If innovation is a social process that involves complex interactions among individuals….then fostering these complex interactions…brings so-called soft aspects of workplace design to the fore….We need to interact in them, not pose in them. (Thackara, 2005:99)
The structure of office space design can be used to support the structure of the company’s organisation by ordering interac- tions in space. In The organizational complex, Martin describes ar- chitecture "as a conduit for organizational patterns passing through the networks of communication that constitute the sys- tem's infrastructure” (2003:4). He sees the work of architecture as actively integrating “spaces and subjects into naturalized orgini-
organizations" (20003:4).
A hierarchical, tree- type organisational structure adapts easily to an office layout based on the tree.
An organisation structured in a more circu- lar way is supported by a circular spatial layout.
The modularity and flexibility of the ‘organisational complex’ was simultaneously cre- ated by, and imaged by, the steel-framed gridded office structures that housed them (Martin, 2003:5).
Moving one company into another company’s office will challenge the structure of the organisation – perhaps until either the space is adapted by the organisation or the organisation’s structure is adapted by the space. Boundaries and openings allow or en- courage interactions between some parts of a system and limit interactions between oth- ers. Module-creating boundaries in complex systems can function as “walls of constancy, through which no signal can pass, emerge which carve the system up into non-interesting modules” (Richardson, 2004b:80). It is not only the situating of boundaries that shape interactions. Different patterns of social behaviour operate in different spaces.
Simple size or density of population is not the key predictor of complexity. Increas- ing the density of agents within a space may lead to complexity, but in fact it is the den- sity of interactions that generates complexity. For example, how housing is densified, the accesses and group spaces changes the way people interact. Blake is scathing of the way
133
Figure 33 hierarchical organisation structure is Figure 33 hierarchical organisation structure is Figure 33 hierarchical organisation structure is Figure 33 hierarchical organisation structure is supported by hierarchical space
supported by hierarchical space supported by hierarchical space supported by hierarchical space Figure 32 decentralised organisation diagram is
Figure 32 decentralised organisation diagram is Figure 32 decentralised organisation diagram is Figure 32 decentralised organisation diagram is suited to a decentralised layout
suited to a decentralised layout suited to a decentralised layout suited to a decentralised layout
high-rise buildings destroy interaction via the lift (Blake, 1974:70). Not only does the lift neatly modularise people into tiny clusters, but the way people interact in a lift is very different from the way they interact on a street, with the strict ‘lift code’ of staring straight ahead at the doors rather different from a ‘street code’ of behaviour, where the glance or gaze is not disallowed.
Diversity of interactions or agents is another creator of complexity (Kauffman, 1995:69). Creating interactions across social boundaries is therefore a complexity design tool.
Figure 34 NetLogo model of density in Figure 34 NetLogo model of density in Figure 34 NetLogo model of density in Figure 34 NetLogo model of density in forest fires. Treedensity increases by forest fires. Treedensity increases by forest fires. Treedensity increases by forest fires. Treedensity increases by small amounts but emergent behaviour, small amounts but emergent behaviour, small amounts but emergent behaviour, small amounts but emergent behaviour, in this case fire, can be affected in this case fire, can be affected in this case fire, can be affected in this case fire, can be affected dramatically dramatically dramatically dramatically An example of a non An example of a non An example of a non
An example of a non----linear threshold linear threshold linear threshold linear threshold of density of density of density of density At 25 % tree At 25 % tree At 25 % tree At 25 % tree density, 0.6% density, 0.6% density, 0.6% density, 0.6% of trees are of trees are of trees are of trees are burnt burnt burnt burnt At 34% tree At 34% tree At 34% tree At 34% tree density, 0.9% density, 0.9% density, 0.9% density, 0.9% of the trees of the trees of the trees of the trees are burnt are burnt are burnt are burnt At 52% tree At 52% tree At 52% tree At 52% tree density, 2.5% density, 2.5% density, 2.5% density, 2.5% of trees are of trees are of trees are of trees are burnt burnt burnt burnt At 58% tree At 58% tree At 58% tree At 58% tree density, 30.5% density, 30.5% density, 30.5% density, 30.5% of trees are of trees are of trees are of trees are burnt burnt burnt burnt At 61% tree At 61% tree At 61% tree At 61% tree density, 80.1% density, 80.1% density, 80.1% density, 80.1% of trees are of trees are of trees are of trees are burnt
burntburnt burnt
135
Form without process
Changing form can alter the process. This can act either catalytically or the altera- tion can be one of a large number of interactions within the system. Formal design is thus capable of tipping the system into different attractor states.
Similarly, altering or designing the processes has potential to alter the form, in this way acting as a design agent.
Paying attention to form but ignoring, or misunderstanding, process has the po- tential to lead to alteration of the process of interaction. In extreme cases, this can lead to a collapse of the self-organising behaviour that keeps the system at a high level of order. And then, without this high level of order, the system is unable to maintain the form that was intended in the
design action.
In design for ecosystems, there is often little thought given to the aesthetic or formal proper- ties of the designs. The focus is entirely on arranging spaces so that sufficient interactions can occur and mini- mising fragmentation. The resulting functioning, flour- ishing ecosystem is the provider of our aesthetic delight
Ecosystems
as much as the formal qualities of the de- sign.
