- - - - ). It is a complement is a complement It ). ) and the flexible space cosmos taxis The The main thesis is that flexible the for space spontaneity The The conceptsflexibilityof and spontaneity—whichare This article investigates relationship the betweenplan to Jacobs’ works,to which focused mainly the on relationship betweenthe physical and socialdimensions in economics 2000), whereas 1970, and urban (Jacobs 1961, development addsit the relationship between the physical and regulatory dimensions (Cozzolino 2017). configurationsand emergent does on dependnot solely the physical dimension the of built environment is ob (which so on; seesoon; Alfasi et Buitelaar al.Gadanho 2013; etal. 2014; and and developments changes) Spontaneity (of et al. 2014). flexibilityplans, (of rules, policies are on) indicatedand so as valuable alternatives orthodox to planning practices. two key features Jacobs’ ideas—have of become widely used experts;by clarifications however, needed are to underscore the different ways in which work they under different kinds of planning conditions (Moroni and Cozzolino, forthcom ing)—being such conditions material (like buildings, open spaces infrastructures), or immaterial or (like buildings codes land-use or plans). ning view, Hayek’s (in control spontaneousfor left actions and of emergent the evolution socio-spatial configurations(i.e., ------Spontaneity, flexibility,Spontaneity, configuration, emergent planningconditions, planning,land-use rules, Jacobs.Jane : AfterJacobs’ seminalworks, idea one seems to be widely sharedplanners:by citiesmust be considered as complex

predictions (e.g., organicpredictions planning, (e.g., tactical urbanism, and idea is driving the planning system towards an unequivo cal shift from the comprehensive-technocraticto approach strategicmore plans, less connected top-down long-term, to evolution of socio-spatial of evolution configurations a play crucial role (Batty Bertaud 2007; 2004; de Roo et al. Holcombe 2012; Holland Lai 2012; 1995; an Such 2004; Portugali 2011). to beto largely shared experts; by cities be should consid not planableered simple objects as but self-organizing and com in ones plex which spontaneous actions and the emergent it isit possible spontaneity—and enable to many differentap more theproaches on are table now (Rauws 2017)—today, than sixty years afterJacobs’ seminalidea one seems work, persed knowledge ordinary of (Callahan people and Ikeda Moroni Ikeda 2012; Gordon 2017; Cozzolino2014; 2017; Despite planners agreenot do in the2016). ways in which more themore city is planned, controlled and designed from the thetop, less flexible space spontaneous for is there adapta tions and connected improvements, the to use the of dis Jane Jacobs (1961) argues that the city system is a complex Jane Jacobs (1961) possessing charactersemergent that are the result place- of based processes self-organization. of sustains She that the 1. INTRODUCTION Keywords: nent role played by the by played rules role nent the over built-environment in defining flexible the forsocio- emergent space of the evolution spatial configurations. are now indicatedare now as valuable alternatives orthodox to planning comprehensive practices. The article discusses the different ways in which spontaneity and flexibility work under different planningkinds of conditions (beingmaterial, like buildings, open spaces infrastructures, or immaterial, or like building codes In land-use particular, or plans). recognizes it the preemi Abstract self-organizing systems. In the planning field thisidea hasopened to door conceptsthe like spontaneity flexibility and which e-mail: [email protected] https://ils-forschung.academia.edu/StefanoCozzolino ILS – Research Institute of Regional and Urban Development and Urban Development Regional of Institute – Research ILS 6 Karmeliterstraße Aachen,Germany How do they work under different kinds of planning conditions? planning conditions? kinds of under different work do they How COZZOLINO STEFANO Reconsidering Urban Spontaneity and Flexibility after Jane Jacobs: Jacobs: Jane after and Flexibility Spontaneity Urban Reconsidering VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 14 COSMOS + TAXIS

