SIGNS IN TIME Promotor: Prof. dr. A.J.J. van der Valk Hoogleraar landgebruiksplanning Wageningen Universiteit Promotiecommissie: Prof. Dr. T. Bloemers, Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. em. A. van Zoest, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht Prof. Ir. K. Kerkstra, Wageningen Universiteit Prof. Dr. P. Devlieger, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Dit onderzoek is uitgevoerd binnen Mansholt School of Social Sciences 2 Kristof Van Assche SIGNS IN TIME An interpretive account of urban planning and design, the people and their histories Proefschrift Ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor Op gezag van de rector magnificus Prof. Dr. Ir. L. Speelman In het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 29 oktober 2004 Des namiddags om half twee in de Aula Van de Wageningen Universiteit 3 ISBN 90- 8504- 083- 3 Wageningen Universiteit Postbus 9100 6700 HA Wageningen The Netherlands © K.A.M. Van Assche. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor 4 Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11 0. PROLOGUE 12 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 17 1.1. History, people and place, planning and design 17 1.2. Three basic assumptions, three scholarly traditions 18 1.3 Concise map of the book - Summary 22 1.3.1. First part: theoretical frame in three parts 22 1.3.2. Second part: three case studies 23 1.3.3. Third part: identity theory in threefold 24 1.3.4. About the general conclusions 26 2. THEORETICAL FRAMES – BASIC CONCEPTS 28 2.1. Introduction 28 2.2. A short history of ideas towards post- modernism 30 2.2.1. Antirealism as epistemological core assumption 30 2.2.2. History of anti- essentialism since Kant 31 2.2.3. Masters of distrust: Marx, Nietzsche, Freud 32 2.2.4. Founding father of structuralism: De Saussure 35 2.2.5. French structuralism: Levi Strauss as a starting point 36 2.2.6. From structuralism to post- structuralism: Roland Barthes 38 2.2.7. Poststructuralism: Michel Foucault 39 2.2.8. Post- structuralism and post- modernism 40 2.3. Semiotics, anthropology and discourse- studies 42 2.3.1. Anthropology 42 2.3.2. Semiotics 45 2.3.3. Discourse Studies 48 2.3.4. Other traditions involved 49 2.4. Compendium of Concepts 51 5 2.4.1. Knowledge 51 2.4.2. Science 51 2.4.3. Discipline 52 2.4.4. Discourse 54 2.4.5. Practice 55 2.4.6. Theory 57 2.4.7. Memory 58 2.4.8. Power 60 2.4.9. Rhetoric 64 2.4.10. Quality 66 3. CASE STUDIES, EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL 67 3.1 Introduction 67 3.2. Little parks in Almere, Holland 69 3.2.1. Introduction 69 3.2.2. Method 71 3.2.3. Results. 71 3.2.4. Context and text 72 3.2.5. Categories of place concepts 74 3.2.6. Categories of place, categories of time 77 3.2.7. Words, images and categories of place 80 3.2.8. The fine mechanics of categorisation: pertinence 82 3.2.9. Dynamics in categorisation and signification 86 3.2.10. Everyday life and distance from it 92 3.2.11. Special categories: nature, culture, art 94 3.2.12. The image of society: me, myself and the government 105 3.2.13. The visible and the invisible 109 3.2.14. Conclusions: 110 3.3 Notes on a Dutch allotment garden (Wageningen) 111 3.3.1. Introduction 111 3.3.2. Method 111 3.3.3. Place 112 3.3.4. Functions of the gardens and roles of the gardeners 112 3.3.5. Perceptions of structure and differences in signification 122 3.3.6. The gardens in the planning 126 3.3.7. Conclusion: interactions between planners and users in the margin 133 6 3.4 History in a new city district: Leidsche Rijn Utrecht, Holland 136 3.4.1. Introduction 136 3.4.2. Archaeology in the Archaeology Park 137 3.4.3. Cultural history in the Leidsche Rijn project 140 3.4.4. Cultures in a planning process 142 3.4.5. Power and strategy 146 3.4.6. Seven types of uncertainty 150 3.4.7. Rules and flexibility, open and closed systems 156 3.4.8. Conclusions 162 4. IDENTITY AND THE USE OF HISTORY 163 4.1. Introduction 163 4.2. Cultures in general 165 4.2.1. Identity construction: a simple model 166 4.2.2. Image of history defines spatial identity 169 4.2.3. Spatial identity defines image of history 172 4.2.4. Culture defines spatial identity 174 4.2.5. Spatial identity defines culture 176 4.2.6. Culture defines image of history 179 4.2.7. Image of history defines culture 183 4.2.8. Culture defines personal identity 186 4.2.9. Pathways of identity formation: more complex patterns 190 4.2.10. Political contexts 193 4.2.11. Conflicting