Lyster, Clare. Learning from Logistics: How Networks Change Our Cities. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016.
Excerpts + Quotes
In an era of increasing metabolic flow, we can no longer afford to read the city solely in terms of the architectural object—traditionally the lens through which architects have interrogated the city. Instead, if designers are to stay relevant in human matters, we must shift to engage the city from the perspective of its operational systems and procedural flows. In the absence of all but a few historical frameworks within the discipline to conceptualize urban space in this way, it behooves us to hijack other flow models as a way to think more critically about the city as a fluid condition and this revitalize the agency of urbanism and planning in the age of globalization.
#mobility #logistics #technology
We live in an era of extreme mobility made possible by technological innovation, and globalization and logistics constitute the latest stage of technological progress in the urban environment. While the city has always been shaped by production and distribution flows, from the trade routes of the middle ages to the steamship, from the telegraph to the railroad, since the 1970s a new set of time-space networks has been radically reformatting the built environment and recalibrating how we live. These networks manage the fast and efficient flows of products, people, and information across cities, regions, nations, and the entire world.
Despite the overwhelming mobility that characterizes today's society, there are surprisingly few methodologies in place that analyze the production of space as a fluid condition.
Geography is no longer a prerequisite for urbanism; the network is. At the same time that logistics denies place, however, it would be misleading to say that it is completely a-geograhphic. Logistics upends the city's traditional reliance on geophysical qualities to facilitate new possibilities for where the city might be and what it might look like. If the city is no longer a product of geography, what becomes of the age-old relationship between a city, its context and its identity?
#ryanair #place #disaccociation
Ryanair expanded upon Southwest Airlines' model of point to point. Taking it a step further, Ryanair found success in offering service to out-of-the-way airports and often dubbing them for major cities they avoided. Frankfurt-West Flughafen, that Ryanair servers is more than 110km away from Frankfurt proper. London Stansted Airport, their center of UK operations, is more than 60km away from London. Ryanair transformed nearly-abandoned regional airports into relevant ones through reassociation, and in turn created entire new airline markets connecting second- and third-tier cities.
In disassociating the notion of "place" from a location in a particular country and considering it as a moment in a larger set of processes, in this case a destination in a continental air traffic network, logistics liberates a city from traditional territorial constraints and instead positions it within a larger mesh of connectivity.
In summary, the most notable effect of a point-to-point air network [...] is a new urban field at a transnational scale, a field where urbanity burst its seams to extend beyond oceans and regions and encompasses a sort of continental urbanism, overcoming geophysical barriers and hierarchies that previously organized the territory. The city is not just nowhere and anywhere, it's everywhere.
Not until the 1970s, when logistical systems began to penetrate daily routines, did the a-geographic tendencies of neoliberal production flows really start to reshape perceptions of the city (and thereby definitions of place) by finally severing the city's flailing reliance on territorial relationships.
For example, if I turn attention back to the Ryanair route map, if might be that the 120km distance between Frankfurt and Ryanair's airport at Hahn or the area between Hahn and Luxembourg already reinforces the concept of Lefebvre's mesh. In having passengers travel for two [extra] hours to reach their destination, Ryanair extends Frankfurt to Hahn (or vice-versa), rendering it as one continuously, although uneven, urban vector.
Chicago and LA illustrate the role of industrial-era network formations (rail, water and highway) in the planning and identity of the city.
In being big, centralized and in control, logistics exhibits how the networks of communication and transnational corporations of postindustrial society have become the new authorities in the organization of space. In fact, with the dematerialization of the nation-state, the traditional purveyor of sovereignty, and the corresponding institutions of modernity (the school, the factory, the prison, the hospital)—Michel Foucault's disciplinary societies—communications networks including the logistical oligarchies that are the subjects of this book emerge to become what Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri describe as the next imperial order: the new Empire. What's more is that we, the dumb users, [...] only play into the hands of these actors while we lack the knowledge of their complexities, these networks extend their colonization to encompass all relationships in what Branden Hookway describes as their fluid command hierarchies and interconnections. Our ignorance only amplifies their influence.
Architecture's use of the terms top-down and bottom-up is imported from business and management and describes forms of decision making. Top-down typically implies a visionary overview that encompasses and anticipates all aspects of the system up front, while bottom-up involves decisions made by a group of individuals and usually focuses on one or two submits of the system (a part of a detail) rather than the overall idea.
[...] In the discipline, the term top-down connotes architecture with a capital-A, something that is heavily authored [...]. Top-down presupposes an ideal and optimized scenario and a linear standardized process decided upon from the outside.
- Pope Sixtus V — Rome
- L'Enfant — Washington D.C.