Ecological design works to improve or maintain an ecosystem. The ecosystem is under- stood to have been highly connected before settle- ment and fragmented by the settlement process (Linehan et al., 1995:180), and that the fragmenta- tion of habitat presents an extremely serious threat to biodiversity (Collinge, 1996:59). Settle- ment or development means changing the struc- ture from a matrix structure of ecological connec-
tions to one consisting of nodes, corridors and patches (Ahern, 1991). Broadly, goals for ecosystem design are to foster: density, diversity, interaction and connectivity, all eventu- ally leading to that fully functioning complex web of interactions, an ecosystem. In other words, the focus is on ensuring the networks interconnect as much as possible rather than on a consideration of form – and where form is considered, it is in terms of edge to volume ratios and their impact on interactions (Collinge, 1996) . The connection is as im- portant as the size or shape of the habitat and design focuses on assessing the wildlife and their habitats, followed by node analysis, connectivity analysis and network genera- tion (Linehan et al., 1995:181).
The design of space for ecologies has had to take complexity into account for a fairly long time. Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, first published in the 1970s is one of com- plexity theory’s early discipline-creating models.
137 forest rather than gorse scrub. In order to do this,
particular interactions are privileged, or cosseted (breeding programsmes for some species) while other interactions are harmful to the desired attractor state and reduced or eliminated (the interactions between possums and rata trees are minimised by killing pos- sums).
Once the desired networks have reached a critical density then the morpho-ecological qualities take over. A climax forest will perpetuate itself and possibly spread, take over outside its boundaries.
Predator proof barriers surround the Karori re- serve in order to interrupt the ecological network where introduced species feed on native flora and fauna, which have not evolved defences against the predators.
The network was altered by both fences and by the introduction of native species. As the ecological net- work within the reserve has grown stronger, this new, stronger network has started to expand outside the physical boundaries of the design, of the reserve. Ap- parently there are many more birds in central Welling- ton now, and this has been attributed to the reserve.
“..Stuart Nicholson continues to see kaka in Brooklyn at dawn and dusk, presumably birds that are
ranging out of the Karori Wildlife Sanctu-
ary” (Ornithological society of New Zealand Wellington Re- gional newsletter,2006).
This has potential to alter the wider landscape of Wellington as these birds fertilise the ground and spread seeds of the native trees that they feed on in the reserve. The network that was altered by the design of the re- serve will start altering the landscape beyond the physi- cal boundaries of the fence, changing the landscape in a way that will suit and support this altered network. A feedback loop is established – the landscape
Figure 35 Figure 35 Figure 35 Figure 35 p r e d a t o r p r e d a t o r p r e d a t o r p r e d a t o r proof fence proof fence proof fence proof fence at Karori at Karori at Karori at Karori
is altered to support a native-species network and the network then alters the landscape to further strengthen the network, which then further alters the physical world….
139
Figure 36 Morpho Figure 36 MorphoFigure 36 Morpho
Figure 36 Morpho----ecological ecological ecological ecological system
systemsystem system
First, the disconnected clus- First, the disconnected clus-First, the disconnected clus- First, the disconnected clus- ters are connected
ters are connectedters are connected ters are connected
A density and diversity of A density and diversity of A density and diversity of A density and diversity of interactions is allowed by the interactions is allowed by the interactions is allowed by the interactions is allowed by the form change that connects form change that connectsform change that connects form change that connects Interactions create a strong Interactions create a strong Interactions create a strong Interactions create a strong ecology, strong enough to ecology, strong enough to ecology, strong enough to ecology, strong enough to start manipulating the form in start manipulating the form in start manipulating the form in start manipulating the form in turn
turnturn turn
Cities
Cities and ecologies are metaphors for each other; both structured from multiple networks, both multiply interconnected. This similarity in structures means similarities in behaviours. The linking of food networks, predator interactions, parasitic, symbiotic and spatial connectivity work in both systems. Both display the counter-
intuitive effects of complexity theory, the folded phase spaces and phase transitions. Neither can be understood as form only; processes must be
traced to begin to know an ecology or a city.
As well as working to increase density of people, work to increase the density of interactions, and the richness of interactions. Instead of trying to ‘stream’ pedestrians so flow quickly and smoothly through the city, look for a little ‘roughness’ in the flow.
The idea of ‘noise’ in an information stream implies that interactions should not be overly random and meaningless.
On mess: “…a whole new aesthetic must be accepted, not so much by designers (who could easily be entranced by mess), but by the public and the various public institu- tions…The notion of control is fundamental to their demonstrable activity in the land- scape.” (Raxworthy, 2007a:108). The best efficiencies of complex systems seem to be found at the edge of chaos (Kauffman, 1995).
141 …complex systems must be understood from the bottom-up and that prior reduc-
tionist strategies simply fail to grasp the way such systems work. Process rather than product, function rather than for, time rather than space are all important… (Batty et al., 2006:71)
While this thesis demonstrates the useful- ness of using complexity theory as a basis for analysing and acting on urban conditions, there are undoubtedly also issues to be confronted in this approach. Most importantly, as a compara- tively new area of investigation, the debate on this subject is still being formulated. However, debate on the advantages of using Gaia theory as a basis for analysing the planet’s ecology has been well advanced in the last thirty years and for this reason I propose to equate a critique of
Gaia with a critique of the complex city and as part of this paralleling operation I will refer to the complex city as ‘civitas’.
Both Gaia theory and complexity theory have ‘strengths’ of application: there is a weak Gaia and a weak complexity, strong Gaia and strong complexity. In weak Gaia the environment influences an organism and an organism influences the environment, but saying this is saying little more than the obvious, and the conclusions that can be ex- tracted from applying weak Gaia to an investigation turn out to be not much more than common sense.
In strong Gaia theory, the emergent patterns of the planetary system not only ap- pear to be purposeful, but are regarded as purposeful. Discussing the purpose the planet, or the natural systems, as God-like is well outside the scope of environmental science and so does not form part of the intellectual debate.