viously a key aspect), but also—and even mostly—on the ous actions and emergent configurations. With the term way in which planning rules are written and provided (Ben- spontaneous, it refers to intentional actions developed by Joseph et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2016; Talen 2016). In other self-determining and intentional agents, (e.g., landowners, words, the degree of spontaneity and flexibility depends, in developers, householders, etc.), whilst the term emergent re- different ways, upon both social and physical conditions. fers to the unplanned social-spatial aggregation that is the The article explores why the relationship between spon- (unintended) result of uncoordinated actions and interac- taneity and planning conditions is multi-layered and hi- tions. In other words, the article differentiates voluntary ac- erarchical, recognizing the preeminent role played by the tions, (which can be undertaken by an individual or a group rules over the built-environment. It discusses this ques- of individuals acting in cooperation; see Mises 1963/1998), tion without having the ambition to investigate in detail from evolving situations, that are the result of many, unac- many relevant side-related issues—already well-discussed countable actions interacting over time (Schelling, 1978). by other scholars—such as indicating which planning ap- The term spontaneous derives from the Latin word proaches are more suitable to welcome spontaneity (Alfasi spontanĕus which means “of one’s free will”. In general, the and Portugali 2007; Andersson 2014; Buitelaar et al. 2014; word describes persons and characters with a sense of “act- Moroni 2015; Totry-Fakhoury and Alfasi 2017), analysing ing of one’s accord” or “occurring without external pres- the effects of planning interventions in economics (Bertaud sure”. Hence, we can think of the word “spontaneity” as a 2014; Gleaser 2011; Pennington 2002; Webster and Lai particular quality of actions (Beito et al. 2002), whereas, the 2003), or discussing the main aesthetical issues linked to concept of emergent configuration means any (socio-spatial) spontaneous developments (Alexander 1967; Hakim 2014; configuration that is the result, over time, of a countless Nilufer 2004; Romano 2010). Each of these issues would de- number of actions, but not a direct consequence of a single serve a specific article. This is an attempt to demonstrate, action or design (Hayek 1960; Polanyi 1951). Configurations 15 from a Jacobsian perspective, the reasons why rules matter, of this kind are detectable in any system composed of a at least as much as the built environment, in defining the multitude of agents who pursue different plans and separate flexible space for spontaneous actions and the development actions. The highest expression is observable in and within of unpredictable changes from the bottom-up. the city (Holland 1995, p. 41). Beyond the introduction, the article is divided into four The main arguments for the evolution of emergent con- COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS other sections: three of them answer the following ques- figurations lie in the possibility of adapting, over time, the tions; (section 2) “What do you mean by spontaneity and physical and social world in ways that none could predict in emergent configurations and why are they relevant?”; (sec- advance, leaving to the system the opportunity of efficiently tion 3) “How does spontaneity work within the urban fab- reacting to various contextual needs, and the possibility ric?”; (section 4) “How does spontaneity work within the of making more efficient use of the so-calleddispersed rules?”. The article ends by providing general conclusions knowledge (Hayek 1945 and 1960). Emergent configura- and devices (section 5). tions, however, are not synonymous with chaos or disorder, but they are a series of stable (but evolving) patterns which 2. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY SPONTANEITY are not defined through central coordination. On the one AND EMERGENT CONFIGURATIONS AND hand, emergent configurations enable social interaction WHY ARE THEY RELEVANT? and the self-coordination of systems; on the other, they structure the character and peculiarities of specific places. Before getting to the heart of the matter, some termino- Their evolution is open-ended (i.e., unpredictable and un- logical clarifications are needed. First of all, the termaction certain), but path-dependent. (see, for instance, Carter 1999; Cody 1967) is contextualized However, to recognize the relevance of emergent con- to the field of urban planning and, therefore, it may repre- figurations doesn’t necessarily mean to be in favour, of an- sent certain general types of (urban) actions, like the act of archism, or laissez-faire, but to appreciate the intrinsic and building or using a certain amount of space, or other an- instrumental values of spontaneous actions in the func- cillary actions, helpful for pursuing them, (e.g., obtaining tioning city. All this without being against the presence of loans, signing agreements and covenants, etc.). Secondly, good planning rules (Moroni 2010). Firstly, spontaneity is in order to differentiate between two different kinds of good in itself, at the level of the individual, because it allows phenomena, the article distinguishes between spontane- people to pursue their own ends by means of their knowl-

Reconsidering Urban Spontaneity and Flexibility after Jane Jacobs: How do they work under different kinds of planning conditions? ------(Ikeda 2017). and its detail; level of the second regards the A firstto design way newresidential the area be may that In the second case, could it be that the architect does not further. go Let’s Suppose that the the of architect work is be increased. In fact, can we imagine that, in addition the to design open public spaces, of buildings and their internal divisions and functions, the architect also may decide de to sign, in a unified detailedand the interior way, furnishings. thisAt point, only a little flexible spacewould remain for self-determining spontaneous actions and the use dis of persed knowledge future of inhabitants. ent ways,ent with variable levels scale of and detail. dem To onstrate that, address may we the issue moving from a first design, that guarantees a high degree flexibility,of one to in which the flexible space is narroweddown nearly and can celled. draw to solely of the open public spaces, and then leave open, other to architects, builders and inhabitants, the pos sibility defining of and fillingthe grain ofthe area. Such could accordingdevelopments emerge a succession to of spontaneous actions, constrained the by open presence of instance,public spaces (for roads, green areas and so on) and certain planning rules. design only the open public spaces, also but the size, the footprintsall of the buildings and also their physical rela tionships. The differences betweenthe firstapproaches two are remarkable. only not limited the to design the of open public spaces and the footprints all of the buildings, also she or he but decides determineto their interior subdivisions, as well as their functions. this At point, the design will begin assume to a very rigid its detail level of character. However, could still effects of all actionsthe changesand outside. that happen As regards the physical dimension the of built environment, two important factors are worth considering: the first is the scale of design passage time of The scaledesignof itsdetailof level and The firstimplication is easilyunderstood: the higherthe the levelof detail provided particular a by plan, projector theless will be the flexible spacespontaneousfor actions and unexpected future emergent arrangements. Moreover, the greater the scale design of that is subjected a unitary to plan, the greater will be the amount space, of subject the to that of control specificplan. example:For imagine a uni tary designed residential area whichincludes a hundred condominiums. Architects could face this design in differ

