Integrated Urban Environment Management and Resilience E-Book
126,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
The city appears as an artefact, a more or less homogeneous technical ensemble, but also as a production of space, the privileged place where social relations in all historical forms take place. The city, which is crossed by all socialities and their contradictions, is directly influenced by them and is even their privileged vector. Introducing the technical developments that are expressed in a multidisciplinary approach into the lived social world facilitates the understanding of the city and the way in which it adapts to the difficulties it faces. We propose the morpho-sociological approach, which gives a representation of the state of the contemporary city and the conditions of its production; the geographical approach with the problems of development and the sharing of these areas; the economic approach with the modalities specific to a development model, making urban composition the answer to the problems of the sustainable city; and the sociological approach when it comes up against the effects of the now dominant digital world.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 497
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
References
1 Morpho-Sociological Approach to the City
1.1. Introduction: socio-morphological analysis as a tool for understanding the city
1.2. The city’s modes of production
1.3. Difficulties of apprehension
1.4. The city: object or subject?
1.5. The shapes and form of the city
1.6. Representations of the city: “drawings and designs”
1.7. The constituent elements of the city
1.8. Conclusion
1.9. References
2 Space, Production and Urban Forms
2.1. General introduction
2.2. The city between space and time
2.3. Forms of accumulation and urban forms
2.4. Urban space, environment and resilience
2.5. The city under the regime of service accumulation
2.6. A provisional conclusion
2.7. References
3 A Territorial Approach to Urban Spaces between Sustainability and Liveability
3.1. Urban diversification and transformation
3.2. The urban issue through the prism of housing
3.3. Urban spaces and mobilities
3.4. An urban agriculture…
3.5. The interface between urban spaces and climate
3.6. Conclusion
3.7. References
4 The City
4.1. Living together in urban societies
4.2. The socio-spatial dynamics of the urban population
4.3. The city in search of sustainability
4.4. References
List of Authors
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Populations of the 10 largest cities in the world in 1975
46
Table 2.2 Population of the 10 largest cities in the world in 2019
47
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Plot division
Figure 1.2 The princely mode
Figure 1.3 The traditional mode
Figure 1.4 Sumerian tablet representing the plan of Nippur city circa 1,500 ...
Figure 1.5 12th century drawing; representation combining plan and drawdown,...
Figure 1.6 The establishment of a new Roman town
Figure 1.7 The typologies of city patterns
Figure 1.8 Example of city block shapes
Figure 1.9 The Parisian project for the city center of Paris, the Le Corbusi...
Figure 1.10 The loss of urbanity profile, Slotervaart, Amsterdam
Figure 1.11 Drawings for the Masséna project, 1995
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Modeling of the urban heat island according to a south-west/north...
Figure 3.2 Map of the summer night heat island (in °C) in Paris (modeled at ...
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
List of Authors
Index
Wiley End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
249
250
251
SCIENCES
Architecture, Urban Planning and Development,Field Director – Patrizia Laudati
Integrated Environment Management and Resilience,Subject Heads – Marc Méquignon and Jean-Pierre Mignot
Integrated Urban Environment Management and Resilience
From the Contemporary City to Sustainable Urbanity
Coordinated by
Luc Adolphe
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27-37 St George’s Road
111 River Street
London SW19 4EU
Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK
USA
www.iste.co.uk
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022The rights of Luc Adolphe to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022940281
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78945-077-4
ERC codes:
SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space
SH2_6 Sustainability sciences, environment and resources
SH2_8 Energy, transportation and mobility
SH2_9 Urban, regional and rural studies
SH2_10 Land use and regional planning
SH2_11 Human, economic and social geography
Introduction
Jean-Pierre MIGNOT and Marc MÉQUIGNON
LERASS, UPS, Toulouse, France
The city, in particular urbanization and urbanity in general, kindles understandable interest vis-à-vis the preferred models that are adopted (chosen or mandated) so as to better occupy our common spaces, the planet, without destroying it. If current projection trends hold true over the next century, nearly 80% of the planet’s population will end up living in cities, that is, urban systems. Of course, and we will never stop repeating it, the city is an artifact, a technical whole, a constructed technical system, a sentiment Ellul (1977) would have no doubt echoed; however, it has also been analyzed and perceived as a societal problem, further emphasizing the importance and pivotal role it has in shaping future developments. It is for this reason that we have deliberately chosen a multidisciplinary analysis of the city and the problems facing it.
Under these conditions, the problematic city that we propose is best viewed through a double lens: at once as an artifact, that is, a more or less homogeneous technical whole that reflects the system within which it is deployed, and also as a production of space and a space for production, that is, a privileged site that hosts the unfolding of social relations throughout all of its historical forms, which overlap, and within which it develops. Since it is permeated by all forms of sociality, and carries all the contradictions and ills of society (but also all of its joys) within it, the city is directly subjected to and even constitutes this privileged vector. As such, it is easy to comprehend the reasons why we approach problematic urbanity through a deliberately multidisciplinary perspective, which naturally leads us to a fresh perspective, multiple and rich in tangible determinations: we wholeheartedly believe that the illumination and understanding of the city, as proposed here, can only be extensive.
