I was listening to a podcast about urban planning, and one of the urban planners working with Jan Gehl spoke about their approach of
envision
test
refine
or an iterative test and trial type approach, rather than one that is driven by a masterplan. Personally I always feel that I have to be apologetic about adopting an iterative approach to things, making a start, tweaking a bit, doing a bit more, seeing how it is working. I always feel that I should be arriving with a perfect vision, then simply the dull labour of transforming transcendant vision into actuality.
But an iterative approach has had a bad press. It is far more responsive and democratic. You are not going to go terribly far wrong with an iterative approach, you are not consulting on some masterplan that few can understand, you are seeking views on something as it unfolds, the omissions and improvements can be addressed. Just as we should design for adaptability, so we should plan for iteration.
Project planning is too inflexible, demanding that we set out conforming to the initial materplan, rather than allowing us to evolve a solution that works.
Returning to the initial example, these Danes plan their pedestrian zones a street at a time, relying on a bucket of paint, and seeing what works. Can anyone honestly believe that some huge masterplan would offer a better solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment