Chapter 1 Ortiz

1

1THE DIALOGUES OF THE METROPOLIS

The Dialogues of the MetropolisIn approaching the challenge of the Madrid me-tropolis, we confronted a greater array of com-peting priorities than did the planners of previous epochs. Madrid’s growth was driven not only by traditional factors (births) and identifi able modern factors (migration and wealth), but also by inchoate factors (hopes and expectations) upon whose effects we could only speculate. Our new model had to account for them all, to allow each its appropriate weight, and to anticipate the impact of those which augured beyond what we knew.

Since no mind or collection of minds is capable of giving adequate consideration to all of these fac-tors together, we broke the great jumble of compet-ing priorities into manageable chunks by creating small arenas where related matters could be ar-gued and aligned into principles adequate to the metropolitan- scale challenge. We called these are-nas dialogues. Some dialogues were collegial, in that their purpose was to refi ne traditional concepts in order to respond to progressing modern demands. Others were more starkly combative, corralling en-trenched forces that represented opposing priorities into a cycle of confl ict and compromise, to produce

what was often only momentary reconciliation, but which, fortunately, could be applied to policy.

The Dialogue between Two Scales: Urban and MetropolitanThe essence of physical planning is making scales compatible, beginning with the architectural scale (1:50), at which we discuss matters of an individ-ual’s work and living spaces, and progressing to the global scale (1:50,000,000), at which we dis-cuss issues affecting hundreds of millions of people and their impact upon millions of square kilome-ters. Each scale must draw from a diversity of dis-ciplines for an adequate response to its particular challenges. The 1:50,000,000 scale is the realm of geopolitics, applied by multilateral institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and global powers. The 1:5,000,000 scale is the level at which conti-nental issues become clear, while the matters con-cerning a particular nation are approachable at the 1:500,000 scale. All along the continuum, disci-plines must adapt to different economic and geo-graphical frameworks.

We must be wise enough to integrate our ap-

01_Ortiz-01_r3.z.indd 101_Ortiz-01_r3.z.indd 1 10/8/13 11:57 AM10/8/13 11:57 AM

2 C H A P T E R O N E

proach into the global scale, to utilize the econo-mies that obtain the broadest popular benefi t. At the same time, we must be mindful of the lower scales, where fl exible local solutions can support a framework of freedom, equity, and adaptability. In the past, the urban scale has been the physical plan-ner’s best viewpoint through which to ascertain the key competing priorities.

Today, however, urban population and area patterns demand large metropolitan infrastructure, such as high- speed and commuter rail lines, airports, freeways, metropolitan- scale hospitals, universities, stadiums, and institutions to operate and maintain such infrastructure. Such projects, individually or combined, transcend municipal boundaries and require a dialogue among local, metropolitan, re-gional, and national authorities. The success of that dialogue depends on its relevance to each level of authority (that is, on the ability to scale the discus-sion). Clearly, though, the discussion has to start at the metropolitan scale.

In addition, many of today’s metropolises are of the size and importance to have— and suffer— a na-tional and continental impact. Thus, the metropoli-tan planning model must communicate fl uidly with the national and continental scales. Some metropo-lises are truly global entities and so must be consid-ered on the global scale. In every case, too, we must maintain an avenue of downward compatibility to the more human scales, to recognize and foster the local freedom of action, self- determination, cre-ativity, and economic ambition that are the very lifeblood of any city.

Madrid’s unique geocultural position as the transcontinental platform between Europe and Latin America, and even Africa to some degree,

imposed substantial global priorities upon our plan. Among other advantages, the inclusion of this per-spective allowed the Madrid airport to grow from serving 12 million passengers per year to 150 mil-lion and to effectively manage the South Atlantic air routes, an important economic advantage. In to-day’s globalized world, any metropolitan plan must address the role of that particular metropolis in the national and international contexts.

The Dialogue between Two Concepts: Form and FabricAs is apparent in N’Djamena, Chad, and indeed in many cities in industrialized and developing coun-tries, uncontrolled metropolitan expansion can upset the balance of the urban structure. It is criti-cal to maintain a strong emphasis and focus on the urban scale in any metropolitan model. The urban scale must constitute a unity with the metropoli-tan scale, in accordance with its strategic location within the metropolitan structure. Together, the scales must constitute a mental map combining fab-ric, representing the dynamic fl exibility that is the very essence of a city, and form, the fi xed shape of structures necessary for the city to accommodate metropolitan- sized demands.

