Mathieu Helie has been writing at a blog he calls Emergent Urbanism. His most recent post is the first part of a series that will be published as an entire article entitled “The Principles of Emergent Urbanism” at International Journal of Architectural Research.
This first part of the series, and hopefully the entire published article gives a great introduction to the concept Helie names “Emergent Urbanism.” In my opinion as a Market Urbanist, Mathieu’s most remarkable contributions to urbanism revolve around the concepts of “emergence” as it relates to urban patterns, particularly with regards to Hayek’s ideas about “emergent order” or “spontaneous order”. As Mathieu writes:
How is it possible for what is obviously a human artifact to arise as if by an act of nature? The theory of a spontaneous order provides an explanation. According to Friedrich A. von Hayek (Hayek, 1973) a spontaneous order arises when multiple actors spontaneously adopt a set of actions that provides them with a competitive advantage, and this behavior creates a pattern that is self-sustaining, attracting more actors and growing the pattern. This takes place without any of the actors being conscious of the creation of this pattern at an individual level. The spontaneous order is a by-product of individuals acting in pursuit of some other end.
In this way cities appear as agglomerations of individually initiated buildings along natural paths of movement, which originally do not require any act of production as dirt paths suffice. As the construction of individual buildings continues the most intensely used natural paths of movement acquire an importance that makes them unbuildable and these paths eventually form the familiar “organic” pattern of streets seen in medieval cities. This process still takes place today in areas where government is weak or dysfunctional, notably in Africa where urban planning often consists of catching up to spontaneous settlement, and in the infamous squatter slums that have proliferated in the 20th century.
Although few, if any (let me know if you know of any others), before Helie have delved deep into Hayekian "emergence" as it relates to cities, many have discussed Jane Jacobs’ prolific contributions which are profoundly similar in approach to that of Hayek and other Austrian Economists:
The most devastating criticism of modernist urban planning came in the form of a sociological study and personal defense of the spontaneous city, the book The Death and Life of Great American Cities
by Jane Jacobs. (Jacobs, 1961) In it she described in great details how the functions of a spontaneous city related and supported each other. Her concluding chapter, the kind of problem a city is, is still the most relevant. In it she attacks the scientific foundations of urban planning at a paradigmatic level, and claims that the methodology of the life sciences, at the time undergoing the revolution created by the discovery of DNA, is the correct approach to studying cities.
Beyond spontaneous order, Emergent Urbanism examines the use mathematical and geometric techniques to examine the complex structures, and thus urban patterns, that result from emergence. I am truly looking forward to the final, finished edition of Mathieu’s article, and further insights into "Emergent Urbanism".
No doubt…emergent orders are a very interesting concept to ponder with application to cities. I think dynamic systems are the most important order to ponder, in particular: how transportation and economics would interact in less restrictive regulatory environments. Hence we come to the question of the day. Apparently, a new era of regulation is staring at us in the face. So, maybe an Emergent Urbanist will need to acquire a thick skin.
There, is, of course, also the prickly social question of what to do with the fact that humans aren’t ants, they are “self-reflective” agents…often they do exactly opposite of the colony’s best interest. Often, they do not like “spontaneous order”. The beauty of an ant colony is none of the agents think for themselves, Woodie Allen ant notwithstanding. So…let’s hope when we talk about Emergent Urbanism, we take our sense of sanity with us, that we have a robust anthropology. While we ponder how to change the social infrastructure that led to cul-de-sac suburbia, let’s think about the deeper motivations shaping city form. The New Urbanist want to regulate suburbia away, let’s come with clearer thinking and solutions other than patronistic or socialist means of engagement.
No doubt…emergent orders are a very interesting concept to ponder with application to cities. I think dynamic systems are the most important order to ponder, in particular: how transportation and economics would interact in less restrictive regulatory environments. Hence we come to the question of the day. Apparently, a new era of regulation is staring at us in the face. So, maybe an Emergent Urbanist will need to acquire a thick skin.
There, is, of course, also the prickly social question of what to do with the fact that humans aren’t ants, they are “self-reflective” agents…often they do exactly opposite of the colony’s best interest. Often, they do not like “spontaneous order”. The beauty of an ant colony is none of the agents think for themselves, Woodie Allen ant notwithstanding. So…let’s hope when we talk about Emergent Urbanism, we take our sense of sanity with us, that we have a robust anthropology. While we ponder how to change the social infrastructure that led to cul-de-sac suburbia, let’s think about the deeper motivations shaping city form. The New Urbanist want to regulate suburbia away, let’s come with clearer thinking and solutions other than patronistic or socialist means of engagement.
Eric,
Thanks for the thoughtful ponderings. I think the most important thing we can take away from the concepts of emergence, along with the words of Hayek, Jacobs, and you is humility. Planners and designers often neglect their humility when advocating the imposition of their plan of what society should look like. Even if intentions are altruistic, ambitious and far reaching plans often have unintended consequences that can be devastating.
Regarding humans vs ants: I think that humans, acting in their own interest, while respecting the interest of all other humans, pose little threat to society’s (the colony’s) best interest. If regulations are necessary, they should be limited to weeding out fraud and protecting property rights / civil liberties. But that’s a deeper philosophical conversation that I’d be glad to have, if you’d like.
Eric,
Thanks for the thoughtful ponderings. I think the most important thing we can take away from the concepts of emergence, along with the words of Hayek, Jacobs, and you is humility. Planners and designers often neglect their humility when advocating the imposition of their plan of what society should look like. Even if intentions are altruistic, ambitious and far reaching plans often have unintended consequences that can be devastating.
Regarding humans vs ants: I think that humans, acting in their own interest, while respecting the interest of all other humans, pose little threat to society’s (the colony’s) best interest. If regulations are necessary, they should be limited to weeding out fraud and protecting property rights / civil liberties. But that’s a deeper philosophical conversation that I’d be glad to have, if you’d like.
My rhetorical comparison of human and ants is merely to point out why indeed design of human environments is more interesting than an ant colony. The colony has no king, but we have many. The levers of power aren’t deterministic, they are reflective outcomes of human societies and their civil needs. A social situation leads to cities that appear “emergent” in form, but all form, even suburbia, is an emergent order of something and many somethings. What is interesting for me to ponder about emergence as a concept is simply what imposed limitations do to human creativity. Charleston is an example of what happens, for instance, when humans bring British town planning to a hot, breezy peninsula. New Urbanists think Charleston is a pattern book, but really it is what happens when the descendants of British colonials don’t have air conditioning. Charleston is a lesson in emergence, not DPZ urban design.
I am all for limitations that lead a level playing field, because I believe you encourage good design and good outcomes when you don’t favor one mode or pattern book over another. When you allow for a variety of solutions to coexist, in a way that Euclidian Zoning or the Transect are not able to encourage. (Despite their best intentions) I’m against the hubris of zoning, but I’m not against planning. I’m not against smarter land use and transportation integration, hence I’m a planner. I’m a designer. I live and work in my social situation for humans.
My rhetorical comparison of human and ants is merely to point out why indeed design of human environments is more interesting than an ant colony. The colony has no king, but we have many. The levers of power aren’t deterministic, they are reflective outcomes of human societies and their civil needs. A social situation leads to cities that appear “emergent” in form, but all form, even suburbia, is an emergent order of something and many somethings. What is interesting for me to ponder about emergence as a concept is simply what imposed limitations do to human creativity. Charleston is an example of what happens, for instance, when humans bring British town planning to a hot, breezy peninsula. New Urbanists think Charleston is a pattern book, but really it is what happens when the descendants of British colonials don’t have air conditioning. Charleston is a lesson in emergence, not DPZ urban design.
I am all for limitations that lead a level playing field, because I believe you encourage good design and good outcomes when you don’t favor one mode or pattern book over another. When you allow for a variety of solutions to coexist, in a way that Euclidian Zoning or the Transect are not able to encourage. (Despite their best intentions) I’m against the hubris of zoning, but I’m not against planning. I’m not against smarter land use and transportation integration, hence I’m a planner. I’m a designer. I live and work in my social situation for humans.