------of of the of work of ar the socialthe dimension the material dimension is that, with the passage time, of (potentially) it So, we cannot So,we think the of city as fullya emergent

HOW DOES SPONTANEITY WORK WITHIN WITHIN WORK SPONTANEITY DOES HOW FABRIC? THE URBAN

Jacobs highlights that any physical that element has been As already argued, two different typesplanningof condi The The city is irremediably both planningproductof the predictable) actionspredictable) occur inside; undergoes it secondly, the startsdifferentiate to itself its from initial design it is and This subject reinterpretation to Easterly (Brand 2015). 2010; process two happensfor mainreasons: firstof (un all, some degreeflexibility, of depending upon both internal ex and ternal factors. In fact, a common feature any of chitecture tions. deliberately designed and built always provides a certain amines the relationship between the design the of physical thespace intentionally (i.e., and created spatial its order), flexibilitylevel of configura for of emergent the evolution This section examines the issueof spontaneity within the dimension the of built environment (Bergevoet et al. 2016; Manewa In particular, et al. 2009; ex it Roggema 2014). 3. space for the evolution of emergent configurations space the emergent for of evolution and the ways in which spontaneity can be manifested less. or rules. speak we may Therefore, of two trade-offs:the first has a spatial dimension; the second has a regulative dimen Bothsion. levels, in different ways, influence the flexible tions constrain tions spontaneity: built physical environment (i.e., objects, such as condomin iums, streets, parks and and so on), spatial infinite of a world over control possible becoming (Ikeda 2017). works as a trade-off betweenplanning conditions and the space self-determining for spontaneous (unpredictable) actions, the where introduces former a certain degree of a spatial and social configuration reach that may different degrees overall of spontaneity This (Buitelaar et al. 2014). ders, and configurations the emergent of evolution (Bertaud 2004). configurationbut,it to is seeit appropriate rather as more forces (Ikedaforces 2004). interventions, which introduce artificially constructedor and innovation otherwise unachievable under a state ex of tensive overall control, developing self-organizing systems in which society can make efficient ofpolycentric more use edge and creativity, also experimenting with new solutions and actions. Second, from continuous processes trial of and societyerror, can get benefitsreaching progressof level a VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 16 COSMOS + TAXIS

In brief, the implications of the scale and detail of design 4. HOW DOES SPONTANEITY WORK regards designers’ intentions to impose a particular spatial WITHIN THE RULES? order, which, in its turn, may be more or less extended and accommodate more or less flexibility. To better comprehend Now we look at the built environment and the flexible space it, we can think of highly planned cities like Brasilia, or for the evolution of emergent configurations deriving from the Chinese “ghost city”, or the typical neighbourhoods of the presence of planning rules.2 The general idea is to un- the Soviet era (Hirt 2013; Ikeda 2017; Zarecor et al. 2012) derstand the relationship between the physical environ- as relevant examples of large scale design with a high level ment, (planning) rules and the flexible space for actions of detail of the built environment. On the contrary, in the that can alter the pre-existing urban structure, bringing it case of a high degree of flexibility, for instance, we can refer into an adapted state of affairs. to forms of organic developments diffused in the last years What has been pointed out in the previous section is in the Netherlands (Cozzolino et al. 2017; Oosterma et al. fundamental to the following discussion. However, further 2015; Rauws & de Roo 2016).1 observations must be set as crucial pre-conditions for any agents’ actions. In fact, more than the physical space in it- The passage of time self, what primarily influences agents’ actions space (Ikeda The second implication regards the passage of time. 2007) within the built environment are the rules (Moroni Whatever the scale and detail of the design, its (imposed) 2015). To show this, we go through three comparative em- order will not remain stable over time; rather, it will be sub- pirical examples which describe imaginary spatial differ- ject to processes of emergent adaptations and adjustments. entiation processes, showing why the rules (more than the Once constructions are realized, they start to be exposed to design of the space itself) are the prior condition for the constant stress and actions (both internal and external). So, adaptation of the physical space. This statement is not an at- 17 with the passage of time, all that is designed will be sub- tempt to diminish the importance of the design of the phys- ject to (more or less) certain alterations that designers could ical space (which is obviously a fundamental condition);3 not foresee in advance (as none of us can today perfectly rather, it is an attempt to distinguish two different levels of foresee the evolution of social needs and changes in the the discourse in which rules become the meta-condition, next decades). Every urban element, even the least adapt- whilst the built environment is the material concretization COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS able, tends to undergo (with different dynamics) uninten- of actions that, in their turn, are always conditioned by cer- tional progressive adaptations. This process occurs since it tain rules. is impossible to think of an urban element (for instance one The first two examples compare two initially identical -ur building) as an isolated element; rather, we should think ban settlements but with different rules. The third example of a single urban element as part of a complex interrelated shows that it is not so much the initial design that deter- whole (Jacobs 1961). Moreover, how people demand space mines, in absolute terms, the flexible space for the evolution to be used or built is unpredictable in a world of imperfect of new emergent configurations, (i.e., it is not important so knowledge. much to know if the city, or part of it, evolved spontaneously A valuable example is offered by Jane Jacobs (1961, or not); rather, what influences the extension of the flexible pp. 92-93) when she presents the process of the differen- space are, first of all, the rules which discipline agents’ ac- tiation of four parks in Philadelphia, namely Rittenhouse tions in space. In fact, it could be that cities, or part of them, Square, Franklin Square, Washington Square and Logan evolved with a high degree of spontaneity, at some point, Circle. Located in different areas, these four parks were they may have little flexible space for the evolution of emer- the replication of the same identical design. Nevertheless, gent configurations; whilst, vice versa, highly-designed en- as Jane Jacobs claims, with the passage of time, each park vironments at some point may host a high degree of flexible has undergone the influence of the peculiar features of its space for the evolution of emergent configurations. surroundings, adapting and differentiating its internal ap- pearance, according to their different spatial circumstances Example 1: two identical buildings with the same and conditions. framework-rules, inside two identical neighbourhoods with different framework-rules The following example demonstrates that, even in the case

