pedestrian scale, so that everyone lives within a reasonable walk from the Community Core: the standard being, the rate of walking travel of the slowest persons – young toddlers; elderly and physically challenged.

What is an appropriate geographical size?

What would such a Community look like?

And designing for ‘people’ includes those who are visually impaired or blind. In which case, what would such a Community ‘feel’ like or be ’sensed’ by these people (whether residents or visitors)?

Indeed, a true community is comprised of the whole range of possible ages, abilities, professions, etc. It is the variety of the people that makes a community.

So, a Community-Oriented Development requires designing to accommodate the whole range of people.

*

Of course, our greater goal is a sustainable resilient society – which begins at the community level. As mentioned in the previous post, such sustainability goes beyond ecological issues to include a range of socio-economic aspects. To be truly sustainable and resilient requires a vibrant local economy (commerce and industry); art, culture; sports and spirituality … and inclusive of ages, gender, socio-demographics.

Actually, go beyond visualizing such a Community and try to fully sense it! How would it feel? How would it sound? How would it smell?

Feel? Yes, there’d be distinct feeling, underfoot, while walking on different surfaces (or cycling; or wheelchair/scooter, for that matter).

Sounds? Pedestrian-based design would exclude autos through most of the community – they simply wouldn’t be needed. So, the lack of automobile noise, and minimal need for mechanized property maintenance (which could easily be restricted to weekday business hours) would result in pleasant peace and quiet. This would reveal the many more humane sounds of people ‘living’: laughter, talking, kids playing, music, etc., as well as business/social specific sounds of school, merchants, etc.

Smells? The minimized mechanized/motorized ‘engines’ provides for cleaner air and a heightened sense of smell of the community bakery, deli, the home cooking of residents, etc.

It’d be entirely possible for people to determine their location and move about by any one of the senses, and certainly the combination: feel of the ground while walking/riding; the routine sounds and smells of particular homes and merchants.

Now ‘that’ is Community.

Implicit in the word ‘community’ is the notion of shared space(s) and resources for all people: in fact, shared needs, goals and responsibilities.

How would communities look if they were designed around/for people? How would such communities function?

In what ways would such ‘People-Oriented’ Communities differ from the current ‘norm’ of residential neighbourhoods?

Such ‘people-centric’ communities ought to be the new ‘norm’.

*

To be clear, my description (above) of ‘community’ certainly allows for a wide range of personal interests and pursuits (professional, athletic, artistic, etc.). Indeed, a true community – to my mind – celebrates and encourages diversity of such interests and endeavours.

Contrast this with physical form of the current residential ‘areas’ (whether urban; inner suburbs; ‘far-suburban’ sprawl; etc.) which, really, is a uniform monoculture of predominantly detached single-family houses fronting onto streets, with virtually all amenities requiring auto-transport. Regardless of the variety of the residents’ professions, the behaviours (patterns) of their daily lives are significantly similar … a socio-behavioural monoculture.

Linear and planar: all houses ‘line’ the streets. Why? Why not other housing options/designs? And, planar; with vast majority of building of the same (or similar) height.

And ‘mass’: the building are predominantly of similar physical size, or ‘mass’. Visually, they’re all very similar.

Monocultures in all respects: size, shape, layout … household (single family; single generation; etc.)

Boring! Dull! Unimaginative. Restrictive.

*

Now, imagine a true community in place of the residential subdivision: a community in the form of a village, with an actual ‘centre’ … a village ’square’, with commerce and light industry; professionals’ (dentist, doctor, etc.) offices; merchants and cafes.

Imagine a variety of housing sizes and form, and for that matter, building (in general) of varying sizes. Imagine the variety of activities, employment and professional endeavour that would be possible within a short walk from home.

Visualize such a community. Visualize the possible layouts of buildings, spaces and ‘ways’ to move about.