Furthermore, in light of the modern rhetoric on global warming and the ecological transition that has become all but consubstantial, the modern concept of the city is shifting towards a “sustainable” city, which is not only particularly important, but also makes obvious reference to the numerous conflicts with the environment that the city has incited, and moreover reveals the desire to create the conditions for a more serene future than the one promised to us, should we continue to occupy the planet (in general), and the city in particular, in the same way as has been done for too many decades now. This relatively recent concept of the sustainable city appears to stem from a double requirement, which we have observed, at least on the surface:
– on the one hand, to introduce into “the lived social world” the technical developments systematically associated with economic and societal progress, which are likely to modify (and, for some, improve) the conditions of daily life, both in country towns and cities alike, for generations to come;
– on the other hand, how it has become a determining factor of sustainability that will ensure the harmonious development of the planet, and by consequence the cities that compose it, which are themselves (but not exclusively) the cause behind the general disturbances that we are suffering from, because the required development necessitates destructive conditions, and as a result, constrains us.
It is through this perspective of conflict, between “technical progress” and the endangerment of the planet by human activity, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the systematic deployment of these same techniques that the concept of the smart city seems to impose, wherein technology at the service of humanity thus becomes the “deus ex machina” of a new world. The city appears to be a highly technical artifact that serves both as a basic substrate, capable of fostering “the bright future of humanity”, and at the same time constitutes the main vector for the sustainability of the planet, with the ability to shelter people for generations to come. Moreover, this expression (before becoming a concept) finds equivalent expressions (or concepts) in the recent past, such as “the ring road”, and it is also this semantic change that we wish to account for. Therefore, the new city at the service of a humanity that tries to protect itself against that which it has itself contributed to developing, becomes a determining axis through which it is possible to think about the city of tomorrow, as well as the development of management tools in service of its sustainability. We thus propose to think of the city as a societal issue, on the one hand, and on the other hand, under the form of an encyclopedic approach, that is as a whole comprised of many definitions, under the guidance of authors whose work synthesizes the many challenges of implementation. The different aspects addressed in this framework can be summarized as follows:
– an approach to the city through the presentation of morpho-sociological analysis, in particular with reference to works by Benevolo, Choay, Riboulet, etc., whose objective is to represent the state of the contemporary city and the conditions of its production;
– an economic approach concerning, in particular, the exact modalities of a specific development model, which sees urban composition as the key to putting the paradoxes of the smart city into perspective as a possible response to the problems pertaining to the sustainability of the city;
– a geographical approach to the smart city, in particular by addressing the problems facing development zones, and the worldwide nature that shares a need for this type of solution;
– a sociological approach to the city as a place of production of modernity, in all its forms, as an instance of rationalization that leads from individual to social differentiation.
In order for the proposed analysis to take into account a plural vision of the city, we call upon a multidisciplinary approach. Accordingly, Chapter 1, by Marc Méquignon and Patrizia Laudati, sets itself the objective of providing critical elements for an examination of the city through a morpho-sociological approach. The city is viewed here as a complex and moving object of study, requiring by its very definition, an approach that goes beyond disciplinary partitions and schools of thought, outside time and space, so as to try and grasp the existing connections between all the urban components, objects and subjects, built and non-built elements, urban practices, meanings, etc.; the whole as a result of its modes of production. A purely syntactic or morphological approach to the urban would, on its own, would not suffice to grasp what Berque terms “urbanity”, namely: “this more general composition where spatial entities and social entities come into resonance” (Berque (1993), author’s translation). Obviously, we are not defending a “standard” model of urbanity, but rather studying the different elements that make up urbanity, which, far from being invariable, base their differences on specific spatial, social and cultural structures.
A morpho-sociological approach, focusing on both spatial entities (their form(s)) and social entities (uses, practices, meanings), as such seems more pertinent for demonstrating the inextricable interweaving between these two dimensions, that is, between the materiality and spirit of a city. In addition, any analysis in the service of a more in-depth knowledge of urbanity will make it possible to respond in a more relevant way to the needs and requirements of urban life, by means of the elements identified. These operational elements can then be incorporated into development policies that will help to rethink the urban project.
First, by borrowing Riboulet’s work on the four modes of production of the city (traditional, princely, liberal and regulatory), we emphasize how, in the constructed and lived city, these four modes inevitably coexist (Riboulet 1998). This testifies to the complexity and difficulty of apprehending our multidimensional object of study (the city), which we question both as an object and as a subject.
Second, we propose possible reading keys, which, in a systemic and circular logic, lead to the development of the various elements composing urbanity: we thus introduce the concepts of urban forms (both forms in the plural and in the singular), in order to understand them through their constituent elements: structure, built and non-built elements, singular elements, disruptions, materials, techniques and technologies, zones, real estate markets and social flows, renovation, development, and representations (drawing and design). Each time, no matter the element under study, it is always understood as a triptych, that is, by including its morphology, uses and meanings.
A city is never the result of chance. It arises from a need and adapts as the society that hosts and shelters within it evolves:
The city – place of organized settlement, seat of authority, arises from the village, but not just from the swollen village. It is formed when industries and services are no longer exercised by the people who cultivate the land, but by others who do not have this obligation and are maintained by the former thanks to a surplus of the total production (Benevolo (1995, p. 13), author’s translation).
Therefore, we can say that the city arises from an opposition between two social groups, the first of which is dominant over the other, which is subordinate. The spatial forms are thus a reflection of these power games. The mode of urban composition corresponds to the social processes that have been put into action, with the aim of producing an inhabited space, comprising all the functions seen as useful to it at that given moment in history, imbuing within the same movement, a form and meaning to the space. It is thus also a representation of the power and social relations that promote it.
In Chapter 2, the developments proposed by Jean-Pierre Mignot, through the lens of an economic approach, deliberately make the decision to not give in to an “orthodox” interpretation typical to neoliberal economic analysis, but rather seek to answer the broader question of the city’s economic space by viewing it as a space for the production, distribution and consumption of wealth it has produced, and also, and just as importantly, as a production of this space within which these economic activities take place. Within this context, the question of space and the meaning given to it helps us to better understand the scope of the duality that characterizes the city: as a space for production and as a production of this space. The technical forms of the city, as well as its social (and/or societal) forms, are deployed in time (and therefore in history) in tandem with the space which hosts it. The author thus communicates the perspective that the emergence of a specific space that belongs to history assigns a history for the production of this space, as well as the history of this same space at the same time. By favoring the forms of wealth accumulation for time and space, we can therefore distinguish the forms that the city will take, that is, the different forms that the conditions of production will give to the city as an expression of the social production and exchange within which it is developing. For example, the Fordist city is therefore an instance in which, on the one hand, the car is introduced into the cityscape up until the point of polluting it, and on the other hand, the production conditions of Fordist accumulation led society, as of the 1970s, to denounce the infamous “Meadows Report” (better known as the “Club of Rome” report). The birth of the sustainable city is the result of an awareness that changes of this nature, should they persist, may lead to a worst-case scenario. Similarly, the “neoliberal city” incorporates this logic of accumulation, but fails to respond to the problems responsible for environmental damage, brought about by the emergence of agglomerations whose exploding populations often exceed 20 million inhabitants. As such, the sustainable city becomes the beacon of hope on the horizon, in contrast to a vantage that predicts a planet that will engulf itself, should it continue along a path fatal to its own future.
To approach the problems of the modern city without an expression that only geography can provide is, in our minds, heresy. To this end, Chapter 3, by Fabrice Escaffre, Mélanie Gambino and Sinda Haouès-Jouve, offers an approach to urban spaces based on issues of sustainability and habitability. After analyzing the general dynamics that characterize contemporary urbanization while recalling the diversity of urban spaces, as seen through four facets, considered here as four interfaces, these facets are discussed in greater detail. The first facet deals with housing and habitat, tackling the classical topic most often considered in the analysis of cities. It is an opportunity to highlight the gains of an approach to cities by examining the transversal nature of inhabitant practices. The second facet examines mobility, framing urban spaces through the multiple flows that animate them and give them shape. These first two facets allow us to focus on the social inequalities that characterize cities, as much as on the environmental issues that accompany them. The third facet shifts the analysis towards a subject a priori considered as only remotely connected to urban issues, but which is being integrated more and more strongly, namely agriculture. Whether this is explained as an extension of cities to their rural environment or as a result of food supply concerns, urban agriculture is being treated as a new angle to the urban approach. Finally, climate serves as a focal point for the final facet, as it implies a shift in focus from the local to the global, especially given that the multiple urban effects brought about by its change influence the three previous facets. Through the intermediation of climate, the question of the sustainable city and its adaptability to new living conditions that climate change itself imposes on our way of living and understanding of the city, the city is thus presented in a transformed way.
Finally, stemming from an essentially sociological literature, Chapter 4 describes the city as a space for the production of modernity, that is, for the production of rationalization, individualization and differentiation of societies. Rationalization is embodied in the city as human enterprise, harnessing the environment and organizing its way of life. Individualization describes a city dweller who has freed themself from the grip of the collective yoke peculiar to traditional societies, and claims to be the ruler of their own existence. Differentiation accounts for the growing complexity of society, which is fragmenting into self-referenced subsystems. The fruit and vector for the dynamics of modernity, the city is also the theater of its tensions. The city generates a so-called “urban” society, which results in a redefinition of the modes of sociability based on a difficult-to-balance equation: the making of a society, which produces solidarity alongside emancipated, de-rooted, multi-belonging and sometimes disengaged individuals. The seat of personal freedom, the city indeed produces a “specific mentality” that reshapes the relationships and social aspirations of individuals. The city is in this sense the space of secret, reserved, rational relations, of elective sociability, generating a progressive dislocation of community-type social bonds. This city of individuals questions the propensity of city dwellers to accept the constraints that life within society implies, give themselves a collective plan, and decenter and tolerate differences. Urban planners and architects thus attempt to determine sociability in their projects, while initiatives from civil society are undertaken to invent new forms of committing to the common good. However, these initiatives must also confront deep social logics in favor of the social homogenization that is imprinted upon urban space. Urban society is made up and broken down according to socio-spatial population dynamics, which reflect the stratification of society into classes that are guided by mechanisms of distinction. Public policies and proactive approaches aimed at building social ties between different classes are multiplying without overwhelmingly succeeding in reversing the tendencies towards the social homogenization of urban spaces. The city is fragmented from above and below, following sociological and economic constraints, urban space is torn apart, segregated and unraveled. The result is a concentration of social inequalities which has a moral impact on all city dwellers, whatever their social position. Social diversity is a horizon that seems to have been reached; however, an intellectual, even utopian, horizon, runs against the spontaneous, unspeakable or unconscious desire of those who resemble one another to unite. The sustainable city, the latest mutation of the urban imagination, simultaneously concentrates the aspirations and contradictions of urban society. It is intended as a response to the ecological and social crises affecting modernity, and also as a part of a globalized economic competition in which cities are prominent players. In the court of injunctions to sustainability, the city is accused of all evils: pollution, poverty, inequality; and is also perceived as the space for remediation. The initiation of profound transformations within urban society could inaugurate a new, more responsible, more equitable world. Once again, this desire for renewal comes up against conflicting social representations and aspirations of city dwellers, who want both the city and the countryside. The sustainable city seems to imply certain cessations; however, the individual home continues to embody the outcome of a successful residential trajectory. The sustainable city is also conceived and built within a new paradigm, which replaces the techno-scientific references, and at the same time a regime of uncertainty, a so-called “theoretical cooling” is developed. The urban translation that questions the progressive ideology brought about by the industrial revolution is embodied in the concept of the urban project. It promotes an empirical and partnership approach intended to experiment with local choices that are developed collectively. But then again, the solutions it produces also generate exclusion, segregation and labeling.