Reconsidering Urban Spontaneity and Flexibility after Jane Jacobs: How do they work under different kinds of planning conditions? - -

Now imagineNow an incremental transformation process set - Widening the of existing road - Construction three of multi-storey buildings along the main road local- New road - Construction multi-storey of buildings neighbourhood- New park - Subway station BY in three t2, steps: t1, t3. With the passage from t2, to t1 and from the t2 buildings t3, to neighbourhoods (not X and Y, willB), be subject different to kindsof actions. These ac tions will alter the initial spatial configurationof bothBX firstly, BX’’in BY’’, and and then andBX’’’in BY; BY’’’. and Despite the two buildings B keeping their design and func tion unchanged, the hypothesis is that what happens during the process respectively in X andwill Y lead the to buildings having substantial differences.

- - - New electric- New high-voltage line - Construction family a double of house - New expressway- New behind the building - Construction two of single family houses with private garden BX Actions T3 T2 Actions Example 1: Evolution T1

Imagine two identical buildings: B (with the same design VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME to put it simply, these buildings simply, it put to could be two identical old farms restored asrestaurants now that are located within an expanding urban realm. detail), as well as their respective neighbourhoods, X and Y, in their turn identical with but different rules.Specifically, way in way which its surrounding instance, area (for its neigh bourhood) is regulated, inevitably influences the future ad aptations such an of element. inwhich an as building)a urban (such element is designed and regulated in a very detailed the manner point to (at scale down, the at minimum level, the flexible the space),

COSMOS + TAXIS 18 COSMOS + TAXIS

Even though the buildings remain un- In brief: two identical buildings which are the product of the same design changed over time, in their initial func- and regulation may be subjected to processes of differentiation if their neigh- tion and design, we may assume that to bourhoods (which are in their turn identical) are regulated in different ways. some extent, they have been subjected to a process of differentiation, derived from Example 2: two identical and unitarily designed neighbourhoods with the actions undergone in their respective different rules neighbourhoods, X and Y, which were in The following example demonstrates that, if two identical urban settlements their turn regulated and planned in dif- that are the result of a unitary design are regulated in different ways, they may ferent ways. For instance, we can imag- undergo completely different developmental processes. Moreover, the example ine that, at the end of the transformation emphasizes that the initial architectural design does not necessarily coincide process undergone in both neighbour- with the rules that discipline future actions and adaptations. The two levels hoods, the building in neighbourhood Y has become more attractive than the Example 2: building in neighbourhood X (or vice versa). In other words, the process of Evolution W Z differentiation has been flawed from the T1 outset by the existence of different rules that must be considered as the precondi- tion for any changes which occurred in time T1 and T2 in both neighbourhoods. We may imagine, for instance, that at the 19 initial state of the process, T1, X and Y possessed completely different rules as regards the list of possible land uses, the maximum FAR, and so on.4 Actions Ordinary maintenance - Widening of the existing road However, with this example, we see - Construction of multi-storey COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS the importance of rules but we still can- buildings along the main road - Opening of new neighbourhood shops not fully understand the degree of over- all spontaneity. In fact, in both cases BX T2 and BY, despite their final differentiation, the degree of overall spontaneity may still be very low; for instance, their respective rules could be thought to be instrumen- tal toward a predetermined constructed order. If this is the case, in both areas, the flexible space for spontaneous action provided by the rules could be considered Actions Ordinary maintenance - Construction of multi-storey almost absent. It might be that—we can- buildings with different uses and substitution of three old houses not exclude this chance—the rules cor- - Creation of two squares respond to precise planners’ will to reach a prefigured end state (for instance, to T3 transform X into a garden city, or to con- centrate in Y all the urban transforma- tions). If this is the case, there wouldn't be almost any degree of spontaneity since everything has been planned from scratch.