The urban fabric represents the core value of a city— the evolving network of human, economic, social, and political activity in proximity, and struc-tures that encourage creativity and movement. Yet the fabric alone can bear only so much pressure, and without an underlying, supporting form, it will begin to almost literally fray and decompose, as has happened in many once- proud cities, such as Santi-


T H E D I A L O G U E S O F T H E M E T R O P O L I S 3

ago, Detroit, and N’Djamena. Thus, we must create a metropolitan form of structure to support the urban fabric. When done successfully, that form gives the fabric the necessary strength to stretch and cover the larger metropolitan boundaries and populations.

The metropolitan form comes from the location and integration of large- scale structural elements that extend urban- style living standards to larger popu-lations in suburban areas. Economic structures, in-cluding offi ce buildings, factories, enterprise zones,

and corporate campuses, along with civic structures such as full- service hospitals, universities, and sta-diums must be able to accommodate the suburban and exurban residents. Transport structures include commuter trains, high- speed trains, airports, and freeways. Structures that serve larger, remote popu-lations and the systems to access them are the essen-tial elements of the metropolitan form.

Ultimately, if we accept the premise that we have progressed to the Metropolitan Age, then our model must give primacy to the metropolitan scale. The framework that we have traditionally applied directly to the urban fabric must be aligned to the broader cultural, economic, social, and historical priorities of the metropolis. Looking down from the metropolitan level, through the urban scale, our solutions must conform to the historic patterns that are unique to each city and the new roles they have to play in the larger metropolitan structure.

The metropolitan framework will produce dif-ferent results in each circumstance, in each case tai-lored to the needs of the particular metropolitan structure.

The Dialogue between Two Subsystems: Green and Gray InfrastructureThe Madrid metropolis is linear, rather than circu-lar. The Sierra de Guadarrama mountain range in the northwest parallels the Tagus River valley in the southeast. They are the two most valuable as-sets of the metropolis’s environmental character and landscape typology. Ridge slopes and creeks, look-

Tunis metropolitan structure: Tunis diagrammatic analysis, the form of Tunis. Mountain ridges and the per-pendicular Mediterranean coast defi ne Tunis. These topographic features and the inland plain create a double direc-tionality that shapes the form of Tunis.



ing from above like the folds of a curtain, descend at a perpendicular angle from the mountains to the valley and emphasize this linearity.

That geo- topographical grid forms the green infrastructure of metropolitan Madrid, the envi-ronmental framework of the metropolitan region upon which the other four subsystems, or gray infrastructure— transport, housing, productive, and social, are built, with care not to damage it.

Three of the fi ve metropolitan subsystems— housing, productive, and social— are discontinuous, in that each can function as disconnected entities, such as neighborhoods, industrial sites, or stadiums. Because those entities can be located with a certain amount of fl exibility within a metropolitan area, it is relatively easy to harmonize them.

The environment and transport subsystems, however, are continuous in their essential nature. The green infrastructure requires continuity to allow for the fl ow of plants, animals, and landforms through it. It must be protected and even enhanced, so the other subsystems must conform to it. Tension between the green and the gray arises at every in-tersection in the developed environment. The gray infrastructure must serve its various purposes with minimal or no degradation of the green, preventing grievous scars and ecological damage.

Making these two continuous, but confl icting, systems compatible in terms of cost, damage, and longevity is one of the biggest challenges confront-ing a metropolitan plan. Planners must give prior-ity to the green environmental assets by adapting the gray transport system to their demands, keeping in mind compensation procedures as a last resort. Too often, planners conceive the gray without ad-equately adapting to the green. There is a natural

urge to develop patterns of conformation to serve as a model for gray infrastructural planning.

Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory of the 1930s, which envisioned urban settlements in a “featureless plain,” is theoretically sound but rarely applicable, particularly in the metropolitan model. Strategic congregations of people (cities) almost never occur on a featureless plain. Success-ful metropolitan settlements are most often linked to strong geo- topographic features— a linear sea-coast, a river, or a mountain range. They are the locational advantage that is at the origin of strategic metropolitan success.

The linearity of a river, mountains, or a coastline, and the topographic gradients associated with them, defi ne the boundaries and obstacles of the gray infra-structure. The two continuous subsystems are bound to clash. The fi rst role of the planner is to adapt the transport subsystem to the green infrastructure, the major geo- topographical features of the metropoli-tan region. When planners succeed in adapting the transportation subsystem to the green infrastructure, the discontinuous subsystems— housing, productive, and social— can harmonize with one another and be integrated into the continuous green and gray sys-tems without much diffi culty.

The Dialogue between Locations: Strategy and TacticsA handful of specifi c locales form the structure that articulates the metropolis and defi ne the metropoli-tan scale and territory. If these strategic points are located where the green environmental and gray transport infrastructures are most compatible, then



the metropolitan territory can be formally defi ned. Planners should not impose a strategy upon a me-tropolis; rather, they must formulate one in confor-mance with the territory, and structure it to take advantage of the available assets in the most effi cient manner. In the case of the metropolis, the struc-tural elements will be the transport infrastructure and the regional- scale economic and social projects.

