Urban Development: Creating a Common Language

by Chris McCormick and Oli Anderson

With an increasing diversity of passionate ideas about how we shape our cities, the need for more agile processes has never been greater.

Where do we start?

Everything humanity has created is a result of collaboration and some form of communication, the efficacy of both depending on the way in which we view and think about the world. Urban development is no exception and arguably offers the most visual representation of the state of our collaborative processes and ability to communicate. In the age where climate change, migration and population increase are dominating our media, cities are now being seen as a major focal point for how we are to shape our future on this planet. There is an abundance of movements, opinions, terms and technologies that are all offering some kind of solution to the huge challenges that we are facing. One such movement is the independent and global open-source network Massive Small. They advocate for members of communities to be urban practitioners and focus on democratic urban processes that lead to an appropriate ‘new normal’ for what urbanism might look like in an increasingly complex, informal and localised world. Part of their declaration calls for rational discourse based on shared understanding. It is here we shall start and it reads as follows:

“We advocate a common language for collaborative knowledge sharing and joint action by all people in the system. This provides a basis for cross-sectoral collaboration between all the urban professions and academia; between civic leaders and their agencies; and between active citizens and interest groups. Using this shared language, we promote openness, shared working and joint ownership of ideas and solutions across the sectors.”2.

What might this common language look like? Isn’t the one we’re all used to good enough?

The very nature of the language we commonly use is rooted in competition because it is based in a fragmentary way of thinking. It often comes down to a battle of perspectives, and the term used for such battles is ‘debate’. For example, politics is often about one side using all its persuasive powers to push its perspective through via the medium of an argument. By virtue of the format, the other side is then compelled to ridicule or lambast it; this is a grossly inefficient method of getting things done and does not produce the best possible ways for solving whatever the task at hand may be. Ultimately, the problems with this ‘debate’ mode of communication stem from the fact that it revolves more around reactivity and a desire to persuade that one’s personal agenda is correct, rather than a creative collaboration in the service of the ‘Truth’ of whatever situation is being dealt with.

So what is the alternative?

The counter to debate is dialogue. Etymologically the term dialogue stems from the Greek dialogos (meaning conversation); its roots are dia (meaning through) and logos (meaning speech, reason)3, whereas debate is defined as being contention in argument where one side often prevails over the other party by presenting a superior “context” and/or framework of the issue.4

Dialogue can ultimately be seen as a way of communicating realistically with reality. It thrives on fluidity beyond the constraints of conceptual duality, whereas debate has a tendency to divert us into a more rigid, one-sided view that limits the scope for a wider truth and breeds a false representation of what is really going on.

This draws us to a paradox: whilst reality is an ever-changing flux of interchangeable experiences, we use a rigid set of intellectual protocols in language and communication to explain this fluidity. This has helped us to flourish and function as human beings, but if we continue to attach to these illusory black and white, static interpretations of a grayscale, flowing reality, we will become out of touch with things as they actually are. When we build our urban areas and cultures on a false premise, treating our static, conceptual ideas about the world as the reality of the world, we end up building that world on a false or unsturdy foundation; when we build with reality, we have the strongest foundation of them all.

Dialogue is the key to uncovering that foundation because it offers the tools that allow us to use the stasis of the intellect to work with the flow of reality and to narrow the gap between the two, so that we can work as closely as possible with things as they are, not only as we conceptualise them or hope for them to be; the main difference between healthy and unhealthy thought is flexibility versus rigidity, and as our systems are a reflection of our thought, the best way to create fluid, dynamic systems, is to become fluid and dynamic in the way that we think and communicate within and about the world.

If we really want our urban environment to thrive, then there is a strong case for a more dialogue based approach to our urban development processes.

What does this mean for urban development?

Cities, as brought up earlier, represent a crucial platform for solving some of the biggest challenges humanity has ever faced. At the time of writing, an historic agreement between nearly two hundred countries to reduce climate damaging emissions and support for poor countries to adapt their economies has been reached. Whilst this has been heralded by many, we are however reminded that the work starts now; we have to implement the ambitions of this agreement; we have to think global and act local — if we fail to address the way in which we communicate with each other, we simply will not succeed in overcoming the challenges the future presents to us.

Cities are allowing us to test new technologies, efficient transport and mobility solutions, sustainable construction and much more besides. Thus, it is imperative that the entire urban development planning process embodies a culture of dialogue and discards the dinosaur ‘top down’ communication methods such as debate. Only then will we give ourselves the best chance of finding solutions that previously were unthinkable.

What are the barriers?

Like in most parts of the world the planning process in Norway is such that the only obligation for developers and planning authorities to inform the public of a development is to first issue a public notice of the area earmarked for development with a statement for its intended use. This is before any significant design work has been carried out. Once this notice has been served there is no obligation for any intermediary processes before the design is submitted for a public hearing which is directly prior to submission for planning approval. By the time the process reaches a public hearing, many significant decisions about the development have been taken, for example transport and mobility solutions which the public’s or other stakeholders’ comments and opinions can significantly affect. It is always a delicate balance between how much you involve local project stakeholders and bottom up initiatives, but by simply ignoring them and effectively putting off the conflict to a later date, the likelihood of creating a backlash later on in the project is most probable. The outcome will be project delays, increased costs and a diluted design solution. In these situations everybody loses.

There can be many reasons why these intermediary communication processes are avoided in urban development. Often it is related to private and political agendas and the perception that the upfront financial investment in them gives no significant return later on in the project. Whilst there will always be conflicting agendas, the perception that involving bottom up processes will cost a project more is not necessarily true. There appears to be a lack of knowledge as to how, by combining social and technological solutions, these processes can be carried out efficiently, and dialogue has a definitive role to play.

Where are the opportunities?

There is an exciting urban development project in Oslo where the will to embrace and encourage bottom up initiatives to interface with top down urban development processes is very much in place. The district is Hovinbyen and is Oslo’s largest area for development with the potential for 27 000 new homes and 2.5 million m2 of business space. Its proximity to the centre will be an extension of the city of Oslo, whilst maintaining its independence as a self-serving city district.

In March 2015 at the close of the two day Hovinbyen conference, the director for the planning and building agency Ellen De Vibe summed up the conference with an inspiring list of 24 points under the headings Implementation Strategy, Temporary Activities, and Framework for Development. Among the points that she made included the following 5:

• Uncontrollable futures require incremental and flexible strategy
• We need bottom up initiatives from an energetic private and civil society.
• Small-scale interventions are powerful drivers
• Develop destinations, look beyond boundaries, use narratives and second life approaches, secure collective ownership
• Sowing together a patchwork of the city, rather than knitting individual pieces
• Create connectivity projects; build the bridge; focus on the most desired connecting lines

Dialogue based communication processes are an essential ingredient to the success of meeting the needs expressed in these salient and powerful points.

There are many projects and interests involved in this area, many visions, many stakeholders and an infinity of potentials. Harnessing and leading these visions is a massive challenge.

A point emphasised by Thomas Berman who is behind the initiative Pådriv, a project with a long-term ambition to transform an area within Oslo into a global example of how a future sustainable city might look; he explicitly expressed that one of the significant challenges posed is to collaborate between different disciplines, sectors and interest groups that most likely have not collaborated together before.6 The design and engagement of communication processes that are based on the principles of dialogue from a physical, social and technological perspective will be a crucial factor to the success of the forming of sustainable city districts and ultimately cities themselves.

Returning to Elen De Vibe’s first point; ’Uncontrollable futures require an incremental and flexible strategy,’ underlining the need for flexibility. But if we continue to use a form of communication that is embedded in rigidity, how can we expect to change what we ultimately create?

How do we change our culture of communication in urban development processes?

The change is already underway: User involvement groups, service design and architecture combining with social science are just some examples of positive trends that we are seeing in urban design. Bottom up initiatives in urban development are breaking the mould of more traditional processes and challenging the established control systems that have long been in place. One such example is the Baugruppen movement in Berlin where citizens are rejecting rent increases and then forming cooperative organisations, thus becoming the project owners of their own collective developments. Increased social cohesion is one of many positive ripple effects of the bottom up approach.7.

Berliners are creating their own opportunities to ‘build’ the city they themselves want to see, but this is also a credit to local authorities, who are encouraging citizen involvement and acknowledge it as a relevant voice to the public dialogue over how the city should be developed.5.

With more and more people becoming involved in pioneering bottom up projects and taking on the system machinery of the top down processes, the potential for conflict and never-ending disagreement is on the increase. Perhaps the route towards dialogue is being forced upon us rather than it being a free choice? In any event we have not only to change the conversation, we have to change the nature of the conversation and that has to be done consciously, willingly and emphatically. We need a common language for collaborative knowledge and a mode of communicating it. Dialogue holds the key to this by giving us the opportunity as parts of the system to speak in terms of and with the whole of the system.

The inclusion of people that have the knowledge, skills and confidence about dialogue processes in urban development teams is going to become an even more essential role than it arguably already is.

It’s all about risks and relationships.

When we explore through dialogue we naturally gain more information about ourselves, our situations, and the world around us than we would have through debate. More information leads to more knowledge, and more knowledge gives us a greater awareness of project risks whilst at the same time we are building robust teams of people. Dialogue brings people together because it communicates from a foundation of shared values, the most important one of which is the shared pursuit of ‘Truth’. When we use this as our lodestar it frees us up to bring our experience to the table and to communicate in a way that benefits everybody involved. This gives us a better quality of knowledge because it has been explored more fully, beyond the mere fragments of concepts or mechanistic processes and bringing in the whole picture to the greatest extent that is understandable.

Though we may never be able to grasp the ‘Truth’ (whatever that is) in its entirety, we can at least acknowledge the limitations of our individual perceptions and interpretations of this truth, and allow a greater understanding to emerge from the melding of our collective and creative intelligence. This is the gift of dialogue: acknowledging our limitations so that they can help us break through the limits that we currently have to live and work under the influence of, ultimately, producing better quality and more attractive projects that people want to see and be part of as part of their reality.

Note: This article is taken from the forthcoming publication “How Cities are Made?” Edited and published by Tvergastein — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Environment. https://tvergasteinjournal.wordpress.com

References

1. Webpage: Photograph https://www.flickr.com/photos/fiordifelce/22511501239/
2. Webpage: Massive Small. 2015. “Massive Small Declaration.” Massive Small. Accessed January 5, 2016. http://www.massivesmall.com/declaration/
3. Webpage: Wikipedia. 2015. “Definition of dialogue.” Wikipedia. Accessed January 5, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue
4. Webpage: Wikipedia. 2015. “Definition of debate.” Wikipedia. Accessed January 5, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
5. Conference: Hovinbyen: International Conference Reclaiming the Inner City 19–20 March 2015. Closing speech by Ellen de Vibe, Director of the Agency for Planning and Building Serices.
6. Webpage: Video “Hvorfor være med i Pådriv.”Thomas Berman http://paadriv.no
7. Webpage: Engler, Dieter H. 2015. “Berlin: transforming the city around behavioural changes.” La Fabrique de la Cité. Accessed January 5, 2016. http://www.thecityfactory.com/fabrique-de-la-cite/site/en/focus/pages/berlin_transforming_the_city_around_the_ways_it_is_used.htm

Bios

Chris McCormick runs the interpersonal communication consultancy Splint in Oslo. In addition he is part of the joint collaboration Urbanformat, that seeks to realise the vision of key project stakeholders through urban knowledge, business insight and dialogue. He is a remote collaborator for Massive Small.

Oli Anderson is the author of ‘Personal Revolutions: A Short Course in Realness’ and also a coach and mental health worker. He runs the ‘Yorkshire Dialogue Circle’ in Leeds, England and discusses his thoughts on the philosophy of dialogue as a force for social change at dialogueschool.org. He is also a remote collaborator for Massive Small.