Inclusive urbanism advances in research, education and practice

The term paradox, meaning a statement or context that is contradictory to an existing belief or opinion, is often used to provoke critical and innovative thinking. For example, in the late 1500s, Miguel Cervantes used this tool in his famous novel “The Ingenious Gentleman Sir Quixote of La Mancha” to illustrate with charm and humour an extraordinary world that is, in its essence, sad. The metatheatrical adventures of the main characters, the pitiable yet sweet Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, who are physically and verbally abused during their adventurous journey, challenges the reader to be amused and entertained by events that are in fact malicious and cruel. Similarly, the phenomenon of spontaneity may engender a comparable experience in the urban context. Spontaneity is a phenomenon that is simultaneously desired and rejected in planning practice. Already in the 1950s, Giedion (1954) recognized two different architectural schools, one in favour of and the other against the notion of spontaneity. The debate on this subject continued during the 1960s and 1970s with many theoreticians, such as Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, Kevin Lynch and Robert Venturi, arguing that the planning principles of modern architecture tend to disregard the cultural and social circumstances of neighbourhoods. In their opinion, such principles were rigid, monotonous and indifferent to the complexity of the urban environment. Over past decades, studies on informal settlements have also tackled the paradoxical subject of spontaneity to reveal different theoretical positions. On the one hand, viewing informal urban areas around the world as an open concept of material practices and forms, we can be amused and charmed by the openness, immediacy, colourfulness and vibrancy of their life. Yet, no matter how appealing these interpretations are, there remains a bitter feeling in regard to the development of these urban phenomena. Is it enough to simply make such areas safer, aesthetically attractive and infrastructurally functional? Or is it possible for these neighbourhoods to take part in the “formal” city milieu? Because the current meaning of the term informal settlements seems overly narrow1 and does not cover many of the phenomena present in the contemporary urban context, the term spontaneity appears even more legitimate and worthy of deeper study. Hence, spontaneity as a feature and characteristic recognizable in both “formal” and “informal” urban environments can be additionally regarded as a common value and overall framework for future sustainable urban development.

source :

https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/83409432/8_7_PB.pdf