Obviously, the rules imposed on us by adopting a multidisciplinary approach implies that, ideally, we should have invited other voices, whether they belong to the humanities and social sciences (HSS) or the “hard” sciences. However, it was a deliberate choice to only promote the expression of HSS, for the sake of homogenizing discourse and a desire to understand the city from this unique angle. Not that the opinions of our colleagues in the “hard” sciences are not welcome, but the objective of the editors and the available space gave us little room to maneuver. We would like to thank each and every one for their contribution, with the hopes that we have provided our readers with the opportunity to better understand the issues concerning the future of cities and, through them, the future of the planet.
References
Benevolo, L. (1995).
Histoire de la ville
. Parenthèses, Marseille.
Berque, A. (1993).
Du geste à la cité. Formes urbaines et lien social au Japon
. Gallimard, Paris.
Ellul, J. (1977).
Le Système technicien
. Calmann-Lév, Paris.
Riboulet, P. (1998).
Onze leçons sur la composition urbaine
. Presses de l’École nationale des ponts et chaussées, Paris.
Note
Integrated Urban Environment Management and Resilience
,coordinated by Luc ADOLPHE. © ISTE Ltd 2022.
1Morpho-Sociological Approach to the City
Marc MÉQUIGNON1 and Patrizia LAUDATI2
1 LERASS, UPS, Toulouse, France
2 SicLab Méditerranée, UCA Université Côte d’Azur, Nice, France
1.1. Introduction: socio-morphological analysis as a tool for understanding the city
The objective of this chapter is to provide critical elements for the analysis of the city through a morpho-sociological approach. The city is a complex and moving object of study requiring, by its very definition, an approach that goes beyond disciplinary partitions and schools of thought, outside of time and space, in order to try and grasp the existing connections between all the urban components, objects and subjects, built and non-built elements, urban practices, meanings, etc., the whole a result from its modes of production.
A purely syntactic or morphological approach to that which is considered urban would not suffice on its own, if we are to grasp what Berque calls urbanity, namely: “this more general composition where spatial entities and social entities enter into resonance” (Berque (1993), author’s translation).
Of course, we are not defending a “standard” model of urbanity, but rather an interpretation of the elements that make up urbanity which, far from being invariable, base their differences on specific spatial, social and cultural structures.
A morpho-sociological approach, focusing on both spatial entities (their form/s) and social entities (uses, practices, meanings), therefore seems more relevant to show the inextricable interconnectedness between these two dimensions, between the materiality and spirit of a city.
Moreover, any analysis that serves a more in-depth knowledge of urbanity will make it possible to respond in a more relevant way to the requirements and needs of urban life, through the elements that have been identified. These operational elements can then be incorporated into development policies to rethink the urban project.
First, by borrowing Riboulet’s work on the four modes of production of the city (traditional, princely, liberal and regulatory), we emphasize how, in the constructed and lived city, these four modes inevitably coexist (Riboulet 1998). This testifies to the complexity and difficulty of apprehending our multidimensional object of study (the city), which we question both as an object and as a subject.
In a second step, we propose possible reading keys which, in a systemic and circular logic, lead us to develop the different elements composing urbanity: we introduce the concepts of urban forms (both plural and singular forms), in order to understand them through their constitutive elements: structure, built and non-built elements, singular elements, ruptures, materials, techniques and technologies, parcels of land, real estate markets and social flows, renovation, planning, representations (drawing and design). Each time, no matter the element being studied, it is always understood as a triptych that includes its morphology, uses and meanings at the same time.
A city is never the fruit of chance. It is born of needs and adapts as it evolves:
The city – a place of organized settlement, the seat of authority – is born of the village, but is not just the enlargement of a village. It is formed when industries and services are no longer exercised by the people who cultivate the land, but by others who do not have this obligation and are maintained by the former by the surplus of the total production (Benevolo (1995, p. 13), author’s translation).
Therefore, we can say that the city is thus created from the opposition of two social groups, the first is dominant and the other is subordinate. The spatial forms are thus the reflection of these power games. The mode of urban composition corresponds to the social processes put into action with the aim of producing an inhabited space that includes all the functions seen as useful at that given moment in history, imbuing within the same movement a form and meaning to the space.
1.2. The city’s modes of production
This section and the following one are largely borrowed from Pierre Riboulet, the great “humanist” architect and theorist of the 20th century, defender of the “legitimacy of forms” (Riboulet 1998). Riboulet approaches the question of the city through its modes of production. This approach based on the modes of production allows for the accumulation of a real genealogy on the composition of urban space, which helps facilitate a better understanding.