Reconsidering Urban Spontaneity and Flexibility after Jane Jacobs: How do they work under different kinds of planning conditions? ------Now imagineNow that, a certain at point, W and are BY sub To do this, do with compare the we To case 1) (example “BY” hypothetically a case represent high of overall spon level of taneity, whilst the case W represents a neighbourhood built all with once at a very degree low Thus, spontaneity. of dif fromferently the two previous examples, com not do we pare two areas with identical features, the completely but other around. way ject very to differentregulative measures. On hand,one the planners decide that has BY reached an intrinsic historical value, they and consequently, into a state choose it put to protection absolute of and preservation. On the other hand, theat same time, planners that consider is it necessary to densifyinstance, (for W contrast to of the phenomenon soilgiving consumption) the opportunity the to various landowners densify to the area. If this is the case, a sudden would makeinversion flexible W more thanBY and con sequently future open to more adaptations. emergent This eventuality is evident in the following table. rules regardless role a major play the of fact that an area evolved with a high degree spontaneity of has it or been de signed and built all once. In at particular, distin to helps it guish urban areas developed with a high degree overall of from their not) spontaneity factual (or existingcapacity to futurewelcome adaptations. emergent In fact, the to due introduction very of prescriptive rules, be may that it for a highlymerly urban emergent has environment longer no configurations. the emergent for of room evolution Whilst, theon contrary, highly detailed and designed settlements turn may in areas that flexible have spacespontaneousfor actions and configurations. the emergent of evolution This eventuality is demonstrable considering by two cases the of previous examples. the both case time at 2), “W” t3. The (example case BY may

------range of possible of range actions

The following The example demonstrates maintwo issues: As seewe with thisexample, although W and ini were Z Imagine that W and Z are two residential suburban ters for the evolution of emergent configurations; theters emergent for of evolution secondly, rather, we should we firstlyrather, at look the existing rules. onlyfirstly, it not is the initial designof spacethe that mat To comprehend how flexible how spacethe comprehend to is the evolution To configurations, emergent of it not so is importantto study whether certain settlements evolved spontaneously not; or degree overall of spontaneity subject stringent to now rules, and a highly designed urban area to open now spontaneous actions actions. Example 3: an urbansettlement that evolved with a high tations. Naturally, there are architectural constructions that adaptable aremore than rules others. remain However, the primary unpredictable condition for future spontaneous of emergent configurations. emergent of In the first instance, planning rules expand may restrict or the that can bring the physical space toward unexpected adap ably new overall urban character. Therefore, although this is an extreme case, clearly we understand that architectural design the is not only determining factor the for evolution cant process differentiation. of at If W time T3 is still the same residential neighbourhood as definedby original the master-plan, Z, the on other hand, has reached a consider tially identical (both are the unitary product of design and both built were with all the once), at passage time, of due extremelyto different rules, signifi a they have undergone expand their proprieties purchasingby and building addi FAR. tional usesare permitted, and there is possibilityno addi have to In contrast,tional in FAR). Z there are specific no prescrip tions possible about uses, and owners are always allowed to of rules’of instance, for prescription. In the W, rules set that the initial state affairs of cannot(onlyresidential be altered composed mostly two-family or one of houses with pri vate gardens. Imagine also thatthe design level of detail of bothandW isZ very high they but different have degrees future adjustments. neighbourhoods that are the an product of identical design, derstand that architecture the of work is simply a starting configurations. the new emergent point for of evolution In fact, material artefacts are modifiable conditions,opento do not necessarily not do better coincide; still, or, the design the of physical space and therules must be clearly distinguished. evadeIf completely we the question rules, of cannot we un VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 20 COSMOS + TAXIS

Example 3: According to what has just been shown, it is empirically irrelevant to dis- Evolution W BY tinguish areas which have evolved with a T3 high degree of spontaneity from others that are the results of unitary design. In both cases, the flexible space for the evo- lution of emergent configurations first of all depends upon the existing rules which discipline agents’ action in space. For ex- ample, it may be that, as often happens, typically emergent configurations, such as the medieval settlements of European Actions Widening of the Ordinary maintenance existing road cities, become almost immutable objects, Construction of multi- with no space for future adaptations or storey buildings along spontaneous actions, whilst modern the main road unitarily designed neighbourhoods start Opening of new to be adapted and reused in completely neighbourhood shops different—sometime also innovative— T4 ways (Bergevoet 2016; Franck et al. 2013; Urhahn Urban Design 2010). 21 CONCLUSION

The article maintains that the level of spontaneity in cities is influenced both by the physical dimension of the built envi- COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS ronment and by the social dimension of Actions Construction of Ordinary maintenance rules. Although the physical configura- mixed-used multi- storey buildings and tion of cities is a relevant condition, in the substitution of three old end, it remains (with different degrees) houses always modifiable and open to future ad- Creation of two squares justments and adaptations and this is re- T5 gardless of their scale of design or detail. Differently, rules can completely stifle the flexible space for spontaneous actions and the progressive evolution of emergent configurations. In other words, rules can easily decrease the possibility of adapt- ing over time to the physical and social world in ways that none could predict in advance, preventing the system from reacting efficiently to various contextual needs. From this perspective, rules influ- ence and filter the way in which the phys- ical dimension of the built environment (independently from its inherent spatial flexibility) is step by step adjusted and modified.

