Frontiers of Architectural Research (2016) 5, 279–289

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/foar

Frontiers of Architectural Research

http://dx.doi.2095-2635/& 2(http://creati

nCorrespondE-mail addPeer review

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multi-identity planning process in a studiocourse: Integrative planning in multi-identity environments

Dalit Shach-Pinslyn, Idan Porat

Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, The Technion IIT, Haifa 32000, Israel

Received 18 February 2016; received in revised form 30 June 2016; accepted 3 July 2016

KEYWORDSMulti-criteria;Planning studio;GIS analysis;Place-based identity;Multi-identity

org/10.1016/j.foar.2016016 The Authors. Produvecommons.org/licenses

ing author. Tel.: +97 25ress: dalitsp@tx.techniounder responsibility of

AbstractThe planning process in a planning studio demonstrates a microcosm of diverse concepts ofideologies and identities seeking acknowledgment and spatial recognition. In the modern worldof multiple and dynamic identities and ideologies, aspiring for the self-recognition of regions,towns, and communities, a place-based identity has become a core aspect that needs to betaken into planning consideration. The analytic planning method used is iterative of both top–down and bottom–up approaches, thereby creating multi-dimension and coherent planningalternatives where spatial solutions arise from communities along their changing processes. Wepresent two spatial alternative plans that were developed in the studio course and are based onthis line of thinking. Results were very dynamic aspiring complex plans, which are also highlyapplicable and flexible, thereby addressing a wide range of ideologies and identities.& 2016 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article underthe CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Need for a place-based identity-ideologyplanning process

Variety is an issue that needs to be considered in themodern world of multiple and dynamic identities. Thisrecognition is an output of the place-based identity ofregions, towns, communities, and individuals. Thus, itshould be a core aspect of planning. This spatial diversity

.07.001ction and hosting by Elsevier B.V./by-nc-nd/4.0/).

44377408.n.ac.il (D. Shach-Pinsly).Southeast University.

corresponds to the theories of multiculturalism that pointout the advantage of variety (Goldberg, 1994; Sandercockand Lysiottis, 1998), individualism (Healey, 1997; Bellahet al., 2007), pluralism (Davidoff, 1965; Hayden, 1994),and cosmopolitan (Binnie et al., 2006; Bloomfield andBianchini, 2003). However, in contrast to the theories thatmodern societies aim to adopt, we identify a lack ofplanning tools that address the main issues of multicultur-alism, pluralism, and individualism on the regional level.

This article discusses the outcome of a regional planningstudio that deals mainly with the development of a long-termcomprehensive regional plan (50 years forward) and offers amulti-identity planning process developed by several student

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

D. Shach-Pinsly, I. Porat280

teams, allowing reference for different and diverse commu-nities and identities. This process displays products thatcombine conceptual pluralism and the regional perspectiveof a bottom–up planning approach based upon the integrationof spatial information technology and a multi-parametricanalysis of regional planning.

1.1. Planning studio

The course methodology includes comprehensive planning thataddresses complex and integrated questions of development,conservation, spatial justice, economy, transport, employment,and demographics. The planning process needs to presentsolutions for places situated in a dynamic process of change,where their place-based identity and self-recognition arechanging and the future of their identity/identities is stillunclear. This intensive course requires high investments in bothmethodology and technique within a limited period. The courseis built upon five phases, as follows: (1) a review of the currentsituation (according to a spatial capital assets model); (2) indi-vidual planning concept development based on their ideologicalperceptions; (3) students work in teams for a comprehensiveregional program development; (4) students work in teams todevelop the spatial plan; and (5) an evaluation of the diversespatial plans using analytical and political tools.

The studio methodology allows students to addressdifferent aspects of comprehensive spatial planning as partof their training as planners and as part of the formulationof a “professional voice” and planner identity. The studentsare required to develop a working model that answers their“professional voice” and references the characteristics andconstraints of reality. The planning work is done in a givenarea, wherein each student's team provides a planningalternative. In Phase 5 of the course, all the alternativesare evaluated by the students, and the pros and cons ofeach alternative are discussed.

During the course, a number of student teams deal with aplanning dilemma that relates to the inflexibility of theplanning process of representing multi-identities or socie-ties/communities and the difficulty of addressing differ-ences between groups, types of identities, or communities.Criticism in planning has intensified as the real world hasbecome more pluralistic, diverse, and multicultural.

