Ekim Tan on Urban Games

Critical summary - Friday May 27th - presentation by Ekim Tan

Hunch
Both completely planned and spontaneous developed new cities seem to survive quite well. Almere and Istanbul are developed in a completely different way, but produce both brisk urban densities which attract more and more inhabitants. How should these cities develop? Can we simulate development by using the human brain, instead of computer models with a given amount of parameters? Can we develop the city using collective intelligence and self-organization?
Ekim Tan explores in her PHD the potential of urban games in city development. Together with her partners she developed a network around this theme, The Responsive City.

Revival of the 70s?
At first sight one could think that the ideas of co-creation, rooted in in 70s, are merged with the possibilities of the digital realm of today. Ekim showed the design for the Malaguiera Quarter by Siza as an early example of participatory planning. The credits of this project should go to the housing association, who allows the residents to alter their homes over time. Siza did definitely design a grammar of variations (see drawing), but included a set of restricting rules as well (flat roofs, stairways of wood or painted steel and whitewashed exterior plaster, ornaments in stucco protrude to a maximum of 1 cm).
Cooperative planning models of the 70s were based upon a political ideology; everyone, rich and poor, should be able to determine what his/her house looks like. Common people know best how to design a house. The task of designing was de-professionalized. There is a beautiful movie on the Molenvliet project in Papendrecht, built according to the Open Building idea of Habraken, where architect Frans van der Werf draws plans instructed by future residents.
Recent models are based upon the observation that users become smarter and smarter, using internet they can turn themselves into semi-professionals. There is no paradigm behind this development, it is an amoral power of the people and therefore quite different from the 70s.

Cross case comparison
The PHD of Ekim is based upon a set of games. In these games the participants, often with different backgrounds, collaborate in order to achieve a goal. The goal is to develop the city collectively. The power and potential of the game a clear. Instead of confronting information in order to reach consensus, information is collected and developed in a more open source way of working.

Workshops are held in Almere, Istanbul, Rotterdam and soon Amsterdam as well. It is not completely clear why these four cities are picked as samples to develop a theory. The set-up differs from workshop to workshop as well. In one workshop the participants just work together, in another one they can negotiate in smaller groups during breaks as well. The type of participants seem to vary. As a result cross case comparison of results must be pretty difficult. On the other hand, additional information gathered is absolutely interesting! The idea to rule out a type of participant for example, market parties in Almere (municipality vs. residents) or the municipality in Amsterdam (market parties vs. stakeholders), creates new types of collaborations and questions current networks.

Scenario developing vs. scenario testing
The research produces an attractive scenario how the physical and virtual world can be combined in the future. It creates opportunities for new collaborations and unexpected developments. How do people work together, share information, develop ideas initiated by others, etc. It would be interesting to extend this research on scenario developing to scenario testing. What kind of physical outcome does this method produce? Is it desirable? Are both explicit and implicit goals achieved? How does the model incorporate societal values or common goods? In short: to evaluate the product together with the process.