In order to understand the city, we must constantly bear in mind that any new division of space is inscribed in a previous division (see Figure 1.1), by replacing, modifying or juxtaposing it.
Figure 1.1Plot division
(source: Riboulet (1998, p. 39))
Indeed, the city can be analyzed as an accumulation of fragments deposited by successive waves, with their forms and criteria contextualized spatially, technically and culturally, forming a resulting whole, the understanding thereof requiring a knowledge of successive “sedimentations”.
The city must be understood as a process. It is the result of the continued growth of an original core that develops through free and available areas. Simultaneously with this development, a set of reconstruction and reconversion actions take place, with a corollary change in form and use. The urban evolution can be analyzed through the inertia of the weight of the past. There is obviously a time lag between the new social needs and the morphological and technical responses that meet them. Riboulet justifies the necessity of an urban composition imposed by the dialectic between this movement and inertia.
Knowledge of form cannot be attained from itself because it is the result of the social factors of production that determine it. The mode of production, of urban composition, shows how the city is made and how the factors of this production are combined. These determinants are essentially related to the level of historical, economic, social and technical development, the form of the social division of labor, and finally the cultural development of the different social classes and the mechanisms of ideological domination.
The effects can be grouped into three orders:
production of specific urban forms;
production of uses of space and the city;
production of meanings.
Uses adapt to the initial spatial forms, and in turn, these forms produce uses. The same goes for meanings.
In order to analyze the city, Riboulet distinguishes four main modes of composition: the traditional mode, the princely mode, the liberal mode and the regulatory mode.
The princely mode (see Figure 1.2) is based on an authoritative relationship of intellectualism over practicality, in confrontation with the dominant culture. The archetype of this mode is the royal prerogative. Morphologically, the remarkable aspect of this mode is the brutality opposing it when contrasted to the ordinary space that surrounds it. These compositions retain a certain consistency in their production throughout historical periods. The princely space is a true laboratory of artistic creation that is in opposition to popular creations. This space focuses on outward representation. Today, this mode is only created at a reduced scale, the project of a mayor, a community councilor or a company CEO acting in an authoritarian manner.
The traditional mode (see Figure 1.3) is popular and vernacular. Cities of this mode are empirical; they have a system of streets, squares, a wide variety of buildings and conformity of the building materials used. We observe a typology of the constituent elements, but no identical repetition because any standardization, an outcome of the industrial period yet to come, is non-existent. These cities do not resemble each other because they are each the result of local adaptations of artisanal modes of production.
Figure 1.2The princely mode
(source: Riboulet (1998, p. 78))
Figure 1.3The traditional mode
(source: Riboulet (1998, p. 88))
The remarkable fact is the permanence of their characteristics; they impose their own conformity. There is strong consistency despite the absence of a plan or formal organization. This space is that of artisanal and individual practices, and there is no separation between the construction of buildings and their use. The cities that characterize this mode are those that assert their personality beyond the state1. The work of production is not isolated from that of creation, and there is no separation between the creator and the builder, between the builder and the user, and between form and use.
The liberal mode characterizes the capitalist era, the main determinant of which is the search for profit. Intellectual and manual work are completely separated. Here, we can observe:
a brutal urbanization that has lost cultural references;
the standardization of building elements;
the specialization of trades and the separation between the production and use of the constructed space.
This mode of production also induces, as a corollary, a strong and speculative relationship maintained between land and the rent that it generates.
The urban space produced by this mode is characterized by the individuality that it symbolizes, with weak coherence and the fragmentation of the signifiers. For its representation, it is enough to have the image of all the entry and exit points of our cities in mind.
Lastly, the regulatory mode is particularly essential for the other modes. It consists of numerous regulations, such as land use, and contents, such as hygiene services. This is the city-within-state mode, that is, the city-object. The state is content to control and limit the rights of private interests, facilitating private enterprise in urban matters by giving it a framework and rules. Here, the status of the mediator appears, indispensable since the regulatory city is built in spaces and times that are not known by those who enact the rules. These state personnel act in an abstract way, according to their own ideas of the city. The main effect of this mode is the standardization of production and consumption behaviors and the homogenization of space with the disappearance of eccentric local quirks. The effects on the urban form are very important, because they determine the constructability of spaces, densities, heights and the nature of occupation, which in turn has the consequence of determining their physiognomy.
1.2.1. Combining different modes
In real-world cities, these four modes coexist; there is not only juxtaposition but a real articulation between these modes. There is no, or very rarely, a pure mode. There is juxtaposition insofar as the city is an assembly of fragments produced by successive modes. There is a superposition of modes when we replace another. The combination can be genealogical. For example, the traditional mode contains a liberal component in terms of the right to property. The princely mode contains a component of the traditional mode with regard to the artisanal know-how of craftsmen. The liberal component, unique in absolute terms, can include a measure of princely composition, which has been calculated according to the development of land capital, or, for example, the display of a brand and therefore to the concentration of capital. The regulatory mode contains an element of the princely mode since it attempts to express power or arises from the expression of it. The liberal and regulatory modes are complementary because they cannot be sufficient on their own. In the liberal composition, the regulatory component may be more or less strong, for example, depending on the importance of a regulation specific to the area being developed. This regulatory mode needs the liberal mode since it cannot produce the city on its own, because it requires a significant concentration of capital.