The following are the questions we asked in a metropo-litan planning studio that gave our students a chance totranslate and transform their conceptual ideas into spatialpolicy plans. Is it possible to combine the differencesbetween communities and types of identities that charac-terize the complexity and the pluralistic world we live intoday in a coherent planning process that places theprinciple of multiculturalism as a working model premise?Can we plan for a “reasonable” person in a multiculturalworld or a multi-identity world? Can we combine differentideologies/identities in integrative coherent planning?

1.2. Multicultural assumptions in planning

The growth of a multicultural society is one of the knowntrends in the global and dynamic world and constitutes achallenge for planning. Planning has succeeded in the pastby characterizing the uniform local cultural characteristics

of a region or characterizing nationality with a commondirection, alignment, and commitment to a common vision.Currently, such definitions are less common and agreed uponin a multicultural society, which is composed of a mosaic ofcommunities.

This mosaic of communities has been addressed in thespatial capital assets model, which declares that a region isdefined by the unique mixture of the diverse forms ofcapital it possesses (see e.g. Friedmann, 2002; Kitsonet al., 2004; Frenkel and Porat, 2013). This complex viewof multi-capital assets is essential to the understanding andanalysis of urban and regional complexity and the dimen-sions of sustainability (Friedmann, 2002; Nilsson, 2007).

Each community has its own unique mixture of capitalassets, identity, and needs to fulfill its vision and goals.Communities need space and amenities to fulfill sharedvalues, but even communities aspiring for similar goals andvisions will require different needs because of spatialdifferences and differences in local authority policies(Walters and Brown, 2004). The number of processes ofcreating a multicultural society is increasing. On one hand,the spatial outcomes are segregations; on the other hand, aneed for integration exists (Burayidi, 2000). However, bothneed a planning process that will identify their uniquenessin the first place and will address them in comprehensiveplanning (Hague and Jenkins, 2005; Devine-Wright, 2009).This spatial diversity corresponds with several theories,such as multiculturalism (Goldberg, 1994; Sandercock andLysiottis, 1998), individualism (Healey, 1997; Bellah et al.,2007), pluralism (Davidoff, 1965; Hayden, 1994), and cos-mopolitan (Binnie et al., 2006; Bloomfield and Bianchini,2003) theories that point out the advantage of variety.However, in contrast to these theories, which modernsocieties aim to adopt, we identify a lack of planning toolsaddressing multiculturalism, pluralism, and individualism atthe regional level that can be adopted in the planningprocess.

Another tool that may assess the advantage of variety isthe public participatory, which is a bottom–up practice thatallows connecting to multiculturalism and the needs of thestakeholders. Public participation (P2) involves diversecommunities and stakeholders (usually from the samelocation) to understand the needs and preferences ofdifferent kinds of end-users and innovation better and toinfluence the planning process of a region (Rowe andFrewer, 2000). In a studio process, we identify a lack ofgeographic information system (GIS) planning tools addres-sing the connection between different communities aspiringfor multiculturalism and end-users’ need for the regionallevel. PGIS, an emergent practice from participatoryapproaches to planning, can be adopted in this planningprocess; it combines a range of geo-spatial informationmanagement tools and methods to represent peoples’spatial knowledge in the form of physical maps that areused as interactive tools for spatial analysis, discussion,information exchange, and decision-making (Corbett andKeller, 2005).

Therefore, planning is obligatory in mitigating the nega-tive aspects and developing the positive aspects of diversity.The negative aspects refer to aspects of segregation andclosings, and positive aspects refer to the opening ofpossibilities, variety, choice, and the possibility of self-

281Multi-identity planning process in a studio course: Integrative planning in multi-identity environments

determination and self-expression. Only a few cities, i.e.,those that are recognized as world-class cities, havesucceeded in providing multiculturalism and a hyper-diverse life for their populations. Most regions and citiesprefer to differentiate themselves from other regions andhave adopted homogeneous identities. Under this approach,the goal of the studio planning process is to provide theoptimal combination of diversity on the one hand and not toimpose pluralism on the other hand.

2. Multicultural planning model in a planningstudio

Diversity and variety are addressed in planning mainly byrefining the diversity of land use. In most planning fields, anincrease in urban usage exists, such as green areas ofdifferent types, residential diversity and textures, densitylevels and urban fabric types, variety of public service, andmixed uses. This increases the variety of usage types as anoutcome of the need to address a more complex existenceand the need for a unique policy in a growing number ofland parcels.