Incorporating discontinuous facilities (housing, productivity, social) around strategic hubs increases

and expands the hubs’ strategic importance and, thus, their infl uence over the surrounding territory. Ultimately, the metropolis becomes a patchwork of these dynamic urban or periurban hubs, or centrali-ties, where people gather because of their natural attractiveness (green infrastructure) and their con-venience as a crossroads (gray infrastructure). Ema-nating from the centralities are living, working, and social facilities. Each centrality has some distinct character in its structure and balance of infrastruc-ture assets. This network of interactive centralities defi nes the basic structural form of the metropolis.

The design of a metropolis’s form must origi-nate from a spatial concept that synthesizes the strategic assets of the districts into an overall form. Once that strategic form is recognized, we can ef-fect the tactical location of specifi c projects. Each project must refl ect the strategic concept as tacti-cally applied to that centrality— the concept takes form through the projects. This is the art of shaping the metropolis.

In Madrid, we started with a linear reticulum and planned the new strategic infrastructure as de-veloping from the existing network of multiple rail systems, airports, and highways to focus on and connect the district centers. The tactical location of specialized production structures (offi ce, manu-facturing, commercial, logistic, etc.), social struc-tures (health, education, culture, entertainment, recreation, etc.), and housing lends each centrality its distinctive character within the metropolis and contributes to the overall structure.

Of course, each new generation creates new demands and casts off the outdated solutions to the old demands. Shaping the structure is a continuous process, as the metropolis adapts to the demands

Madrid metropolitan structure: The scheme of Madrid’s 1996 Metro-politan Plan. The Guadarrama sierra to the northwest and the parallel Tagus river to the southeast defi ne the main directionality of the urban settlements of metropolitan Madrid. The slopes from the mountains to the river defi ne the natural reticular structure.



and opportunities of each era. Its form evolves in time and is anything but static.

The Institutional Dialogue: Local versus Metropolitan/National AuthoritiesIn urban planning, critical factors are determined primarily by a traditional political dialogue between the local authority and the economic, social, or individual interests of the population. Since most metropolitan regions represent an overfl ow of the administrative boundaries of the existing villages or towns, metropolitan planning is bound to a gover-nance dialogue among a variety of public authorities who share the responsibilities of territorial admin-istration.

Since multiple agencies have the responsibility to administer vital matters over a single territory with little institutionalized power, they must share authority democratically. None of the agencies can impose its priorities upon the others or impose on the others’ competencies. Each agency must act with the knowledge that it will affect and be af-fected by the others’ priorities.

Thus, on the institutional level, the method-ology of metropolitan planning is profoundly dif-ferent from the methodology of urban planning. While an urban plan is compulsory once the dialogue has taken place and fi nal approval achieved, in a metropolitan plan, the methodology is indicative. Each agency puts the weight of its expertise on the negotiation table, knowing that insistent demands will likely cause an adverse reaction from the other agencies affected.

The Political Dialogue: Efficiency versus EquitySocieties achieve economic effi ciency by concen-trating resources and production facilities. They achieve social equity by dispersion, by expanding the public’s access to social goods and opportunities.

The tetrahedron of development: Social equity, economic effi ciency, and physical/ecological sustainability under the equilibrating infl uence of gover-nance. Governance has the responsi-bility to create a dynamic equilibrium among the three legs of development.



There are many technical mechanisms to calcu-late and maximize economic effi ciency. There are just as many to calculate and maximize the spread, access, and share of social facilities and services. But there is no mechanism to achieve the perfect balance between the two— none, other than de-mocracy. Sometimes the decision will be to foster economic policies and objectives before social ones. Other times the decision will be to prioritize so-cial equity above economic effi ciency. An effective planning model can reduce the confl ict between the two by providing polycentric and reticular structures as the basis of spatial solutions relevant to the concentration- dispersion dichotomy.

The Time Dialogue: Long- Term versus Short- TermPlanning has a very long time horizon. The Romans laid out Oxford Street in London. The dialogue with eternity is complex. So we must limit the time span to only the horizon of the plan— 20, 24, 30 years, or fi ve to seven political mandates. Setting time spans is necessary when dealing with long and wide visions, and integrating economics, social, and physical deci-sions within governance in the long term.

To have a dialogue with time, you must enter-tain a dialogue with unknown future governments. In a democracy those future governments will be elected offi cials, and within a 20- year span those governments will probably come from the existing political tendencies represented by the existing po-litical parties. Shares will change. Equilibriums will shift. Politicians will come and go. But the ideo-logical debate will most likely stand the test of time.

