Tactical urbanism: Towards an evolutionary cities’ approach?

Tactical urbanism initiatives have been interpreted as an alternative and a challenge to formal spatial planning tools to the need for a more responsive planning system. Short-term implementation, scarce resources and citizens’ involvement are said to be the key characteristics of this emerging movement in urbanism. In tactical urbanism, everything seems focussed on one thing: action. This paper analyses tactical urbanism initiatives in the United States considering three main aspects: the process, its interaction with planning institutions and the respective urban design outcomes. For this, the relation between tactical urbanism and complexity theory (in which self-organisation and evolution play an important role) is addressed. Findings suggest some contributions that tactical urbanism can make to urban design and spatial planning, in evolutionary terms and possible role for tactical urbanism in alternative to traditional division between plan making and plan implementation.

[1]  T. Taşan-Kok.  Changing Interpretations of ‘Flexibility’ in the Planning Literature: From Opportunism to Creativity? , 2008 .

[2]  Max Jacobson,et al.  A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction , 1981 .

[3]  Donovan Finn,et al.  DIY urbanism: implications for cities , 2014 .

[4]  E. Talen.  Do-it-Yourself Urbanism , 2015 .

[5]  Brian S. McIntosh,et al.  The origin, diagnostic attributes and practical application of co-evolutionary theory , 2005 .

[6]  Francis Heylighen,et al.  The Science of Self-Organization and Adaptivity , 1999 .

[7]  Brooke D. Wortham-Galvin.  An Anthropology of Urbanism: How People Make Places (and What Designers and Planners Might Learn from It) , 2013 .

[8]  Jeremy Nemeth,et al.  Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land , 2014 .

[9]  P. Allmendinger,et al.  Spatial Dimensions and Institutional Uncertainties of Planning and the ‘New Regionalism’ , 2000 .

[10]  D. Campo.  Iconic eyesores: exploring do-it-yourself preservation and civic improvement at abandoned train stations in Buffalo and Detroit , 2014 .

[11]  D. Spataro.  Against a de-politicized DIY urbanism: Food Not Bombs and the struggle over public space , 2016 .

[12]  T. Taşan-Kok,et al.  Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands , 2010 .

[13]  J. Innes,et al.  Civic networks for sustainable regions – Innovative practices and emergent theory , 2013 .

[14]  Juval Portugali,et al.  Planning rules for a self-planned city , 2007 .

[15]  Michelle Birdsall.  Knowing How Far your Feet Can Take You: “Walk [Your City]” Paves the Way for Pedestrians , 2015 .

[16]  E. Ostrom.  Understanding Institutional Diversity , 2005 .

[17]  M. Richards,et al.  A city is not a tree , 2017 .

[18]  Michael Batty,et al.  Cities and complexity - understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals , 2007 .

[19]  Thomas Sieverts.  Cities Without Cities: An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt , 2003 .

[20]  Randall G. Arendt,et al.  Charter of the New Urbanism , 1999 .

[21]  Michael Batty,et al.  The Origins of Complexity Theory in Cities and Planning , 2012 .

[22]  Andreas Faludi,et al.  The Performance of Spatial Planning , 2000 .

[23]  David Adler,et al.  New Metric Handbook: Planning and design data , 1997 .

[24]  Peter Calthorpe,et al.  The Regional City , 2001 .

[25]  Juval Portugali,et al.  Complexity theories of cities have come of age : an overview with implications to urban planning and design , 2012 .

[26]  ‘We work it out’: Roma settlements in Rome and the limits of do-it-yourself , 2014 .

[27]  D. Main,et al.  Large-scale tactical urbanism: the Denver bike share system , 2016 .

[28]  O. Mould.  Tactical Urbanism: The New Vernacular of the Creative City , 2014 .