Currently, there is a shift in the way the urban planningprocess is developed around the world. This change occursbecause of several transformations and changes. One exam-ple is technology change, such as implementing the GISplatform in planning (Talen, 2000). The development of newmethods and tools for planning as form-based code (FBC)comes as an alternative to conventional zoning planning. Atits base is the idea of a neighborhood or city as a whole,rather than its division by specific land uses (Parolek et al.,2008). The Buffalo Green Code was developed for a newapproach to guiding development. This new approach iscalled “place-base planning,” which is a way to shape thecity by concentrating on the look and potential of placesand their forms and characters instead of focusing only onthe conventional categories of land use. Using this code willmap the entire city by place type. This will be followed by acomprehensive zoning ordinance that will create a new setof rules to encourage development that fits with the desiredcharacter of the place (http://www.buffalogreencode.com/what-is-place-based-planning/).

The studio projects react to these changes in the planningfield, especially in the studio program. For example, thechange in planning terminology developed as an outcome ofa top–down planning approach. The diversity of urbanusages increases the variety of zoning types and serves asa solution to complex and wide variety of laws and buildingregulations. The planning process tries to cope with thewide variety of laws and regulations by developing innova-tive and creative terminologies for the land use types.Zoning terminology is inherently general and relates to awide variety of regions and plans; it is not created toaddress place-based planning. Zoning terminology is not anoutcome of a bottom–up process in most planning processes,but given as a fact. Zoning terminology assumes that itsrichness of land uses can cope with the variety andcomplexity of reality; otherwise, the plan will reduce thevariety to an existing terminology. In addition, a bottom–upplace-based planning approach that addresses the existingand future varieties in a specific area requires a different

model of zoning. It requires a model that will be sufficientlyflexible to develop an appropriate spatial policy for differ-ent communities and ideologies. Despite the high-level offlexibility, the model should be generic and based on space-based analysis. Hence, these specifications require a newplanning model.

A classic planning model is built as a double funnel or asand clock. First, information and knowledge on the regionare collected. This knowledge is abstracted and simplified forrepresentation of urban systems. This knowledge is furtherabstracted into planning principles, alternatives, and finally,a chosen alternative. The chosen alternative undergoes aprocess of expansion, deepening, and development of policymeasures and spatial details that mature the process to acomplete comprehensive plan (Altshuler, 1966; Hax andMajluf, 1996; Chadwick, 2013). The “narrow waist” of theplanning process should be expanded to produce a bottom–upplan that addresses a variety of identities and differentideologies. Multiple alternatives should be reflected through-out the planning process instead of a single chosen alter-native, side by side from the initial stages of data collectionto the development of a comprehensive plan.

Different alternatives fit different ideologies and identi-ties that provide a plan for the exact identity it serves. Allplans have their own internal logic and an overall view thatincorporates and integrates a comprehensive plan on aspatial and conceptual level. This place-based planningprocess creates a mosaic of programs at different levels.Thus, every level will provide a harmonious plan. Theoutcome plans will expose all communities and localidentities and create links between communities andregions and between neighbors and similar neighbors, allat the same time. A sample of identifying future trends canbe described as a combination of the following: accessi-bility, transportation, access to employment, housing, eco-nomic capital; education level, marital status, spatialenvironment, social relationship, spatial relationships;nationality, religion, gender, and language. Furthermore,different levels of the region plan will be addressed, asfollows: (a) the relationship between nearby places thatshare community life; and (b) ideological or conceptualsystem between distant places. The latter is similar to theconcept of an ecological corridor that connects regions tocreate an ecosystem. This principle will be used to connectplaces of common ground ideology in the formation of anideo-system, which might be a knowledge base of similarconceptions.

This planning approach is based upon the use of GISspatial information technology as an integral part of theplanning process. This technology enables the developmentof multiple local plans of different characteristics andpolicies in one region and creates mutual connectionsbetween them. Spatial information systems can containhundreds of attributes of information for all spatial objectsand examine spatial adjustments between objects depend-ing on their spatial and functional relationships. A similarapproach can be seen at the “bottom–up GIS (BUGIS)” modeldeveloped by Talen (2000), which included an understandingof residents' perceptions and preferences of local issuesbased on a GIS planning analysis of spatial complexity,spatial context, interactivity, and interconnection.

D. Shach-Pinsly, I. Porat282

This place-based planning process fits ideology to anidentity with an appropriate set of policies of its own andfor neighboring communities. The methodology is basedupon an analytic process of development of an identitymatrix and a generator/influence matrix, which defy thedevelopment characteristics for different ideologies andidentities as well as the mutual influences between differ-ent identities and between identities and their surround-ings. The methodology may be perceived as too rigid.However, the actual reference to a wide variety of differentparameters allows the extensive and complex variation ofland use, which is a view to the feature that encouragesplan flexibility. Parallel to the development of the influencematrix generator, an extensive set of typical identities isformed as part of the planning process. This planning modelconcept allows the representation of each identity's needsin the matrix. The set of identities represents the diversityof the population in the region and addresses futurevariations. The future variation of identities is set accordingto the current trends of global societies.