The combination of modes is pragmatic. For example, during the construction of a city extension, we can observe a combination of different modes, except for the traditional one, which would have disappeared. From the princely mode, the personal intervention of a state official in the role of architects, town planners, etc., remains. The liberal mode is still present because of the value of the land, the presence of private capital and the need for profitability. The regulatory mode is omnipresent because the state has always sought to both control production and serve the other modes. Currently, composition as described by Riboulet’s terms remains relevant. Any extension of a town or village originates from an urban planning decision resulting from regulations.
1.2.2. Urban sprawl and morphological changes
Over the centuries, and in general, cities have seen their populations grow progressively, despite some occasional declines. During periods when insecurity reigned, the enclosure, whose cost was important, prevented expansion and caused densification. When the enclosure became useless, it was the very functions of the city, their concentration combined with the demographic explosion, which made the phenomenon of densification persist. The extension was still limited by the problems of the means of communication and barriers such as the rivers, or bypasses which caused the same phenomenon of densification as the enclosure. In parallel to this phenomenon, the behavior of the population and its new needs led to the extension of the city in the form of suburban housing from the end of the 19th century.
This was the beginning of “urban sprawl”, that is, the spatial expansion of cities, with the effect of peri-urbanization, discontinuity of the urban fabric and the standardization of living environments: natural and agricultural spaces were included in what Dubois-Taine and Chalas (1997) call the “emerging city”. Today, sprawl is becoming synonymous with dysfunction. In this regard, Paquot (2020), while attacking the gigantism of current metropolises, denounces the problems caused by their size: multiplication of travel, increase in pollution, waste of agricultural land, overconsumption of energy, increase in environmental costs, etc. The solution lies in a change of paradigm: finally, today, it is no longer a question of relying on economic attractiveness to think about regional development; cities must be rethought in terms of the “harmonious living” of their inhabitants.
1.2.2.1. Economic dynamics, social flows and impacts on construction
In our market logic, housing and office buildings are durable goods, but perishable and tradable. These constructions are thus comparable to any other product. The duration of the life cycle is variable according to their own qualities, the desired aesthetic and the environmental conditions. The aim of the actors is to solve the problems facing the evolution of the city; however, the pursuit of profit tends to generate dysfunctions. There are at least two factors that determine the degradation of a neighborhood. The first is the evolution of needs, such as the rejection of collective housing in the 1970s, which led to the disaffection of this type of housing in favor of suburban housing. The second is the tendency to save on maintenance, the only way to fight against the attacks of time and therefore the degradation and devaluation of buildings. This process of housing devaluation and thus of district devaluation is the result of changes in population. The arrival of one or more tenants from a lower social category into aging buildings leads to the departure of the neighborhood in a more or less short term. This departure encourages the arrival of a category that is in turn socially less elevated. From one step to the next, the whole building suffers degradation and encourages a reduction in maintenance. This mechanism is identical to that of the neighborhood. The buildings themselves deteriorate from one to the next. The initial desire for a mixed society in the production of collective housing will not change this mechanism.
At the beginning of the 20th century, France embarked on a housing policy from which it gradually withdrew from the 1970s. In addition to improving the housing stock, the objective of this policy was to keep different categories of population within the same neighborhood. However, here too, we can observe numerous dysfunctions and the appearance of ghettos. Indeed, the production of rehabilitated housing has never caught up with the new demand linked to the evolution of family profiles and demographics, and these two principles amplify the deterioration. This mechanism has pushed disadvantaged populations into other, less expensive neighborhoods, which are generally more degraded. In general, the absence of intervention in the city entails the risks of an immobilist policy, that is, a sclerotic urban system that cannot respond to new needs. This attitude can lead a district to its ruin and even to its disappearance.
1.2.2.2. Different actions on the urban area
Society has different tools at its disposal with which to react to risks. It is the state that is responsible for taking measures to compensate for the inconsistencies of the liberal market. The state provides the legal means to intervene. Bulldozer operations consist of selecting degraded neighborhoods and razing them to the ground in order to rebuild new ones. First, a new system will be adopted. The evolution of needs provokes interventions on the very structure of the urban system. These interventions range from simple breakthroughs to the global reorganization of circulations, such as those of Hausmann in the 19th century. The consequences are different depending on the importance of the decision. The breakthrough can be an artery along which facades are built respecting the alignment defined by a prospect. In this case, the plot of land, which of course will not have changed, will no longer be orthogonal to the road. The most important consequence is that the intervention can lead to the total reconstruction of the plots. In this case, the new plot is reconciled with the old one remaining in contact to recreate the homogeneity of the structure. The main tool for these operations is, in France, the law of expropriation established in 1840. When the intervention concerns a complete block, whether it is considered to be insalubrious or never built on, the difficulty lies in integrating it into the existing structure. The operation consists of defining the complete system by first establishing the street circulation and then the plot.
The integration of the block with the rest of the site must be achieved at the architectural and social level. However, when buildings are designed for their own sake, without taking “into account” their relationship with the environment, the functioning of the whole fails. This is the major risk of neighborhoods created today, especially for so-called “sustainable” neighborhoods that “turn their backs” on that which already exists, on the pretext that they are innovative and the only ones capable of meeting current needs.
1.2.2.3. Renovation
When buildings are too run-down, there is a risk that the neighborhood will become ghettoized. To combat this deterioration, which has significant social consequences, local authorities can initiate or undertake renovation work. This type of intervention can be carried out on a national scale by assisting in the renovation of individual dwellings or on a neighborhood scale where the national aid system is reinforced. These actions have many advantages. By keeping the old structures, the development integrates into the site, unifying it, and maintains the morphological continuity in time and space. It strengthens the heritage of the building. Thanks to this coherence, we protect ourselves from urban and social functioning failures. One of the objectives is the maintenance of the populations, allowing the conservation of diversity and increasing the chances of an identical functioning. On the other hand, the operation is carried out, at least in theory, at a lower cost since it is limited by energy, hygiene and comfort standards.
However, these great qualities are only theoretical. First of all, it is not always possible or effective to maintain the populations that existed before the renovation. Moreover, the operation can be transformed into a segregation tool by rejecting the least well-off populations. Finally, insofar as it does not call these structures into question, it does not meet the new imperatives necessary for its evolution, as described above. Finally, the objective of social maintenance in the medium and long terms must be confronted with the social difficulty experienced during the execution of the work.
1.2.2.4. Pattern
In order to revitalize a neighborhood, the local community can initiate developments. It will be a question of carrying out a project whose impact will have the function of introducing the dynamics necessary for the renewal of the district in which it is located. This project is generally organized by a municipality or community, while the consequences are a function of dynamism and private demand.
1.2.2.5. City extensions
The extensions of the city have the same characteristics as the “bulldozer” intervention on the block, with the exception of those that integrate into the site, which does not address the same problems. Indeed, because the site is virgin, the link to be realized with the existing seems simpler to treat. However, these extensions require very particular attention with regard to their insertion and the projected management of their evolution. On the other hand, not being at the heart of the existing functions of the city makes its operation all the more tentative.
Finally, the extension of the city leads to the loss of its limits and its identity in relation to the countryside.
1.3. Difficulties of apprehension
As Mangin puts it:
Cities have almost always been new at first, and most often in the form of a regular subdivision. Very early on, they had suburbs, initially called faubourg, which they gradually absorbed and reunited with the initial center. If their composition today presents complex arrangements, imbrications, irregularities, these are generally the result of the contribution of generations rather than of an a priori will. This reflection situates the importance of the “temporal” factor for the process of the urban fabric (Mangin (1999, p. 11), author’s translation).
An action on the urban fabric therefore takes place at a given moment in its history. All the participants agree on the importance of the role of history and the need to clearly situate the intervention in relation to it. The urban culture acquired within this framework can teach us what can remain unchanged and allow us to inscribe the action without any contradictions.
The city transforms itself at all times; it develops and changes its meanings. This spontaneous and disorderly movement explains the need to take into account the time factor if we want to obtain a coherent analysis and urban perspective.
A new notion of time intervenes in the perception and understanding of the urban problem. It concerns the speed of communication and relativeness, which produces another level of complexity to the analysis: on the one hand, it is necessary to know how to distinguish the permanent from the ephemeral. On the other hand, it is pretentious to believe that we can recreate “ex nihilo” the heterogeneity of an urban space. It is thus necessary to question the city as both an object and a subject at the same time.
1.4. The city: object or subject?
In order to answer this question, we synthesize the reflections of Riboulet. The city is both an object and a subject: an object, because it is the product of a culture and a society at a given moment in history; and a subject that produces actions, behaviors and meanings. Its essence lies in the permanent relationship between the social forces that produce and occupy it.
When we study the city-state, there is a real identification of the inhabitants with their city. On the other hand, when the city is held by the state, by the organization of a centralized power, the personality is erased and there is a loss of a recognizable identity.
Moreover, the city’s identity problems have long been associated with the poor quality of the buildings and the poor organization of the networks that generate the heterogeneity of flows. The actors recognize the inadequacy of actions that only affect the form of the buildings themselves, without questioning their relationships, or those that only manage the flows, but they agree that the real problems concern questions of urban form, the relationships that develop there and the associated morphology. The whole issue goes beyond the strict domain of technicians. Urban planning, which claims to be the “science of the city”, is well founded on technical grounds. However, history always demonstrates the primacy of the social vision over technical development. There is no technical answer to a social question, and all attempts appear to be in vain. From the very first year of the construction of a new city, the social aspect takes precedence.
The necessity of composition comes from the dialectic between the movement of extension, of destruction–reconstruction, and the very inertia of the development, which brings a shift in time with regard to the social, economic and technical changes which command them.
The question of the form once evoked under the influence of materialist– dialectic criticisms, which assimilates it to a simple reflection or structural product, reappears in the field of the reflection and the action on the space.
1.5. The shapes and form of the city
The term “urban forms”, in the plural, designates the spatial conformations of the city, of which morphological analysis has identified the elements (plot, building, block, street, square, etc.) and their system of articulation according to layouts and relationships, regulated by the mode of production specific to its social and historical context.
The term “urban form” in the singular covers a syncretic image of the historical European city (i.e., depending on the authors, either pre-modern-contemporary or pre-industrial). This image has a cultural and social value in its easy legibility for all. It is a civilizational asset, and for some, an “image of the collective unconscious” (Genestier 1988).
We can imagine that the key to the success of interventions on the city lies within this double relationship to “form”.
Several decades ago, Mangin and Panerai (1999) laid down the framework for this problem very well. They describe the difficulty of responding to the growing need for housing in an expanding city without creating new public spaces. These new spaces do not allow for individual or collective appropriation. Since then, the problem of urban sprawl has increased, with those facing sustainable development only adding to it.