*

A truly sustainable community goes beyond ecological sustainability … to sustain peoples’ engagement with their fellow residents; sustains their enjoyment and health; sustains peoples’ interest in the local ‘goings-on’; sustains the socio-economic vitality through commerce, industry and the arts; and possibly most important, sustains their ’self-development’ throughout their lives, so as to be a thriving place to live for all ages and stages of life.

Let’s strive to thrive.

*
*

Why are we directing development to ‘transit’ with Transit Oriented Development (TOD)?

We don’t live just for the sake of ‘moving around’ … we move around in the process of living our lives; it is a ‘component’ aspect of our lives, not the goal we aspire to. For the most part, mobility is a necessary part of life: we need to ‘get around’ for food (groceries), go to school/work, etc.

So, shouldn’t we ‘orient’ development to the ‘goals’ we strive for … rather than a particular mode of travel?

As a longtime/lifetime public transit user and proponent, I’m certainly all in favour of public transit.

Mostly, though, I’m in favour of high-calibre design of communities to enable and promote healthy vibrant local lifestyles; this, by consequence, minimizes the need for transit. Isn’t that an ideal to aspire to?

As for transit: we ought to think in terms of Lifestyle Oriented Transit: transit that is designed to suit lifestyles, rather than TOD in which development is designed/implemented to suit transit.

*
*

With Transit Oriented Development, what we have is more sloganeering by urban planners. They probably have only the best intentions. However, with such slogans, we have a situation which becomes (yet another) false dichotomy: it’s either good or bad; correct or wrong; the issue being black or white.

The slogan defines the issue(s), and frames the debate. Anyone who has attended a planning meeting (municipal, or other) will know that any discussion ‘outside’ of the formally stated debate is disallowed (due to time restraints): we are limited to the discussion as ‘the planners’ have determined. So, it becomes another yes/no; good/bad ‘issue’; and since the planners have already made up their minds … it’s officially ‘yes’, ‘good’ – in their favour, of course.

Choice of words is extremely important for it direct impact on our understanding and communications. I refer back to an earlier blog post [Road 'Frontage': Value of Words (Oct. 30)]. We must be more discerning of politicians, urban planners (etc.) and their slogans and terminology, since this directs the discussion of issues and determines the level of discourse.

Let’s be careful about creating appropriate slogans, so as to communicate effectively and create true solutions. Let’s be more discerning of what we hear/read/see … and what we accept from experts and politicians.

*

To achieve a truly sustainable society, we need communities designed for people … not, developments designed for transit (with people subordinate to the infrastructure). People are primary, and any slogans ought to respect this.

It is absurd that the populace is so discerning of the actions/decisions of the players of professional sports teams, yet pay little or no attention to the planning that shapes our cities and directly affects our lives.

People will scrutinize the decisions of an assistant coach, and study the reams of statistical data of the players … which really has no effect on their daily lives. All the while, a single decision from a junior staffer in the planning department may have serious negative consequences for years/decades/generations to come; and such decisions take place, for the most part, out of sight (and conveniently out of mind).

Of course, the design and planning issues (and process) isn’t fun or exciting as with sports.

Still, though, the decisions that shape the structural form and functioning of our communities/cities deserves appropriate attention.

It doesn’t help that planners and politicians alike discourage and hinder citizen involvement. For instance: providing minimal notice of community meetings – and the fewest possible meeting (usually beyond walking distance of ‘the community’).

That’s still no excuse for the low level of citizen ‘engagement’!

It is not necessary for ‘all’ people to be involved. What we do need, is for sufficient involvement.

Most of all, we need for people to be more discerning of the issues … of ‘what’ is going on.

It is vital that people realize that they themselves are fully capable of thinking through the issues – to some extent, anyway; people need to realize that ‘Planning’ is not restricted to a professional ‘class’ of ‘Planners’ (after all, we all plan our lives and households, and, do fairly well).

We ought to establish as commonplace, that people (in their respective communities) do as much of their own planning as possible … and the various government departments: municipal planning; etc. act as resources, providing support and facilitation.

Let’s hold the planners to the same standards of scrutiny as reserved for sports … our lives DO depend on it!