The major trends that have been introduced to theinfluence matrix generator represent a strengthening ofself-definition based on nationality, religion, language,gender, education, economic capital, sexual orientation,marital status, and geographic identity. These processesincrease the range of property needs of the society. Thesystem may seem too rigid and categorically defines char-acteristics for existing and future identities. However, theopposite is true. The development of various land-usepolicies for an extensive set of typical identities increasesthe diversity across the region. This is bottom–up planningrelates to the characteristics of personalities in a complexand profound way. Furthermore, this type of planningcreates a wide variety of residential and employment areas,education amenities, and leisure spaces and places. Thisvariety fits the needs of the place and also enables widechoices for future communities.

Bottom–up planning has an added value at the regionallevel. The classification and characterization of identitiesallow for identifying opportunities and conflicts, commu-nities' synergistic elements, and possible collaborations.Identifying opportunities, conflicts, synergies, and potentialcollaborations during the planning process allows conflictmitigation and region management in a way that encouragescooperation by development. These elements play a

Fig. 1 A schematic presentation of classic planning process vs aidentities.

significant role in the regional planning process, whichallows and supports a variety of space-place developmentsand copes with the regional challenges of economies ofscale, efficient transportation, employment mix, a varietyof services, and optimal spatial management.

Fig. 1 describes in a schematic way the differencesbetween a classic planning process featuring the conver-gence of decision-making-based planning, multi-criteriaanalysis of different ideologies and identities, and place-based planning process.

The following section will demonstrate the place-basedplanning methodology on two examples of students' studiocourse demonstration of plans. The metropolitan plans wereconducted in different regions of Israel and each illustrates inits own planning process way the principles presented above.

3. Description of the planning process in thestudio

3.1. Two planning areas

The alternative plans presented are located in heteroge-neous areas at the outskirts of metropolitan core areas, oneat the north of Israel, the Galilee area, and the second atthe southern area of Israel, called the Northern Negevregion (see Fig. 2). The Galilee area is a rural region thatincludes small towns of different Jewish and Arab cultures,with traditional employment, agriculture industries, andrural villages. The Northern Negev region is an intermediateregion between the three main metropolitan areas of Israel,which are Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Beer-sheba, and ischaracterized by small- and medium-size cities, traditionalemployment and lifestyle, and diverse communities ofJews, Arabs, and ultra-religious Jews.

The students learn and review the current situation in theplanning region according to the spatial capital assetsmodel. The data collection for this model is related todifferent spatial capital assets (Frenkel and Porat, 2013)and based (in this studio course) on open and available datasources from the Israeli Bureau of Statistics, NationalInsurance Institute, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Trans-portation, and other open data sources and also on localsurvey and knowledge. According to this data analysis, thestudents define the spatial capital of each region and sub-

place based planning process that fits different ideologies and

Fig. 2 Areal map of the two alternative plans: the Galilee alternative at the northern part of the country and the Negev alternativeplan at the southern part of the country.

283Multi-identity planning process in a studio course: Integrative planning in multi-identity environments

regions and identified the groups, narratives, conflicts, andsocial trends that emerge from the analysis.

The motivation for both planning processes comes from acritical approach to the existing statutory planning thatchoose to ignore the variety of populations' narratives,identities, conflicts, and residence types in the alternativeareas. The existing statutory plan defines most of the areasas rural and ignores the complexity and uniqueness of thenature of both regions. The spatial policy suffers from a lackof reference to the distinctive features that create identityand internal unity. The towns and villages in these regionsare scattered and separated because of the absence ofunique identity.

3.2. Definition of existing and future identities inboth regions

The first stage of the planning process includes the defini-tion of different identities and distinction between theidentities in the region. The definition of identities andideologies in the studio are based on local knowledge andcommon narratives of different social groups and theirsocial trends in the public space (in the region) and ontheir shared characters, desires, vision, and goals. In thisstudio, the student involves stakeholders only as part of theplanning administration and not as part of the identities.

In both alternatives, the current planning needs ofvarious communities are examined and defined accordingto different routes:

3.2.1. The Galilee alternativeThe plan provides a unique planning statement and indivi-dual treatment for each settlement in the space/place andfor the multi-dimensional connection between them. Theidea is to create alternatives for people searching for adifferent lifestyle and to provide a generic solution for thetypes of settlements that people are looking for. The place-based models provide solutions for the differences thatwere identified between the “needs” and “wants” of peoplein search of alternatives to the conventional urban lifestyle.The main emphasis is on developing models that offerconditions required for specific lifestyles that will beprovided at maximum flexibility to the residents in accor-dance with their wants and needs. The main idea based onthis notion was to categorize the existing planning processbehind these settlements, which according to the old modelare developed according to a specific available area withappropriate space.

Different community types are defined by their differentcharacteristics, such as population size, self-sufficiency,self-organization level, mix of employment types, andtypical local economy. The results are based on fourdifferent types of towns, as follows:

(

(

(

(

Fig. 3 Ideologies in the Galilee and identities possible future development in the Northern Negev area. (On the left): displays thecategories of cities and towns in the Galilee. Main categories of cities and towns in the Galilee are defined and its future possiblerelationship toward land and spatial attributes is determined. (On the right): displays six main identities in the Northern Negev areaand the possible future development of these identities into 36 sub-identities.

D. Shach-Pinsly, I. Porat284

1) Ecological – According to research, ecological towns areviable only for small populations (up to 1000 residents).The distances to the city can be long because most of theresidents work within the settlement. Being locatedclose to environmentally sensitive areas suggests thatthese settlements have minimal environmental effectand tourism makes up a significant part of their income.

2) Cooperative – Distances from the city can be longbecause the towns can provide work, food (from theiragriculture), and services.

3) Coexistence – The same as a house in a countryside, acommunity apparatus that is more complex and requiresemployment in the settlement is necessary.

4) Country side, house in the countryside – The town can belarger and closer to the city and to employment centers.

Each combination displays a different level of perfor-mance in each characteristic, as shown in Fig. 1a.

3.2.2. The Negev alternativeIn this plan, the students identify six different types ofgeneric personal identities in the region desiring differentneeds and characteristics. These identities are determinedthrough the following process. First, an analysis of theexisting population characteristics is conducted. The stu-dents provides an overview of the populations living in theregion and deliberately defined six stereotype figures thatrepresent different identities living in the region, as man-ifested in different dimensions, such as religion, ethnicity,gender, and age. Each of the six identities has difficulties oris in conflict with the reality in the region today. These sixfigures are characteristics and are defined as parameters ina multi-parametric matrix. For example, Jubel (identity) isa student and a farmer's son deliberating between stayingon the farm and leaving the farm; Phatma is a youngBedouin woman; J0aklin is a single mother living in a smalltraditional town; Oleg is an immigrant from the formerSoviet Union who works as an engineer; Raz is a gay personwho tries to find a suitable community for his modernfamily; and Sara-Rivka is an ultra-orthodox woman and a

mother of five who works as a software programmer. Each ofthese generic identities provide possible future develop-ments of these identities, as shown in Fig. 1b. Each of theideologies and identities also have spatial characteristics,such as transportation accessibility and access to employ-ment, and social characteristics, such as nationality, reli-gion, gender, language, identity, education, marital status,and economic capital.

This identity analysis characterizes the variety of presentcommunities and their future development needs. Theplace-based planning process tries to cope with a range offuture possibilities, such as strengthening existing tradi-tional elements, providing a mix of traditional and modernlife, or a drastic change and abandonment of social traditionand adoption of some existing trends in Israeli society andglobal perspectives. The analysis refers to current trends inIsraeli society and global trends that will be intensified inthe future, such as women's employment, the growth of newfamily types, and the blurring of gender, individualism,liberalism, and education. Each of the identities/ideologieshas undergone a similar expansion process that tried tooutline the future possibilities. Obviously, this processcannot predict all directions of personal development, butthis kind of thinking creates a vast mosaic of variousmixtures that may characterize the majority of the popula-tion (see Fig. 3b).

The next step in the planning process includes thecharacterization of the towns and villages, which willprovide the needs of the different communities, such astown size and type, occupation structure, social structure,regional identity, and relationship to the natural environ-ment. These provide the basic elements of the identitymatrix generator. Each alternative plan uses a differentmethodology for their planning performance, as follows.(1) The Galilee alternative metropolitan plan is based on anARCview GIS model builder that assists in creating spatiallocations in a region, where each town and village candefine its own spatial future and still be a part of acollective ideology (see Fig. 4 and Table 1). (2) The Negevalternative metropolitan plan simulates spatial locations for

Fig. 4 Identity matrix generator in ARCview model builder for the Galilee alternative.

Table 1 Identity matrix generator table as a basis for the ARCview model builder for the Galilee alternative.

Distance from protectedareas (km)

Distance from employmentcenters (km)

Distance from thecity (km)

Population size

34 – 5o 4004 EcologyX – 5o 10004 Cooperative– 74 54 500–200 Coexistence– 54 54 20004 House in the

countryside

285Multi-identity planning process in a studio course: Integrative planning in multi-identity environments

a mixture of future identities based on present identitiesand the different routes each identity may take during itsgrowth process and possibilities of identity changes overtime (see Table 2).

3.3. Development of identity matrix generator

The next stage of the methodology is based on a generatorof ideologies and their transportation accessibility, access toemployment, and social characteristics, such as nationality,religion, gender, language, identity, education, maritalstatus, and economic capital. All of these are translatedto define the spatial environment for each community andtype of housing, employment, social relationship, andspatial relationships between different ideologies. Thesematrices are known as the “identity matrix generator.” Thematrix contains ideology types that were identified in thefirst stage and future ideologies that were developed basedon social trends. The Galilee alternative developed thegenerator according to geographical characteristics (seeFig. 4 and Table 1), and the Northern Negev alternativedeveloped the generator according to social indicators (seeTable 2).

Diverse ideologies are identified to cater to the char-acteristics of each existing and future identity and thetowns and villages that will provide an opportune environ-ment for communities. This matching process is accompa-nied by a development of policy measures for requiredadjustments that include, e.g., the establishment of spe-cialized employment centers, educational institutions, andentertainment directed toward the needs of the commu-nities. The policy measures also include a basis for futureestablishment of new settlements designated if required.

The implementation of this methodology for large regio-nal areas includes hundreds of different kinds of settle-ments that will allow specific reference to versatileideologies and different communities that were the resultof individual plans (see Fig. 4). The spatial distribution oftowns and villages allowed a versatile identities mix fordifferent communities, complex spatial pattern, and differ-entiated spatial policy for different types of ideologies.

The implementation of the spatial identity matrix gen-erator methodology over a large area includes hundreds ofdifferent kinds of identity combinations that allow specificreference for versatile ideologies, where different commu-nities receive individual plans, thereby providing spatialpatterns of ideologies in the Galilee and the Northern Negevalternatives. This specific methodology treatment for hun-dreds of options is possible because of GIS technologies.

The pattern of ideologies, as shown in Fig. 5, support acomplex of sub-regional divisions, providing opportunitiesfor regional collaboration and cooperation, conflict reces-sion, identifying opportunities, and synergies betweenlocalities and communities.

The Galilee alternative addresses the northern part ofIsrael and defines the core areas that will assist in connect-ing towns and villages of similar characteristics andempower them in areas, such as economics of scale,transportation efficiency, and employment mix. In addition,core areas of specific aspects that will support the ideolo-gies based pattern are developed, as follows: (1) establish-ing a core area for community towns in Carmiel;(2) strengthening four core areas of mixed community townsin Maalot, Tarshiha, Massada, and Bet Shean; (3) developingcore areas for agriculture-based villages in Kryat-Shmona,Shfaram, and Kafar Kama; and (4) developing core areas forecological villages in Kazrin and Tiberious.

Table 2 Identity matrix generator of possible future development for the Northern Negev alternative.

Identity Approximate town size Community type Residential type Profession Environment

G1 Medium Traditional Small app Services SuburbG2 Very large Close Small app Industry SuburbG3 Large Open Medium app Academy CityG4 Medium Medium House Tourism TownG5 Small Traditional Medium app Free profession VillageG6 Very large Individual Medium app Free profession MetroP1 Small Close Medium app Free profession VillageP2 Small Traditional House Agriculture FarmP3 Large Open Large app Academy CityP4 Large or very large Multi Medium app Tourism CityP5 Very large Open Medium app Hi-tec MetroP6 Very large Individual Small app Clean-tec CityS1 Very large Close Large app Hi-tec CityS2 Metro Individual Small app Services MetroS3 Very large Open Medium app Free profession CityS4 Large Multi Medium app Academy TownS5 Very large Traditional Large app Industry CityS6 Large Individual Small app Academy TownJ1 Very small Individual House Tourism VillageJ2 Very small Open Farm Agriculture VillageJ3 Large Close Small app Hi-tec CityJ4 Medium Multi Medium app Academy TownJ5 Medium Individual Split Level Free profession TownJ6 Very small or very large Multi Medium app Services SuburbR1 Small Individual Split Level Agriculture FarmR2 Very large Multi Medium app Free profession CityR3 Very large Open Large app Services MetroR4 Small Open Split Level Tourism VillageR5 Very small Close Split Level Free profession VillageR6 Large Individual Medium app Academy TownO1 Very large Individual Large app Hi-tec CityO2 Metro Multi Small app Academy MetroO3 Very large Open Large app Services CityO4 Very small Individual Split Level Free profession VillageO5 Very large Traditional Small app Industry CityO6 Metro Close Medium app Clean-tec Metro

D. Shach-Pinsly, I. Porat286

The Negev alternative addresses the southern part ofIsrael and emphasizes opportunities and conflicts in thatarea, as follows: (1) religious/secular conflict in the town ofBet-Shemes; (2) social decline in the very homogeneous cityof Kiryat-Malahi; (3) social opportunity in a heterogeneouscity, Kiryat-Gat, adjacent to an agricultural landscape;(4) opportunity for heterogeneous city on the seashore ofAshkelon; (5) social conflict between old conceptions andnew ones in the village of Nehora; (6) opportunity for spatialinteraction in new Bedouin villages; and (7) opportunity forecological communities.

Both alternative plans (see Fig. 6) represent a vastvariety of towns and village types, having complex spatialplans that were created in an analytic process and offer aspatial pattern that supports a variety of ideologies. Map-ping the spatial distribution of different types of towns andvillages allows planners to connect and link communities ofsimilar characteristics or complementing characteristics.Both pattern alternatives support a complex of sub-regional divisions, which provide opportunities for regional

collaboration and cooperation, conflict recession, identify-ing opportunities, and synergies between localities andcommunities. The product of this analysis allows for theexamination of the spatial role of different communities infuture situations (see Fig. 6).

4. Discussion and conclusion

The planning process that was developed in the metropoli-tan planning studio shows that both plans relate to thetension between planning at the individual level (commu-nity and ideology) and are involved in comprehensiveplanning. Both alternative plans indicate that vital andextensive information related to ideologies and a regionalway of life may be lost in classic comprehensive planningapproach, including information that deals with the needsand desires of individuals. In addition, both alternativeplans began by assuming that this personal informationneeds to be at the core of the planning process, and a

Fig. 5 Spatial patterns of ideologies: on the left side are the ideologies settlements in the Galilee alternatives; on the right sidethe ideologies in the Northern Negev alternatives.

Fig. 6 Subdivision of spatial fabrics in the Galilee alternative (on the left side) and opportunities and conflicts in the Negevalternative (on the right side).

287Multi-identity planning process in a studio course: Integrative planning in multi-identity environments

future approach to decision-making and planning modelsshould keep this information throughout the planning pro-cess until the formulation of the plan (Ho et al., 2010).

In both alternative plans, the planning policy relatesdifferently to various ideologies and regional policies that

point out different characteristics of the land uses in everylocation in the region, considering the characteristics ofexisting and future types of ideologies. The plans tellpersonal stories of various ideologies found in the region,trying to deal with the different paths each identity will

D. Shach-Pinsly, I. Porat288

take in the future by drawing alternative paths of diversepersonal development of various identities according toglobal and local trends.

Future relationships between identities and communitiesin the region are defined by the influence of the matrixgenerator. This matrix generator defines the relationshipbetween characteristics and different ideologies and typesof towns/villages in the regions. This generator is a geo-social matrix that addresses the spatial needs of variousideologies, such as settlement sizes, proximity to employ-ment, proximity to services, and closeness to nature.

This planning methodology enables the multi-resolutionobservation of the process. The methodology allows a userto zoom in on different types of communities and examinethe conditions for their flourish, identify conflicts, regionalopportunities, and ways to resolve/mitigate controversiesbetween communities. The methodology allows for zoomingout on overall connections and relations between commu-nities and addressing mutual influences. This multi-resolution observation provides multi-level solutions ofspatial conflicts and identifies spatial opportunities.

Such a detailed approach of the characters of eachidentity can be operated and managed by users throughGIS and the ability to manage and control hundreds,thousands, or even more features in an attribute matrixtable. The attribute matrix table allows a multi-parametricapproach to the different identities with no need to reduceparameters. In the case presented here, different identitieswere characterized by 17 different characteristics concern-ing a variety of spaces, such as personal, cultural, social,and spatial. These data have not been analyzed in a processthat lowers the number of variables, such as cluster orfactor analysis. On the contrary, processing the dataincreased the variance and the analysis enhanced andenriched the data. We would like to point out that therapid technological development in the last decade hasenabled planners to develop this form of planning processfor special development and contributed to the studioworking plan.

The analysis of the spatial distribution of identitiesidentified spatial conflicts and opportunities, addressingand presenting a complete picture of the region and thepolicies derived for different identities. This multi-parametric analysis produces two alternative plans withvery different spatial structures but very similar ways ofaddressing different identities.