Finally, urban form can be approached as a representation. In the eyes of Joly (1988), the notion of urban form seems inseparable from that of the representation of the city. Joly shows how the study of urban form in history can be considered through the idea that we have of the city and its representations, and not just through historical knowledge of the urban fact. The idea is to look at these representations of the city as a chronological whole that provides a “process of knowledge”, as expressed by Bachelard (1966). Joly goes on to propose that we examine whether there are moments and thresholds that mark stages in the understanding of the phenomenon or whether this only takes place in the ambition of the project (Joly 1988).
The debate on the “form of the city and the forms in the city” is old. This debate must be accessible to all if there is to be any consensus before political decisions are enacted. The stake is the realization of architectural projects in accordance with the city and not with the opportunity of the parcel of land, which generates rifts.
1.6. Representations of the city: “drawings and designs”
1.6.1. Drawings
A plan drawing is the “flat” representation of a building, city or part of a city, but it is also a program of coordinated actions over time. Until very recently, plans were reserved for spatial professionals and politicians. The introduction of the third dimension into these representations allows for the understanding of the plan through perspective, making forms and volumes more intelligible.
A brief historical overview shows that since antiquity, there have been two main families of documents. These are the more or less faithful drawings, whose use is clear. Between 3,000 and 1,500 BCE, cities were already being represented on clay tablets, including written reports and plans (see Figure 1.4) and signs which are rather symbolic, as well as very abstract images.
Figure 1.4Sumerian tablet representing the plan of Nippur city circa 1,500 BCE.
(source: Benevolo (1995, p. 29))
During the High Middle Ages, representations made use of iconography, which generated representations that were disproportionate in scale. Subsequently, with the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, these drawings improved in terms of the skill of the line, as well as in their geometrical competence. The technique used is a combination of the plane and a kind of perspectival folding (see Figure 1.5).
With the invention of perspective in the 15th century, we can see a real change in representation, since the same instrument seems capable of defining both the structure of the city and its spatial organization. The perspective view progresses and achieves an identity that meets between the form and its representation. The urban perspective becomes the “optical view”. During this period, artists were initially asked to finalize the work undertaken at the end of the Middle Ages. The relationship between artists and their patrons evolved towards greater autonomy vis-à-vis the medieval corporations. Philippe Brunelleschi’s work allows for a dissociation of the conception phase from the realization phase. This results in a more in-depth work on the characteristics of architectural works and urban planning. The representations are plans, elevations, as well as drawings aggregating perspectives and axonometries.
Figure 1.512th century drawing; representation combining plan and drawdown, Canterbury Convent
(source: Benevolo (1995, p. 186))
Following the economic crisis of the Renaissance, the Baroque movement established itself in the 17th century. Artistic and architectural productions tended towards greater contestation and marking of the space with respect to the surrounding environment. Perspective began to be refined.
Towards the end of the 18th century and into the 19th century, the peak of the industrial revolution and the associated revolution in production facilitated the construction of long spans between load-bearing walls, and the standardization and fall in prices of expensive elements such as ironwork. Representations, especially volume, gain in precision.
Finally, in recent decades, we have taken a new step in representation with the computer-generated image. Digital tools make it possible to quickly represent a new project in perspective and give explanations over time. The drawing retains the performance of the perspective, but considerably increases the definition of the image to the level of “virtual reality”, mobilizing the greatest sensitivity.
More recently, new methods for structuring and exchanging information around the project have been put in place thanks to building information modeling (BIM). BIM (both a digital model and a process for its realization) makes it possible to design, represent and visualize the project, in a collaborative manner between the different stakeholders. The images are increasingly realistic and dynamic. In addition to the architectural plans, execution plans and detail plans facilitate exchanges between the various trade-offs that occur at different stages of the project: from the design phase to the construction phase, the maintenance phase, and even its deconstruction. The same reasoning applies at the city level. The question is no longer that of the production of images and their modes of representation, but rather that of their circulation and reception.
1.6.2. Designs
The link between the design that presents the concept (the idea, the intention to achieve something, the project) and the drawing thereof (the transcription and representation of the idea) is a strong one.
In effect, drawing is a language. It makes it possible to express the intention of the designer or owner of the project. The drawing is therefore never trivial. It must make it possible to perceive and interpret the objective of the client.
As Pinson expresses it, “Drawing and design, though of the same etymological origin, distinguish, in French culture, form and substance, letter and spirit, where one would like, not to confuse them, but to associate them” (Pinson 2014, author’s translation).
In order to better understand the link between the two terms (design and drawing), we rely on the definition given by DICOBAT (De Vigan and De Vigan 2014), according to which design is the act of creating and shaping a project and its plans. It is therefore, in the first place, an intellectual process, a rationalized creative thought, which calls for the observation of reality and its constraints, for translation of the final user/s needs, alongside the aesthetic sensibility of the designer. The thought is thus externalized and translated into a language (verbal, written, graphic) that can be communicated.
As an example, the study of “garden cities” plans, whether English or French, is a good exercise to compare a design (dessein) with a drawing (dessin) and vice versa. Indeed, the industrial, economic and social objectives are quite easily accessible from the reading of plans.
All these elements refer, through their materiality, to a culture, a symbolism and practices. As we mentioned above, thinking about the architectural and urban project means thinking about urbanity, that is, the multiple dimensions of the city, in addition to its materiality. In a methodological concern, the following paragraphs respond to a logic of decomposition, on the material as well as the immaterial level, of the constitutive elements of the urbanity. In a reverse movement, the meaning of the city will emerge through their recomposition.