identities: Crimean Tatar heritage as a case study 198 4.2.12. Conclusion 211 4.3. The cultures of planning in society 213 4.3.1. Introduction 213 4.3.2. Planning in society 214 4.3.3. Power in society and in planning 216 4.3.4. Planning power and networks 220 4.3.5. Networks and planning cultures 223 4.3.6. Planning culture and general culture 225 4.3.7. Gaps between general culture and planning culture: decalages 227 4.3.8. Responses to decalages 228 7 4.4. History in the cultures of planning and design: a simple model 231 4.4.1. Introduction: historical knowledge and identity formation 231 4.4.2. Reformulation of research questions in the light of remaining enlightenment values 232 4.4.3. Knowledge and power revisited 234 4.4.4. Knowledge, power, history before and after decisions 236 4.5. Multiple metaphors: a model of knowledge in planning and the role of history 241 4.5.1. A model of knowledge in planning and its consequences for the role of history 241 4.5.2. History in: Planning as a game 242 4.5.3. History in: Planning as a network of actors 246 4.5.4. History in: Planning as a meeting ground for cultures 250 4.5.5. History in: Planning as a culture in itself 253 4.5.6. Conclusion: Roles of history and multiple metaphors 255 4.6. Spatial planning, identity and history in Ukraine 258 4.6.1. Method and introduction 258 4.6.2. A rich offer of histories: short overview of the history of Kiev in Ukraine 259 4.6.3. From antiquity till the Vikings 260 4.6.4. The Vikings and Kiev Rus 264 4.6.5.The Mongols and the successor states of Kiev Rus 266 4.6.6. Russia, Poland, Austria 268 4.6.7 The communist era 272 4.6.8. New demands to history: An independent Ukrainian State 274 4.6.9. History and the quest for identity 277 4.6.10. A few elements: histories in a few redefined ethnicities on the map 278 4.6.11. The new frame: history and ethnicity as perceived by the new state 284 4.6.12. The spatial planning system 287 4.6.13. The uses of histories in the spatial planning system 291 4.6.14. Conclusion: History, identity and planning in a new and multi- ethnic state 296 4.6.15. Reflection 299 8 5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 301 5.1. Introduction: deconstructions and reconstructions 301 5.2. A shift from content to form 305 5.3. Positive deconstruction of form 307 5.4. A positive appreciation of historical content, if only in well- designed arenas 308 5.5. The rhetorical power of historical knowledge 310 5.6. Final recommendations: self- awareness, changing atittudes 312 5.7. Postscript: Kant, ethics, planning and history 313 BIBLIOGRAPHY 316 9 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It took a while to write this book, this dissertation. It took a path started in Leuven in 91, when I entered the university there, leading me from one discipline to another, to Wageningen, again Leuven, Wageningen, and to this book, a synthesis that hopefully will hold for a while, but hopefully not too long either. I hope it offers a challenge for people belonging to diverse disciplines and people outside science, a challenge to revise the own ideas and a challenge to revise this book. It took some help too to write this book and to pass these years of study and research in a good way, healthy, always cheerful. First of all we needed time, money and advice. The research was financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), more specifically the research program Bodemarchief in Behoud en Ontwikkeling (BBO), by Wageningen University and the University of Amsterdam, for which I am grateful. The advice –accompanied by a freedom to experiment- was given by my promotor, prof. Arnold van der Valk, and a host of colleagues and friends, all of whom I am grateful, even if I do not mention them by name here. I think an invitation for the party is an equivalent sign of reconnaissance. My family, especially my parents, and my friends –some of them colleagues as well- I thank for the support when I needed it and for all the good times. The brevity of this acknowledgment is in no way related to the amount of support I had and the amount of gratitude I feel. (Thanks to Aart, Klaas, Tom, Martijn, Maarten, Ronald, Raoul, Marjan, Lianne, Harro, Gert, Erik, Erik- Jan, Erwin, Maarten, Stijn, Hugo, Joost, Marjo, Jantineke, Joeri, Thor, of course to Benny, Lieve, Gerda and Steyn, and to other people that may not appear on the list, but hopefully on the festivities after my graduation and later) Kristof 11 0.