Drawing Futures Together . Diagrams for the Design of Scenarios of Liveable Cities
Serena Pollastri
2015-01-01
Abstract:This work introduces an ongoing research project that seeks to develop appropriate visual techniques for the design of future visions of cities. These design methods are being explored as part of a wider research on the future of cities and sustainable urban living. This paper examines different ways in which the future of cities has been visualised, and highlights the need for visions that encourage participation and engagement. There is a need to develop “means for drawing things together” (Latour, 2008), a common language to describe complexity and allow hidden interdependencies to emerge. The paper will describe a series of “Future Visioning” workshops and visualisations developed as a research activity for the Liveable Cities programme. The Future Visioning workshops involve participants from different sectors in developing radical visions for the future of cities. These visions are then collected in a series of visualisations that are used to generate discussions and inform research directions. While methods that are being designed for the Liveable Cities program might not be directly applicable to different projects, radical design actions in complex systems require the development of specific methodologies to develop articulated visions. These visions, generated in a transdisciplinary context, provide involved actors with a common direction for their design actions (Jegou and Manzini, 2004). Introduction This working paper describes an ongoing research that seeks to explore how visual tools can be used to talk about the future of cities. The issue of cities as complex systems has been explored by a considerable amount of literature, across different disciplines (for example, Simmel, 1971; Lynch, 1960; Jacobs, 1992; Abrams and Hall, 2004). Cities are not only defined by buildings and infrastructure, but also by the material and immaterial flows generated by the activities that take place in the urban environment, as well as the personal experience of its inhabitants. Because of its multidimensionality, images of the city often describe more than its topography. Several artists and social scientists in the past century challenged the authority of the map-maker, and experimented with activities in which citizens were invited to map their personal city (see for example Bruno, 2007; George Simmel, 1971; Lynch, 1960). These subjective representations, in RSD2 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 2013 working paper. www.systemic-design.net 2 which emotions and territory are woven together, put citizens’ experience of the city in the foreground. They are often used to highlight stories from communities, valorise hidden meaningful places, and generate discussions that might drive design and decision-making processes at the city level. In the last decade, digital tools and online platforms have further encouraged this collaborative approach to map-making and city storytelling. In consideration of the large number of case studies that highlight the role of maps and images in including citizens and communities in open discussion about the city, and because of the continuous process of transformation that cities are undergoing, this study seeks to understand how a similar participatory approach can be applied to explore alternative visions of future. The active role of citizens in speculative conversations and in drawing visions about the future of the city is also coherent to a vision of sustainability in which participation is key. Environmental, social, and economic challenges call for actions of radical interventions in modern urban areas. In order to be truly sustainable these actions must be collaboratively developed in trans-disciplinary sessions. Here, people from various backgrounds and with different interests explore alternative solutions, find a common ground and plan concrete actions towards a desirable future (Holman et al., 2007). A complex future to imagine Thinking about the future means dealing with great uncertainty because we live and act as part of complex systems, whose behaviour is not linear and therefore cannot be forecasted. One of the ways in which companies and institutions have dealt with this uncertainty in the past sixty years is through the development of techniques of scenario planning as a way to think about alternative futures and test the resilience of solutions (Hunt et al., 2012). This methodology substitutes the traditional “predict and control” approach to planning, with “qualitative causal thinking” (Heijden, 2005). This approach rejects the idea that the future can be predicted through the probabilistic analysis of trends. It seeks instead to map out different alternative ways in which the future can unfold, by including non-predictable factors and human behaviour as the driving forces (Heijden, 2005; Schwartz, 1996). In the Foresight Future of City working paper, “Living in the City” (Urry et al., 2014), we adopted a similar methodology to Hejden (2005), establishing four possible scenarios that describe how UK cities might look like 50 years from now: the “high-tech city”, the “digital city”, the “liveable city”, and the “fortress city” (Figure 1). They highlight how different “cities” are defined by a multitude of interrelated factors that belong to seemingly incomparable fields, but that are strongly interrelated through connections, networks and flows of people, information, and objects (Bridge and Watson, 2011; Urry et al., 2014). What this paper highlights is that we ought to think of cities in terms of dynamic networks that connect different layers of the system, and acknowledge that small decisions that are made in the present might have a significant impact in the future on different parts of the system. This approach highlights the complex nature of cities as well as the difficulty in defining the boundaries of research in this context. However, by using this approach, there is a risk of alienating readers from their own future, by describing the future as a series of possibilities that will be determined by a very complex set of factors of which we are not in control. As a result, we might feel RSD2 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 2013 working paper. www.systemic-design.net 3 locked into a system that happens around us, and it is hard to understand our role and how we can influence it. Moreover, future scenarios are often presented as snapshots of a moment in the future, and, in the format in which they are presented to the public, rarely capture the transition phase. If participation is indispensible for the achievement of sustainable scenarios, the role of actors involved in the discussion must change: from external observers of future diorama, to active participants to the process of shaping of the city. Figure 1 The city futures scenarios Visions of future and cities The scenario-planning methodology described in the previous paragraph is a popular approach to think about different possible futures. It is able to include uncertainty, and provide a deep RSD2 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 2013 working paper. www.systemic-design.net 4 understanding of the driving forces. However, this is hardly the only way in which the future of cities has been described. Visualisations of future are deeply embedded in their social and cultural contexts. These images also have agency in influencing the discourse on the future of cities, and ultimately, in shaping cities themselves. In some cases – produced as part of decision-making or design processes – the shaping of the future is at the core of the purpose of the visualisation. Imaginative, not design-oriented visions of future – for example from films or videogames have great influence on the way we think about the future, as they make it possible to the general public, to imagine unexpected worlds (Bassett et al., 2013) Because the information included in the visualisations go beyond the subject represented in itself, it is worth asking questions regarding the purpose, the contexts, the actors involved, and the power relations among these actors. These questions could help us understand whether there is a space for shared activities of envisioning future cities, and what are the tools and processes that are necessary to enable them. Figure 2 is the taxonomy that accompanied the Foresight Future of Cities report “A Visual History of the Future” (Dunn et al., 2014). The report is a collection and an analysis of different ways in which the future of cities have been visualised in the last 100 years. The paper sought to identify dominant paradigms and main narratives, while providing an account of the purpose and the individual characteristics of each of the 108 images included. Although the examples collected in the paper show a great diversity, both in terms of content and techniques, there is very little space for participation in the process of making these visualisations. The social structure of the communication process normally includes a group of actors producing a visual message as part of a communication process that includes a final user. This user can be either a passive reader of the image, or asked to participate by reacting to the message. This can be done by either comment (such as in the “Scenario Games” by Chora, 2009) or take action in the implementation of the vision (see, for example Fuller, 2008). In the majority of cases the reader is not an active participant in shaping the vision itself. RSD2 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 2013 working paper. www.systemic-design.net 5 Figure 2 A Visual History of the Future. Taxonomy of the images collected in the report Looking for ways to “Draw together” Engaging multiple actors in strategic discussions about the future, requires the development of a common language. Visual language is able to make information mobile, immutable, presentable, readable and combinable (Latour, 1988). To visualise means to transform information that is, by itself, not