A Systems Approach to Designing Urban Commons and their Sharing Practices: Case Studies in Singapore by Jeffrey Chan & Ye Zhang Department of Architecture,National University of Singapore
Presentation, RSD6, AHO, Oslo, Norway, October 19, 2017
The urban commons? Two big questions‌
- Harvey (2012): the urban commons can be produced, organized, used, and appropriated—But how might we design the urban commons?
- Stavrides (2016): Inventive architectural solutions can contribute to the creation of urban commons. But architecture alone cannot guarantee that the designed spaces will become an urban commons.
How might the urban commons be designed using the systems approach?
- How is this approach different from the usual way architects design? - What are the different set of questions and issues that may be relevant to the design of the urban commons by relying on the systems approach?
Outline of the presentation: 1. Background: The contemporary urban condition 2. Key questions raised by the systems approach 3. Application of the systems approach: An urban design studio 4. Conclusion: Tentative findings 5. Further issues/questions‌
Background: The contemporary urban condition Context: Increasingly, neither the state nor the market has been able to address the various struggles for urban resources; similarly, the various emerging needs of a plural public may not have a ready market, and in the neoliberal urban condition, this means that these needs are likely to go unmet.
- Conflict and fragmentation, rather than solidarity and togetherness, is the norm. The ideal condition of ‘flourishing together’ when it exists, is likely to be offered in proxy forms through the market (e.g., New Urbanist securitised ‘villages’ in the city).
- Today, there is very little that people—especially across different backgrounds—can
share with one another. Ignatieff (2017, p.51): the central ethical problem for the global city is how to generate collaboration among strangers who do not share a common origin.
Background: The contemporary urban condition
- Limited sharing: public goods (e.g., green parks) and non-rivalrous goods that are
however offered through the market (e.g., private education/skill-upgrading courses)
- The urban commons: (i) Harvey (2012): is human relations engaged in the practice of commoning; (ii) (Kip et al., 2015): comprises of three components: (a) resources; (b) people who use these resources; (iii) rules or norms governing the usage of these resources.
Key (research) questions raised by the systems approach
- What is the system? What are the sub-components of this system? And what is the larger system in which the system is situated?
- What are the goals of this system as urban commons? Whose goals are these and how justifiable are these goals and by whose standards? What is the ethics of this system?
- What and where are the boundaries, and environment of this system? - Does this system threaten other systems? To what extent does the presence of this system nullify other systems?
- Who, or what, are the ‘enemies’ of this system? (see Churchman, 1979) - What are the different criteria that can be used to evaluate this system?
Application of systems approach: an urban design studio Theme: the studio explored what kind of urban commons and sharing system can be designed for regenerating a multi-cultural historical neighbourhood in Singapore. Structure: the generic urban systems including infrastructure, public amenities, economic production and consumption, etc., were adopted as a basic reference for the design investigation.
Schemes - Sharing infrastructure - Sharing open education - Sharing production - Sharing cultural heritage
Key features of the site:
- An ‘ordinary’ historic neighbourhood -
without any monuments. Concentration of well-known restaurants, cafes, bistros, etc. Once a hotbed for crimes A number of left-over amenities Weak community bonding
Joo Chiat, Singapore
Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
- Self-driving cars - Waste collection system - Energy generation and distribution system - Credit account
Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
- Energy efficiency - Enhanced mobility Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
- Energy efficiency - Enhanced mobility - Higher social capital
Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
- Existing transport system, e.g. additional traffic congestion and resultant low efficiency.
- Maximal catchment area of selfdriving cars - Primarily organic waste Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
- Frugality - Over-consumption
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
- Energy consumption (e.g. high efficiency & high mobility >increase of the number of cars > additional congestion > longer waiting time > reduction of efficiency & higher energy consumption) - Social capital (e.g. sense of belonging)
Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme two: sharing open education
- Membership & online platform - Open schools - Under-utilised public facilities Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme two: sharing open education
- Open network & continuous learning - Community engagement
Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme two: sharing open education
- Reputable teachers & programs - Certified private programs - Market rentable spaces
- Existing education programs - Geographical proximity - Language
Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Scheme two: sharing open education
- Inclusivity (e.g. diversity of programs > reputable teachers & market rentable space > increase of membership fees > exclusion of low-income residents) - Performance of understanding
Systems & Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics
Boundaries
Threats to other systems
Enemies
Evaluation criteria
Summary of hypothetical schemes Systems/Subsystems
A: Sharing Infrastructure
B: Sharing Open Education
Goals & Ethics
self-driving cars; waste collection; energy generation & distribution system; credit account system
energy-efficiency; enhanced mobility; social capital
open schools; under-utilitsed public amenities; membership & online platforms
public education; community engagement
Responsibility
Boundaries
Threats to other Systems?
Enemies?
Criteria for evaluating system’s performance
maximal range of the electric cars; primarily organic waste
existing traffic systems (e.g., congestion)
frugality; over-consumption
energy consumption; social capital
existing education programs
Reputable teachers & programs; certified private programs; market rentable spaces that compete with this program
inclusivity; performance of understanding
geographical proximity; language
Equity
Rivalrous use? Does one user’s exclude another from using?
Regulation/rules governing use?
Depletability? Do resources deplete when consumed?
Excludability? Who or what does the commons exclude?
A: Sharing Infrastructure
yes
yes
yes
yes
B: Sharing Open Education
yes
yes
yes for space; no for knowledge
no
Conclusion: tentative findings
- ‘Enemies’ of systems should be carefully investigated and deliberately taken together with the goals for evaluating the performance of systems
- Goals of systems may inadvertently become ‘enemies’ of the system, where the
attainment of design goals undermine the original aims (e.g. Generating more waste to earn more credit for shared rides): identifying areas where moral hazards can emerge may be a first step.
- Sharing of resources that can be depleted or rivalrous, e.g. using up spaces may either
constrain or facilitate the sharing of resources that are non-depletable, e.g. knowledge, and other forms of social capital. (Sharing open education where space sharing may give birth to new programs)
And further issues/questions‌
- Existing models of commons tend to presuppose (i) commoning practices; (ii) some forms
of reciprocal sharing behaviors—of either the mutual eschewing of free-riding behavior, or mutual-contribution, etc. But both in turn presume the ability to contribute in some ways. In many urban societies today, the people who need the benefits of commons far exceed the people who have the means to contribute to the commons. If so, then what other preconditions must exist for a sustainable urban commons that not only persist, but also can continue to grow? To answer this question, one possibility is to consider philosopher Logstrup (2007, p. 142) suggests (and projected to apply in the urban commons) as the radical imagination of the Golden Rule: we should do what we want other people to do unto us.
And further issues/questions‌
- Urban commons may have systems that are characterized by socio-technical risks. Unlike
the common-pool resources (CPRs) systems studied by Ostrom (2006), urban commons is likely to entail novel (unprecedented) large-scale, tightly coupled, complex systems (e.g., bio-waste digestor) that suggests the need to share risks (as well as benefits). How risks are shared, and how the sharing of these risks can go on to create new solidarity that then empowers the commons, are questions that have yet to be broached.
THANK YOU!
References: Churchman, C.W. (1979). The Systems Approach and its Enemies. NY: Basic Books. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso. Ignatieff, M. (2017). The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kip, M., Bieniok, M., Dellenbaugh, M., Muller, A.K. & Schwegmann, M. (2015). Seizing the (Every)day: Welcome to the Urban Commons! In M. Dellenbaugh, M. Kip, M. Bieniok, A.K. Muller & M. Schwegmann (eds.), Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market. Basel: Birkhauser, pp. 9-25. Logstrup, K.E. (2007). Beyond the Ethical Demand. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. Ostrom, E. (2006). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stavrides, S. (2016). Common Space: The City as Commons. UK: Zed Books.
Courtesy of the diagrams/images in this presentation: Ong Cheng Siang, Grace Koh Kah Sin, Hung Yu Shan, Yuan Yi Jia, Kenny Chen Han Teng