How to Make Development Plans Suitable for Volatile Contexts

Abstract

Development plans are central tools in spatial planning practice. They create a vision of how places should develop and prescribe how desired patterns of development will be realized. However, development plans are increasingly regarded as inflexible and even rigid when confronted by changes in their context. Conceptualizing urban districts in terms of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), this paper identifies ways in which more flexible development plans can be designed. This is investigated through a case study of a development plan for Blauwestad in the Netherlands, which enabled sources of rigidity to be analysed.The paper concludes with the view that from a CAS perspective, development plans are part of the structures necessary to facilitate self-organization and if designed with certain principles in mind, can play a key role in assisting the endogenous evolution of spatial developments.

Framework rules for self-organizing cities: Introduction

“…As a consequence, they lose their effectiveness when the problem definition changes or different solutions become more feasible than those envisioned when these rules were implemented (Moroni et al, 2018;Van Rijswick and Salet, 2012). In other words, detailed comprehensive planning approaches may hamper a city's ability to respond to, and deal with, new societal demands, unexpected innovations, and economic or demographic shifts (Buitelaar and Sorel, 2010;Rauws et al, 2014). As we enter an era of continuous innovation (Batty, 2018) with increasing interdependencies between socio-economic systems (Helbing, 2012), planning approaches that foster the adaptive capacity of cities (Rauws, 2017) and inspire innovative roles that planners should play in complex decision-making arenas are needed increasingly (Rijken et al, 2020: 336;Rosner-Manor et al, 2020: 251).…”

Embracing Uncertainty Without Abandoning Planning

“…The limitations of traditional planning strategies and instruments in dealing with unforeseen developments are also exposed, as these are often based on prediction, stability and risk reduction (e.g. Abbott 2005;Gunn, Hillier 2014;Rauws et al 2014). Therefore, the question that becomes increasingly prompt is how planners can strengthen the responsiveness of urban areas to both foreseen and unforeseen change, while at the same time making societally preferred development trajectories more likely to emerge.…”

“…Alfasi and Portugali (2007) discuss an alternative for the Israeli planning system by incorporating the idea of the self-planned city. Finally, Rauws et al (2014) analyse how Dutch urban development plans can become more responsive to change. A review of their commu-nalities and their differences (cf.…”

“…In earlier work, we added a third dimension to the debate by arguing that adaptive planning is as much about triggering societally preferred development directions as it is about strengthening the responsiveness of urban areas to change (Rauws et al 2014). The proposal is to combine the implementation of conditions with visionary elements of plan-making that create a sense of urgency among stakeholders, trigger new initiatives and legitimise public investments.…”

Doing it ‘ourselves’: Civic initiative and self-governance in spatial planning

“…An emerging view amongst urban theorists and researchers is that effective functioning of urban areas should embrace uncertainties, multiple possible alternative futures and flexible decisions (Albrechts, 2006;De Roo, 2010;Korah et al, 2017;Rauws et al 2014) and further allows for self-organisation and self-governance (see Alfasi & Portugali, 2007;De Roo, 2016;Korah et al, 2016;Rauws et al 2016;Rauws, 2016;Boonstra, 2015). Self-governed civic initiatives in spatial planning require urgent attention particularly in Africa and other developing countries where in Roy's (2005) view, most of the major urban transformations of the 21 st century are likely to occur.…”