Masterplanning for Urban Change: A Small World Metaphor

Masterplanning for Urban Change: A Small World Metaphor

M. Ganis J. Minnery D. Mateo-Babiano 

The University of Queensland, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, Australia

Page: 
125-139
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V8-N2-125-139
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
22 May 2013
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

The intent of a masterplanning process is to enable and expedite urban change but sometimes this process is fraught with dissatisfaction. This paper examines the perceptual and conceptual aspects of the masterplanning process and asks (a) What urban qualities make a good place? (b) What are the priorities of a conceptual mas- terplanning process? and (c) What are the short-term and long-term priorities of a contextual masterplanning process? The participants’ results show that urban density and connectivity are the most important aspects of masterplanning places and that stakeholders need an urban change process to enable certainty in the short term and adaptability in the long term. It is proposed that small world network models offer a self-organizing frame- work for masterplanning short-term and long-term urban change.

Keywords: 

masterplanning process, small world network metaphor, self-organizing, adaptable, South East Queensland, place making

  References

[1] Watts, D.J. & Strogatz, S., Collective dynamics of ‘small world’ networks. Nature, 393(4), pp. 440–442, 1998. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/30918

[2] Barabasi, A.-L. & Albert, R, Emergence and scaling  in  random  networks.  Science,  286, pp. 509–512, 1999. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509

[3] Batty, M., Cities as small worlds. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28,  pp. 637–638, 2001. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b2805ed

[4] Hillier, B. & Hanson, J., The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press: London, 1984. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237

[5] Hillier, B. & Penn, A., Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, pp. 501–511, 2004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b3019a

[6] Ratti, C., Urban texture and space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, pp. 1–15, 2004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b3019

[7] Bafna, S., Space syntax: a brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques, Environment and Behavior, 35, pp. 17–29, 2003. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238863

[8] Osman, K.M. & Suliman, M. The space syntax methodology: fits and misfits. Architecture and Behaviour, 10(2), pp. 189–204, 1994.

[9] de Roo, G., Being or becoming? that is the question! confronting complexity with contem- porary planning theory. A Planner’s Encounter with Complexity, In: G. de Roo & E.A. Silva, Ashgate: Farnham, pp. 19–40, 2010.

[10] Guare, J., Six Degrees of Separation: a play. Vintage Books: New York, 1990.

[11] Milgram, S., The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2, pp. 60–67, 1967.

[12] Kleinberg, J.M., Navigation in a small world. Nature, 406, pp. 845, 2000. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35022643

[13] Watts, D.J. Six Degrees: the science of a connected age. Norton: New York, 2003.

[14] Watts, D.J. Small Worlds: the dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 45, 1999.

[15] Wasserman, S. & Faust, K., Social Network Analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1994. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478

[16] Scott, J., Social Network Analysis: a handbook. SAGE Publications Inc: London, 2000.

[17] Trochim, W., available at www.socialresearchmethods.net/mapping/mapping.htm. 2009.

[18] English Partnerships. Urban Design Compendium. 2008.

[19] Ganis, M., Minnery, J. & Mateo-Babiano, D, The small world of stakeholder groups: cascading concepts for urban change. WIT Conference Proceedings: Sustainable Development and Plan- ning. Wessex Institute of Technology Publications: Ashurst Lodge, UK, 2011.