Reconsidering Urban Spontaneity and Flexibility after Jane Jacobs: How do they work under different kinds of planning conditions? ------To conclude, flexibility conclude, To hasto not be sought in continu able idea of making idea of able rules always unstable. more This in terpretation is distant from a serious the to approach law (Buchanan et al. 2008; Epstein Rules 2009; Kaza et al. 2011). require stability. If rules are determined afresh each morn ing the by toss a coin, of there are rules no all. at In other words, be to flexible shouldnot be the rules but spacethe that innovative of they the for development actions, leave which are, by definition, unpredictable. ousadjustment the of institutional framework, has it to but be assumed as a principle, write to good rules that are as general and as simple possible and, the at same time, rules that the undesirable are of emergence avoid to able emer configurationsgent et (Moroni al., 2018). Cozzolino 2017; Moroni 2011; Rauws 2017). We must pro We Rauws 2017). 2011; Moroni Cozzolino2017; vide rules that flexibility welcome and can guarantee that existing socio-spatial configurations can be adapted over time. In other words, rules cannot be concerned with the overall physical even indicate outcomes, nor precise func tions orlocations. Rulesshould notpredefine specific states affairsof but they mightleave the futureopento a wide arraysolutions, of within transforprocess a long-term of andCozzolino mation(Moroni forthcoming). This, gen in eral, means that should we discard the traditional, strictly instrumental embracing law idea of a nomocratic approach Flexibility have and 2010). spontaneity(Moroni however, often been interpreted never-endingas a opportunity to adapt the institutional framework any time that novelties— in terms needs, of opportunities and problems—emerge in society, leading the planning systemtoward the disput ------

On the other hand, if recognize we the essential of role To give an example, during To the twentieth century, many In from brief, a planning perspective, flexibility and Hence, spontaneity and flexibilityought to be analysed, would like desire or (Alfasi et al. Buitelaar 2007; et al. 2010; provements of the of builtprovements cannot environment, we and so on), regulate the city in obtain to order preserve or the specif andic predetermined social-spatial configurations we as spontaneity and flexibility in the city functioning(i.e.,its innovation,creative for role the importance localized of knowledge, the perpetual need for adjustment and im instance, Bergevoet Aravena Franck et 2012; al. et al. 2016; Urhahn 2010). Roggema 2014; 2013; onlyscanta number actions, of must instead but be capable accommodatingof change, both in terms function of and structure, and for permit (see continuous improvements are continuously adjusted, and cannot be planned and built all from once at scratch. In the brief, design physical of con formations must not, in other words, be such as permit to thebuilt environment can adapted be slowly and innovat ed keeping by alive its existing and constitutive patterns. Configurationsof this organicallykind emerge over time, rise lively of environments (lively in the run) are long more likely when the emerge to configurationsneighbourof hoods facilitate intense spontaneous interactions and when ming process exactly because they are fur open to not therreinterpretation and adjustment their by inhabitants On the contrary, according the the to author, (Jacobs 1961). much space spontaneitymuch for and further reinterpretations, clearhave limits in promoting vibrant environments and are inclined more stagnation to and undergoing slum a already in the ‘60s, Jane Jacobs well anticipated certain ad verse effects. In particular, maintainsshe mostof that the top-down settlements developed all and once at without too short-run, efficient socio-spatialconfiguration (Akbar 1998; Callahan ThisBertaudap 2014; Romano 2010). et al. 2014; withproach, the passage time, of has shown clear limits; oped all once, following at the idea that detailed master- plans plans and could comprehensive reached, have in the and innovation. large-scale rigid transformations planned were and devel spontaneity can building in bewelcomed two ways: (i) spac es that are adaptable and easily reinterpretable, pro and (ii) viding rules that unpredictable spontaneity, enable changes levels are connected they the to (i.e., refer same spatial con figuration), following work they deeply logics.different both the at primary rules meta-levelof and also the at level the of even builtthough environment. the two Moreover, VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 22 COSMOS + TAXIS