- Hausmann, Mitterand — Paris
- Robert Moses — New York City
Top-down also characterizes unrealized utopian plans from Thomas More to the Ville Radieuse, that project cities as what Michael Sorkin terms "one dimensional fantasies." [...] For the most part, especially in the US, top-down as a planning approach is no longer encouraged or practiced.
#urbanplanning #bottomup #2trendy4me #precedents
Bottom-up, on the other hand, is less strategic and more incremental, and involves individual or community participation.
Recently, the term has come to underlie everything from grassroots community activism to "participatory urbanism" to "guerrilla urbanism" to "tactical urbanism" to "pop-up urbanism" [etc.], all of which build up on earlier interpretations beginning in the 1960s such as "unslumming" (Jane Jacobs), "Non-Plan" (Paul Barker), organicism (the Metabolists), indeterminacy (Archigram), pattern language (Christopher Alexander), adhocism (Charles Jencks), "bricolage" (Fred Koetter and Colin Rowe), "do-it-yourselfism" (Marshall McLuhan) and ephemeralization (Buckminster Fuller).
These approaches allowed users to adapt buildings to their own lifestyles, and were developed in architecture formally as space frames (Yona Friedman and Konrad Wachsmann), kits of parts (Sears to the Eamses), clip-ons (Reyner Banham), capsules (Warren Chalk and Kisho Kurokawa), plug-ins (Peter Cook), robotic units (Archigram), serviceable surfaces (Superstudio) and intelligent machines (Nicolas Negroponte).
EX: MVRDV's Oosterwold planned for an area of undeveloped land on the eastern side of the Dutch town Almere, is to be developed by the people who live there. Residents may develop lots individually or in collaboration courtesy of a website, with the help of an area manager, who provides guidance of rules according to the lot chosen. In addition to formulating one's space, users contribute to shaping collective infrastructure such as energy, roads, water, waste and urban farming as well as shared public space. In this way, the neighborhood is realized in a step-by-step format and not all at once. Not unlike Kickstarter, small collectives of like-minded individuals can work together to develop larger parcels [...].
What all of this indicates to me is that modular architecture is a failure. Despite the superficial allure of promoting individualism, a modular system is not really individual at all. In our era of the neoliberal id, a modular system for living is a vast ideological collectivist construct that one must buy into, and is hence wholly incompatible therewith.
Economically speaking, there are advantages to modularity that have been globally executed; the most successful iteration of this global modularity has been the shipping container. In spite of political differences, and across continents and language barriers and systems of measurement, the standardized shipping container will fit on virtually any ship, truck or train. The economic justification for the adoption of modularity in other industries reinforces the idea that modular disassemblability is economically wrong for architecture, yet architects to this day push it as a realizable vision. I'm certainly guilty of that. But after decades of theorization regarding superstructure frameworks and movable, changeable parts, the only versions of it that yet exist are prototypes widely regarded as failures. The Nagakin Capsule Tower, for instance, has had none of its capsules switched out in spite of that being the original intent. Rather, economic pressure is building to simply tear the whole thing down. Is a single building simply too holistic of a product to have bits and pieces switched out? Maybe the rhetoric where buildings are regarded as being alive is true, especially given that one cannot simply rip out one's liver and plug in three new ones without consequence. Why do we want to see buildings as modular when they clearly are not?
In a 2008 lecture presented at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture, Stan Allen proclaimed that self-organization (commonly used as another term for bottom-up plannning) is a myth. Firstly, in the case of natural landscape, creating and implementing a natural ecology to take care of itself does in fact require a great deal of [top-down] design, including the control and maintenence variables involved, secondly, in urban environments, programmatic indeterminacy—the artificial equivalent to a natural ecology, i.e., the notion that space is a program itself—is problematic and nothing more than an alibi for non-design.
[...] Malcom Gladwell argues that at a certain scale the lack of leadership in large networks renders them ineffective despite the contributions of their large populations, and that successful networks exhibit hierarchical characteristics like discipline, organization, strategy and so on. [...] "There are many things that networks don't do well. Car companies sensibly use a network to organize their hundreds of suppliers, but not to design their cars. No one believes that the articulation of a coherent design philosophy is best handled by a sprawling, leaderless organizational system. Because networks don't have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have a real difficult time reaching consensus and setting goals. [...] How do you make difficult choices about tactics and strategy when everyone has an equal say?"
David Harvey Sums up the the flawed results on individualism when he writes, "This is a world in which the neoliberal ethic of intense possessive individualism, and it's cognate of political withdrawal from collective forms of action becomes the template for human socialization"
Finally, as a cultural project, bottom-up has not transformed the city to reflect (or lead) vis-a-vis our current lifestyles, nor has it introduced larger discourse on what the city should look like.