Sliding horizon: Planners must provide room for change, for each new government to transform what it inherited, every four years or so, in the frame of its own vision. Metropolitan planning must be adapt-able, but the length of the vision— its long- term nature— must be maintained. Long- range regional plans require a “sliding horizon”— one that can shift and adapt with every revision period.

Variable geometry: The economic and social cir-cumstances in a territory evolve. Planning must be receptive to this evolution. Planners and develop-ers must seize new opportunities and adapt to de-viations, mistakes, or delays in the plan. This is the methodological approach to variable geometry in regional planning.

Dialogue with Ethics: General Interest versus Electoral InterestThe long- term interest of a society might not coin-cide with the short- term interest of the electorate. The share of effort between investment and con-sumption is the most direct expression of that con-fl ict of interests. Prioritizing one or the other is a matter of ethics that societies do not always address adequately and rarely if ever resolve into a clear path forward.

The beauty of a system is not in the perfec-tion of the decisions made, as errors will inevitably occur, but in its capacity to revise those errors and redirect its purpose. The metropolis must have the capacity to revise decisions in a trial- and- error pro-cess. The electoral interest must dialogue with the general interest to ensure that investments in essen-tial infrastructure are not jeopardized.



In Practice: Synthesizing Priorities through DialoguesClearly, each of these dialogues embodies a range of interests that often confl ict on multiple levels. It is

also clear that their boundaries are blurry, and that in any metropolis that dares to address its inherent challenges, the conduct and resolution of any one dialogue are deeply affected by several, if not all, of the others.

Steel and concrete in the metro-politan age: The practice of providing gray infrastructure is a relatively recent development in metropolitan history. We fi nd it necessary to accumulate this sort of fi xed urban capital, but providing and accumulating it is not the ultimate goal. In a sense, we may be coming to the end of this period, in that some metropolises are now “taming” their infrastructure by adapting the gray to the higher- priority green.


Tunis is one of the most effi cient and livable cities of North Africa. It nevertheless confronts a serious growth phenomenon that it must address. Currently, population is increasing at an annual rate of 2.8 per-cent, but the population of motor vehicles is increas-ing at the rate of 7.4 percent, and housing is expanding at 4 percent per year. This means that Tunis will have 2 million dwellings in 2040, or 2.5 times the current supply.

The administration must look ahead and provide mechanisms that will allow this growth to take place sustainably, with economic effi ciency, social equity, and environmental protection.

The administration is accountable for a long- term vision that will provide the right location for the urban elements, even if the infrastructure can be built only years or decades in the future.

Tunis, Tunisia


TUNIS



Developing Regions: Managing the Cultural Dialogue beyond the ModelThe method has been adapted in Latin America, demonstrating that the metastasis of the Latin American city can be contained, controlled, and re-directed. The model is also currently being applied in Nairobi, and other African cities are becoming involved in the dialogue through multilateral insti-tutional advice and academic discussion.

The Way ForwardThese dialogues are the basic dimensions of a dialec-tical method for synthesizing a metropolitan shape. They are the dialogues that we rely on to confront the challenges presented throughout this book. When dealing with the metropolitan scale, one has no choice but to integrate multiple dimensions: the scales, the disciplines, the form and the fabric, the metropolitan and the urban, the green and the gray, the institutional governance, and so on.

Dialogue is the key. The conceptual polarities— the antagonism between differing opinions— must be discussed and understood in order to fi nd com-mon ground and establish a compatibility wherein

we can adequately address the multiplicity of issues. Synthesis, as in art, is the challenge.

Human society is developing in ways that over-whelm cities, smother regional environments, and overload existing infrastructure. To respond, we must create a new fi eld of knowledge, comparable to the best solutions that the builders of previous eras devised. The challenge exists now— indeed, we are late in recognizing it. There is a need for a method with different steps for achieving a result. But in a larger sense, there is an urgency for an in-tellectual, substantive, and procedural model.

When confronted with the enormity of du-plicating, in 15 years’ time, urban structures that evolved over several centuries, a mere method-ological approach is not agile enough. We need a model. Throughout history, when cultures have faced such dramatic necessities, they have applied fl exible models adaptable to the issues at hand. The Greeks, the Romans, the Americans, and the great industrialists all had urban models. Times required them to address urgent challenges of massive scale, and they did well. They are our examples to study and praise as reference points of human thought and creativity. We must formulate our model— the one that will respond to the metropolitan challenges of our generation, of our moment in history.


Chapter 1 Ortiz

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 1 Ortiz