Oops…I meant to say “When you allow for a variety of solutions to coexist, in a way that Euclidean Zoning or the Transect are not able to encourage”. (Despite their best intentions). ‘)
Oops…I meant to say “When you allow for a variety of solutions to coexist, in a way that Euclidean Zoning or the Transect are not able to encourage”. (Despite their best intentions). ‘)
Eric, I took the liberty of editing the comment per your correction.
Eric, I took the liberty of editing the comment per your correction.
I think the biggest flaw in New Urbanism is that systems like the Smart Code and the Transect surreptitiously imply a process of urban growth that is incompatible with what the New Urbanists are trying to achieve. They want to patch up the system of urban growth of the 20th century in order to replicate their favorite urban models of the 19th century and it has not been successful.
The problem with that is that the process of urbanization employed before the 20th century was of course a spontaneous order, in other words nobody really understood how it worked. It had spontaneously come into existence thanks to the fact that on open land you could go from anywhere to anywhere, and from there all that was needed to keep it working was a few constraints on development. But with a more advanced transportation system like what is required for cars that spontaneous growth process is no longer workable, and so urbanization had to be conducted with whatever processes science most understood. Those turned out to be greatly inferior to the complexity of a spontaneous city.
I think the biggest flaw in New Urbanism is that systems like the Smart Code and the Transect surreptitiously imply a process of urban growth that is incompatible with what the New Urbanists are trying to achieve. They want to patch up the system of urban growth of the 20th century in order to replicate their favorite urban models of the 19th century and it has not been successful.
The problem with that is that the process of urbanization employed before the 20th century was of course a spontaneous order, in other words nobody really understood how it worked. It had spontaneously come into existence thanks to the fact that on open land you could go from anywhere to anywhere, and from there all that was needed to keep it working was a few constraints on development. But with a more advanced transportation system like what is required for cars that spontaneous growth process is no longer workable, and so urbanization had to be conducted with whatever processes science most understood. Those turned out to be greatly inferior to the complexity of a spontaneous city.
great comments above, especially appreciated:
“New Urbanists think Charleston is a pattern book, but really it is what happens when the descendants of British colonials don’t have air conditioning. Charleston is a lesson in emergence, not DPZ urban design.”
It is very difficult to engage politicians without The Pretty Pictures. You know what I mean–the highly idealized and stylized renderings of the project embellished with lots of theoretical peripatetic people, with lots of disposable time and income milling about on a Chamber-of-Commerce beautiful day. It doesn’t matter that a prospective tenant won’t be able to stay in the black. You can even say something like “you and I both know the final result is not going to look like The Pretty Pictures.” They may even acknowledge this. But still they want the Pretty Pictures. Because the Pretty Pictures fulfill the human desire for clairvoyance.
great comments above, especially appreciated:
“New Urbanists think Charleston is a pattern book, but really it is what happens when the descendants of British colonials don’t have air conditioning. Charleston is a lesson in emergence, not DPZ urban design.”
It is very difficult to engage politicians without The Pretty Pictures. You know what I mean–the highly idealized and stylized renderings of the project embellished with lots of theoretical peripatetic people, with lots of disposable time and income milling about on a Chamber-of-Commerce beautiful day. It doesn’t matter that a prospective tenant won’t be able to stay in the black. You can even say something like “you and I both know the final result is not going to look like The Pretty Pictures.” They may even acknowledge this. But still they want the Pretty Pictures. Because the Pretty Pictures fulfill the human desire for clairvoyance.
That leaves us with only two solutions. Either remove the politicians from the process (almost impossible), or produce pretty pictures with more depth that accurately simulate the reality of urban development (somewhat revolutionary).
That leaves us with only two solutions. Either remove the politicians from the process (almost impossible), or produce pretty pictures with more depth that accurately simulate the reality of urban development (somewhat revolutionary).