Taken as a whole, the lackluster implementation of bottom-up design methodologies looks like as much of a dead-end experiment as the preceding top-down structure of modernist planning. It's quite clear that the decentralization of American planning, coinciding with a neoliberal culture that increasingly idealizes independence, has dispelled the notion of effective low-level organizational structures as a means for urban progress.
The transition from top-down to bottom-up planning has left architects on the sidelines of their own projects, and does not present a good future for our industry as a dominant paradigm. If—as the bottom-up movement asserts—design is better left to the participants, the role of the architect/designer becomes ancillary, therefore it's unsurprising that the profession currently faces such an identity crisis. These bottom-uppers are theorizing everyone out of a job.
Today, developers and public-relations consultants format the city, and decisions are made according to investment opportunity, market projections and political advancement, not really what the people want or what the city really needs; designers are left as form-givers for the decisions made by others.
With reduced funding, design departments in municipal agencies have shrunk, their main priority now is to keep projects under budget and avoid delays. Instead of fostering excitement, design (doing something different) arouses anxiety and fear.
Compounding the issue of "average architecture" is the fact that those who are truly designing it are not the designers at all. Architects seem to be more of a bureaucratic hurdle to construction certification, or a "form-giver" for a pre-established program that has no margins for creativity. Civic forces that ought to advocate for the architectural experience and the human factor of the built environment.... don't. Neoliberalism left no room for anything that cannot be commodified, and buildings and space are certainly things. How can architects embrace this system to maintain their relevance, rather than flounder within it by clinging to a forgone definition of the profession.
More and more cities are becoming polarized territories for the poor (who have no choice but to stay) and the rich (who can have anything they want). Increasingly, those who leave the city do so because their choices are not being met, from affordable housing to public infrastructure and tolerable distances between work and home life. In San Francisco, housing costs now exceed 40 percent of income. In non-western cities, increasing urbanization combined with unequal opportunity means most residents live informally. Can we really blame the public for taking matters into their own hands? Is it really any wonder people have begun to design and build cities for themselves?
Well this certainly is a wicked problem. Can the justification for bottom-up, do-it-yourself design be reduced to the notion that the incentives of the built environment don't serve it's inhabitant's needs? Is there an economic case for finding value in addressing the shifting needs of a city, on a longer timeframe?
Scenario planning and emergent geometries have also seemed to address this inability to plan on both levels by offloading the design of cities—somehow—onto the physical characteristics of the built environment itself. I have yet to see an implemented version of this type of design, mostly because it relies on the presumption that inhabitants of such a generative geometry will unilaterally, unquestioningly follow, pay for and execute whatever got pooped out of a grasshopper script.
Defining a city according to what is permanent and flexible or what can be centrally designed versus what is the responsibility of the user is a significant legacy of these projects, but it has been fifty years since the large space frame projects and one wonders how architects have advanced the idea. In a sense these projects were ahead of their time, even more suitable to our own contemporary culture of excessive individualism then to their own.
The freedom of choice promoted by a design of a kit of parts is actually achievable given today's production regimes and the delivery platforms that logistics itself has made possible.
The logic that planning could finally be organized around the precise design and detailing of large-scale infrastructural strategies that anticipate a plethora of tactical inputs by others is even more plausible.
Now that we have an economy tailor-made with complex supply chains designed to provide anything wherever it can be paid for, the modular, customizable dream seems more achievable than ever. Is architecture's shipping container moment imminent?
Cybernetic and other systems thinking (participatory GIS and variations thereof) have figured into planning because of the number and complexity of public, financial, ecologic, social and governmental apparatuses that act metabolically, and, in addition, demand a transdisciplinary perspective on how cities work.
How do you think about a city cybernetically less as a data-driven project—a computer presupposes a closed loop—and more as a cultural and formal planning concept?
Conceiving the urban environment along the lines of a logistical model, means a city that is first conceived as a big, precisely designed, systemic organ. Only then can it suitably embrace improvisation, choice, anomalies, pluralism and smallness.
Bottom-up piggybacks on top-down
But thinking of the city as a neo-functionalist framework primed for participatory inputs does not mean giving up control or design. "Fox" personas might have trouble, as in this way of thinking, the designer moves closer to becoming a stylist of infrastructure—but that's a lot better than the middleman he or she is today [...]
Logistics comprises of absolute design; just think of the sequence of events required to get that FedEx package to you, the series of intricate, disciplined procedures that are all impeccably figured out and controlled. [...] Logistics [...] is fundamentally fashioned on totalizing visions, in the sense that every scale of its operation is equally considered—small details are awarded the same treatment as global strategies, and even these are constantly monitored and tracked. Every move and every second is accounted for. But it's also a kind of anonymous design. And this anonymity might just be it's greatest strength, for, unlike grand master plans in architecture, it allows big ideas to be implemented sans the claustrophobia of a single message [...].