NOTES REFERENCES

1 Oosterwold is a large-scale transformation of 43 Akbar, J. 1988. Crisis in the Built Environment: the Case of the km² that has not a master plan or zoning map, but Muslim City. Concept Media. Alexander, C. 1967. A city is not a tree. Ekistics, 139: 344-348. only a limited number of public rules regarding the Alfasi, N. and Portugali, J. 2007. Planning Rules for a Self-Planned construction of plots that allows for the development City, Planning Theory, 6(2): 164-182. of a self-organized urban realm (Cozzolino et al. 2017). Alfasi, N., Almagor, J., and Benenson, I. 2012. The actual impact 2 With the term “rule”, we refer to all the intentional of comprehensive land-use plans: Insights from high resolution observations. Land Use Policy, 29(4): 862-877. social conditions, such as the land-use plan, building Andersson, D. E. 2014. Cities and planning: The role of system codes, taxation, etc., that discipline action space and constraints. Cities and Private Planning: Property Rights, are imposed by a public authority (Moroni 2015). Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs. Cheltenham: Edward 3 The idea of architectonic adaptability proposed by Elgar, 19-37. Aravena, A. 2012. Elemental: Incremental housing and participatory Alejandro Aravena (2012) is an interesting example. design manual. Hatje Cantz Verlag. However, Aravena’s ideas would be nothing without a Batty, M. 2007. Cities and complexity: understanding cities with legal framework that leaves enough room for flexibility cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. Cambridge, and spontaneous actions. MA: MIT Press. Beito, D. T., Gordon, P., and Tabarrok, A. 2002. The voluntary city: 4 For instance, the allowed FAR in X was very low choice, community, and civil society. Ann Arbor: University of compared to that of Y (we put, for example, that in the Michigan Press. case of X it was possible to build only isolated buildings Ben-Joseph, E., and Kiefer, M. J. 2005. The Code of the City: Standards in the middle of the plot, while in the case of Y was and the Hidden Language of Place Making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. possible to build up to 15 floors with a maximum land 23 Bergevoet, T., and van Tuijl, M. 2016. The Flexible City. Sustainable coverage of 80%). Moreover, X and Y differ also for the Solutions for a Europe in Transition. Rotterdam: Nai010. list of permitted land uses: for instance, in the case of Bertaud, A. 2004. The spatial organization of cities: Deliberate neighborhood X, the land-use plan wants to preserve outcome or unforeseen consequence? Working Paper 2004-01, an agricultural landscape, while in the case of the Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California at Berkeley. neighborhood Y, the land-use plan promotes high-

Bertaud, A. 2014. Housing Affordability: Top-Down Design and + TAXIS COSMOS density development. Spontaneous Order. Policy briefing, New York University Marron Institute of Urban Management New York University Stern Urbanization Project. Brand, S. 1995. How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. London: Penguin. Brennan, G., and Buchanan, J. M. 2008. The reason of rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buitelaar, E., and Sorel, N. 2010. Between the rule of law and the quest for control: Legal certainty in the Dutch planning system. Land Use Policy, 27(3), 983-989. Buitelaar, E., Galle, M., and Sorel, N. 2014. The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands. In: Andersson, D. E., and Moroni, S. (Eds.) Cities and Private Planning, Property Rights, Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Carter, I. 1999. A Measure of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press. Cody, A. B. 1967. Can a single action have many different descriptions? Inquiry, 10(1-4), 164-180. Callahan, G., and Ikeda, S. 2014. Jane Jacobs’ critique of rationalism in urban planning. Cosmos + Taxis, 1(3): 10-19. Cozzolino, S., Buitelaar, E., Sorel, N., and Moroni, S. 2017. Experimenting in urban self-organization. Framework-rules and emerging orders in Oosterwold (Almere, The Netherlands). Cosmos Taxis, 4(2), 49-59.

Reconsidering Urban Spontaneity and Flexibility after Jane Jacobs: How do they work under different kinds of planning conditions? (1), 13. . New 3

Planning Milan: . Handbook of . Place??: Amsterdam: BIS . 53(1), 32-45.

, , 26(3), 486-509. , 26(3), Emergent Urbanism: . Indianapolis: Liberty (62): 28-40. Handbook on Planning and and Planning on Handbook Property Rights, Planning and Cities The SpontaneousThe City City, Territory and Architecture The PlanningThe Review Micromotives and Macrobehavior Environment and Planning Planning B: The Logic Libertyof Liberating the land: The case for private land- , 3(2), 460-48., 3(2), Planning, Law and Economics: The rules we make Ascesa e declino della città europea

Complexity, cognition and the city the cognitionComplexity, and . Aldershott:Edward Elgar. 343-364. pp. . Place??: Routledge. Land . Vol. 143. Institute 143. . Vol. Economic of Affairs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. , 43(6), 1052-1074. , 43(6), East European Politics and Societies 9, 34-41. 9, . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. London: Routledge, 141-146. . 14(3): 248-267. . 14(3): Markets Past, Present, and Future Postwar of Housing in the Czech Republic. Fund. Springer. conditions urban for adaptability. Lessons from Dutch organic development strategies. Design and Planning: Exploring an Adaptive Planning Approach Guiding for Urban Transformations. Cortina. proposition. NortonYork: & Company. Uncertainty: Regulations and Urban Form. Emergent Urbanism: Urban Planning & Design in Times Structural of and Systemic Change. In Haas and Olsson T. K. (Eds.). Urban Planning & Design in Times of Structural and Systemic Change. specific urbanorder: Applying complexity theory for analyzing Arab-Palestinian towns in Israel. Publishers. E. Andersson, C. Mellander, A. Andersson (eds.), Cities Creative and prediction: Urban codes self-organising for cities. Theory diversity and emergence. Actions.of Limits and Opportunities planning of in complex social-spatial systems. In de Roo (ed.) Complexity. for using land Protibesh 107. use planning Zarecor, K. E. 2012. Socialist Neighborhoods after Socialism: The Polanyi, M. 1951/1998. Portugali, J. 2011. andRauws, De Adaptive Roo, G. W., 2016. planning: Generating Embracing Uncertainty 2017. Rauws, W. Without Abandoning Romano, M. 2010. Roggema, enhanced Towards R. 2014. resilience in city design: a Schelling, C. 1978/2006. T. E.Talen, Planning 2016. the Emergentand Dealing with Totry-Fakhoury, M., and abstract From Alfasi, principles N. 2017. to Urhahn Urban Design 2010. C. J. and C.Webster, Lai, 2003. L.W. Moroni S. 2011. Land-UseMoroni Regulation S. 2011. the for Creative City. In: D. Moroni, Complexity S. 2015. and the inherent limits explanation of Moroni, Urban S. density 2016. afterJane Jacobs: The crucial of role Moroni, S. and Cozzolino, S. Forthcoming. Actions and Conditions Needham, B. 2006. 2004.Nilufer, F. Hidden Morphological Order in an Organic City. Oosterman,Vol.104- 43: The A.empowerment‘self 2015. of power’. Pennington, M. 2002.

