Cite this article Research Article Keywords: design methods & aids/ Dyer M, Dyer R, Weng MH et al. (2019) Paper 1900021 infrastructure planning/ Framework for soft and hard city infrastructures. Received 28/06/2019; urban regeneration Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Urban Design and Planning 172(6): 219–227, Accepted 03/10/2019; https://doi.org/10.1680/jurdp.19.00021 Published online 04/12/2019 Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY 4.0 license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Urban Design and Planning Framework for soft and hard city infrastructures Mark Dyer DPhil, FICE, CEng Thomas Grey BArch, MSc Professor, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Senior Research Fellow, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland (corresponding author: [email protected]) Richard Gleeson BA, MSc (Orcid:0000-0002-6766-0893) Retired Dublin City Planner, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Rachel Dyer BA, MSc Tomás García Ferrari Planning Officer, Hamilton City Council, Hamilton, New Zealand Senior Lecturer in Graphical Design, University of Waikato, Hamilton, Min-Hsien Weng PhD New Zealand Senior Research Fellow, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Shaoqun Wu PhD Lecturer in Computer Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand The term city infrastructures is often restricted to the physical elements of a city, while in practice it comprises both hard infrastructures for built environment and utilities, as well as soft infrastructures involving services, social groupings and personal skills. Part of the confusion is the lack of clarity about the role and delivery of city infrastructures and its relationship to livelihood and livability. To address this issue, a framework for soft and hard city infrastructures has been developed using results from two case studies to model the relationships, conflicts and connections between soft and hard infrastructures. The first case study concerns the abandonment of a planned urban regeneration project for the Italian City of Lucca in Tuscany where institutional inertia prevented regeneration of a derelict tobacco factory. The second case study concerned results from data analysis of contributions for a public consultation exercise for City of Christchurch in New Zealand. The syntactic data analytics using Flax software coupled with data visualisation demonstrated how an urban narrative can be constructed about citizen priorities based on a framework for soft and hard city infrastructures. The methodology enables citizen engagement through cultivating open processes of urban exploration that advocate ‘connected infrastructures’ thinking. 1. Introduction clarity about the role and delivery of infrastructure, and the The design, construction and maintenance of the physical relationship to livelihood and liveability. fabric of cities is strongly influenced by town planners, archi- tects and engineers based on their professional judgement To deal with these shortcomings, a framework for soft and with often minimal input from the people living and working hard city infrastructures has been developed to explore in these urban spaces. This detached relationship between the symbiotic relationship between these two facets of urban the professional expert, and the citizen as a primary user, is living. The methodology is geared towards enabling citizen further complicated by the scarcity of scientific objective engagement through cultivating open processes of urban research into how city infrastructures actually perform and in exploration, and advocating the need for ‘connected infrastruc- particular meets the needs of users. This situation is due ture’ thinking (as opposed to disconnected infrastructures). in part because design practice and scientific research occupy As such it aims to create the capacity among citizen and ‘two very different worlds’ where design is more intuition led stakeholder groups to critique infrastructural provision and rather than evidence based on tools such as post occupancy participate in strategic design thinking about how urban evaluation whereas the cornerstone of scientific research is qualities are under-pinned by connected infrastructures, which objectivity (Dyer et al., 2017; Nisha and Nelson, 2014). can strengthen resilience and increase sustainable governance as we face an uncertain global future. At the same time, the term city infrastructures is often restricted to the physical elements of a city, while in practice it 2. Framework for soft and hard city comprises the rich ecology of utilities, services, land ownership, infrastructures networks, social groupings and personal skills. Furthermore, decision making about urban development is not a level playing 2.1 Cities as complex systems field with many citizens and communities denied meaningful By their very nature, cities are complex systems. Back in the access to decision making. Part of the reason is the lack of 1960’s, Jane Jacobs was a leading advocate for seeing the city 219 Downloaded by [] on [10/01/21]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license Urban Design and Planning Framework for soft and hard Volume 172 Issue 6 city infrastructures Dyer, Dyer, Weng et al. as a living organism that thrived on diversity where mixed use by others (Campbell and Cowan, 2015; EC-EIP, 2013; Murray neighbourhoods support greater liveability and livelihood et al., 2009; OECD, 2001a; OECD, 2001b; Pissourios, 2014) a (Jacobs, 1961). Furthermore, Vale and Vale (1991) describe framework for city infrastructure is proposed based on the inter- the city as dynamic interactive systems that demand systems relationship between hard and soft city infrastructures thinking in order to unpick the many challenges. Likewise, as illustrated in Figure 1. It represents city infrastructures as the systems approach has informed the work of Newman and a matrix of soft and hard infrastructures within formal and Jennings (2008) who promoted the ‘cities as sustainable eco- informal settings that are ultimately intended to support liveabil- systems’. This approach, which focuses on relationships and ity and livelihood for people and communities living, working processes, gives a better insight into emergence and com- and visiting cities. These infrastructures do not represent actual plexity; while also acknowledging the importance of context conditions within a community. As such it is a framework that where ‘Ecosystems are nested, as we are nested within eco- can be employed to examine the key support systems within a systems – systems within systems, wholes within wholes’.Itwas community that influence a range of social, environmental and argued that cities will be more sustainable if they reflect the economical urban issues such as mobility, quality of urban ecological principles that operate within natural systems. space, provision of community services and so on. In light of the challenges facing the creation of sustainable In particular, the framework describes three hard infrastruc- urban ecosystems, urban spatial planning has come under tures as follows. pressure due to greater urbanisation, and recognition that cities must be considered as complex adaptive systems. According Utilities: Utilities refer to physical services such as transpor- to Albrechts (2006) urban development issues call for a holistic tation, water and waste systems, information and communi- planning approach, where strategic spatial planning is ‘selec- cations technology (ICT) and so on. These utilities connect tive’, rather than trying to solve all problems at once. It is and operate equally across all urban scales, including national ‘relational-inclusive’ with a focus on relations and processes and international interconnectivity. while being inclusive of many stakeholders. Strategic spatial planning can then be thought of as being ‘integrative’ in that it Urban space: Urban space is considered largely as bounded brings vertical and horizontal integration between institutional space, in the form of streets, urban plazas or local squares, processes. This outlook is based on ‘Visioning’ with creative playgrounds, parks and so on. Urban space is typically iden- thinking about possible and desirable futures for a place; while tifiable at the neighbourhood scale or district scale, depending finally strategic spatial planning being ‘action oriented’ where on the nature of the open space and pattern of land ownership. the focus is on implementation and getting things done. This emphasis on implementation prioritises connections between Buildings: The building infrastructure refers largely to archi- various authorities, institutions, private organisations, com- tectural space defined as single or grouped buildings forming munity groups and individual citizens. However, many authors part of an urban block. This will include dwellings, educational in this area acknowledge that the implementation of strategic buildings, healthcare buildings and so on. spatial planning is undermined by a lack of political will, exist- ing patterns of technocratic planning, land ownership and By their nature, soft infrastructures are harder to define or the inability of many actors (politicians, planners, community map onto specific spatial scales. However, referring to previous bodies or private organisations, citizens etc.) to grasp or studies by Landry (2006), Tonkiss (2014) and Casey (2005), engage with alternative, more collaborative forms of planning three primary soft infrastructures can be defined as follows.