Both alternative plans represent a vast variety of townsand village types, having complex spatial patterns thatsupport a variety of ideologies. Mapping the spatial dis-tribution of different types of towns and villages allowsplanners to connect and link communities of similar char-acteristics or complementing characteristics.

However, this approach has several limitations. First, theprocess requires very good data of the planning region,social assets, and social trends, and such data are notalways available. Second, a high degree of predictability ofthe future plans exists and forecasting of complex socialtrends is still too complex to be done. In addition, open andavailable data relating to capital resources estimation andcharacterization of identities, which are important to theplanning process, are limited. Relationship to planningrequires an open and flexible planning system.

Therefore, this identification offers a regional planningdimension of connectors, bridges, and links based onrelationships, opportunities, conflicts, and complementarityof diverse issues, thereby allowing for the tailoring ofspecific planning solutions as appropriate. This regionaldimension is based on the complex layout of towns andvillages, and it deals with questions of economies of scaleand efficiency on the one hand and spatial diversity benefitsmanagement, conflict management, and spatial opportu-nities arising from the diversity on the other hand.

References

Altshuler, Alan A., 1966. The City Planning Process: A PoliticalAnalysis. Cornell University Press, United States of America.

Bellah, Robert N., Madsen, Richard, Sullivan, William M., Swidler,Ann, Tipton, Steven M., 2007. Habits of the Heart: Individualismand Commitment in American Life. University of CaliforniaPress, United States.

Binnie, Jon, Holloway, Julian, Millington, Steve, Young, Craig, 2006.Cosmopolitan Urbanism. (Eds.), Routledge, United Kingdom.

Bloomfield, J., Bianchini, F., 2003. Planning for the cosmopolitancity. In: Proceedings of COMEDIA and International Culturalplanning and Policy Unit (ICPPU). De Montfort University,Leicester.

Burayidi, Michael A., 2000. Urban Planning in a MulticulturalSociety. Greenwood Publishing Group, United States.

Chadwick, George, 2013. A Systems view of Planning: Towards ATheory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process. Elsevier, TheNetherlands.

Corbett, J.M., Keller, C.P., 2005. An analytical framework toexamine empowerment associated with participatory geo-graphic information systems (PGIS). Cartogr.: Int. J. Geogr. Inf.Geovisualization 40 (4), 91–102.

Davidoff, Paul, 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J. Am.Inst. Plan. 31 (4), 331–338.

Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: The role ofplace attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19 (6),426–441.

Frenkel, A., Porat, I., 2013. An integrative spatial capital basedmodel for strategic local planning. In: Proceedings of theRegional Studies association, Winter Conference on: MobilizingRegions: Territorial Strategies for Growth. London, UK, Novem-ber 22nd, 2013.

Friedmann, John, 2002. The Prospect of Cities. University ofMinnesota Press, United States.

Goldberg, David, 1994. Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. .Hayden, Dolores, 1994. Who plans the USA? A comment on

“advocacy and pluralism in planning”. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 60(2), 160–161.

Hague, Cliff, Jenkins, Paul, 2005. Place Identity, Participation andPlanning, 7. Psychology Press, United Kingdom.

Hax, Arnoldo C., Majluf, Nicolas S., 1996. Strategy Concept Process:A Pragmatic Approach, 360–375.

Healey, Patsy, 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places inFragmented Societies. Ubc Press, Canada.

Ho, William, Xiaowei, Xu, Dey, Prasanta K., 2010. Multi-criteriadecision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selec-tion: a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202 (1), 16–24.

Kitson, Michael, Martin, Ron, Tyler, Peter, 2004. Regional competi-tiveness: an elusive yet key concept? Reg. Stud. 38 (9), 991–999.

Nilsson, Kristina L., 2007. Managing complex spatial planningprocesses. Plan. Theory Pract. 8 (4), 431–447.

289Multi-identity planning process in a studio course: Integrative planning in multi-identity environments

Parolek, Daniel G., Parolek, Karen, Crawford, Paul C., 2008. FormBased Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipa-lities, and Developers. John Wiley & Sons.

Rowe, Gene, Lynn, J. Frewer, 2000. Public participation methods:aframework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25 (1),3–29.

Sandercock, Leonie, Lysiottis, Peter, 1998. Towards Cosmopolis:Planning for Multicultural Cities.

Talen, Emily, 2000. Bottom–up GIS: a new tool for individual andgroup expression in participatory planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.66 (3), 279–294.

Walters, David, Brown, Linda Luise, 2004. Design First: Design-Based Planning for Communities. Routledge, (http://urbed.coop/projects/nottingham-city-centre-design-guide http://www.buffalogreencode.com/what-is-place-based-planning/).