Review Review cs. . New York: . New York: Complexity 9(2), 137-155. (2-3), 155-186. The American Cosmos + 17 , 77(3), 251-266. 77(3), A Long History of a . Chicago: University of Loose space: possibility and . Vintage Canada. Review Austrian of Economics New York: RandomNew York: House. . . London: Penguin. Planning Theory (pp. 207-220). Berlin, 207-220). Heidelberg: (pp. . NYU Development Research 12(2), 199-210 12(2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, , 17(2-3), 247-264. , 17(2-3), Uneven Growth: tactical urbanisms for . The Museum. The Modernof Art. . New York: Routledge.. New York: 5-9 October 2009. . Berlin:. Springer. . Seoul: SPACE Books.. Seoul: SPACE Human Action: A Treatise on Economi on Treatise A Action: Human Hidden Order: How Adaptability Builds , 35(4), 519-530. The City as Action. The Dialectic Between Rules . PhD Thesis,Politecnico di Milano. The Constitution Libertyof Review Austrian of Economics Triumph of theTriumph City Mediterranean Historic Urbanism: Urban/building The Nature of Economiesof Nature The Planning Theory The Economy of Cities Death and Life of Great American Cities Cambridge: Perseus Books. 32, S29-S38.

On the Korean Front Line. TheFar Game. Constraints 4(2): 79-86. Cities

Scholar’s edition. Auburn: Ludwig Mises von Institute. regulation: nomocracy. Towards buildings. Changing Roles: New Roles: New Challenges. Noordwijk aan Zee, Sparking Creativity Sparking development under planning contract by in a small open economy: the ideas Hayek of and Mises at work in town & country planning in Kong. Hong A paradigm shift towards Whole Life Analysis in adaptable Random House. contingent plans: Scenario planning an for uncertain world. American Association the Journal of Planning R. 2016. 20(4), 213-220. 20(4), Austrianof Economics Taxis Rules and Processes city?. adversaries? Complexity. The Spatial Market Process. p.181-209. Economic Review Chicago Press. Stretch City of a New Street York Institute conference. diversityin urban life expanding megacities and Spontaneityand chaos order, world of and complexity: On perspectives, behaviour and interventions in a non-linear environment. In: theories of cities have come of age Springer. Short Block: Four Centuries of Development Surprises on a Single Moroni, Rethinking S. 2010. the theory and practice land-use of Ikeda, S. 2017. TheIkeda, City Cannotof Work S. 2017. Art. Be a Mises, L. 1963/1998. Manewa, A., Pasquire, C. L., Gibb, A. G., and Schmidt III, R. 2009. Lai, C. L. 2004. W. Spontaneous catallaxis in urban & rural Kim, S. H., Cinn, E., Ahn, K., Kim, S., Chung, I, Jeong, A., and Enos, Jacobs, J. 2000. Kaza, N., Knaap, G. J., and Deal, Robust plans B. 2011. and Jacobs, J. 1961. Jacobs, J. 1970. Ikeda, S. 2004. Urban interventionism and local knowledge. Holland, J. H. 1995. Ikeda, S. Urbanizing 2007. economics. Hirt, Whatever S. 2013. happened to the socialist (post) Holcombe, R. G. 2012. Planningand the invisible hand: Allies or Hakim, B. 2014. Hayek, F. A.Hayek, 1945. The F. useof knowledge in society. A.Hayek, 1960. F. Gleaser, E. 2011. Gleaser, E. 2011. 2012. SpontaneousGordon, P. Cities. In: Andersson E. D. (eds), Franck, K., and Stevens, (Eds.). 2013. Q. Gadanho, et al. 2014. P., Easterly, W, Freschi,Easterly, W, L. and Pennings, S. 2015. Cozzolino, S. 2017. de Roo, G., and S. Rauws, 2012. Positioning W. planning in the VOLUME 5 | ISSUE 3 + 4 2018 5 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 24