Varun Vashi,

Year 4, 38.
SUMMARY- Open Cities
Richard Senate

Open Cities is an essay by Richard Senate which is highlighting two different

dogmas towards an approach towards city planning. The first talks about a closed city, an
efficient and highly functioning system that has no major shortcomings when it comes to
infrastructural development; and the other talks about a city that is open; to possibilities,
organic growth, and gradual change that is flexible in nature. It is established in the beginning
itself, that a closed city is only a notion that exists as a colloquially perfect lifestyle, but an
open city is a more enjoyable way of living. There are comparisons with respect to detail of
each, that follow.
The article covers the aspects of a closed city design, which states that despite
having a plethora of technological tools and resources for higher creativity in terms of
designing cities, city planning is on a path of digression due to lack of it. The example of
‘Plan Voisin’ by Le Corbusier is stated, which destroyed any social function that a space can
possibly have, and obliterated the open factor which gave flexibility to a space, subjecting
human beings to an isolated lifestyle, with no ground floor or street interface. It states that
how the hyper zoning regulations and bureaucratic rules have separated out spaces purely
based on function, and destroyed innovation and growth due to its rigid ideology. The fixed
form and function mentality has also decreased the life span of such buildings, as they are not
adaptable towards changes in the future. These cities are decaying in terms of residents, and
people would rather shift rather than rework the spaces they are living in. Closed systems also
work towards equilibrium and integration of all aspects together, which put in simpler terms,
is leading to working little bit on everything, and leads to a product of low quality, at the
same time, integration of all the elements makes sure that nothing seems different and
whatever is out of context is suppressed. The essay exclaims the need to have a system which
is open socially to different voices that interact and are open to one another, rather than live
in isolation within oneself.
Open systems, on the other hand are more fluid when it comes to adapting towards
newer typologies, they are more forthcoming towards change, organic in terms of growth,
heterogeneous in nature and creating matters of chance, unpredictability and uncertainty. An
open system advocates for exchange among human beings and by creating chances, they
produce possibilities of different systems and values which set the precedent for their
lifestyle, and enrich them in terms of individual identity as well.
The example of Jane Jacobs’ philosophy is mentioned, where she states that open
systems are a juxtaposition of density and diversity, where dense and packed streets and
public squares lead to creating chance encounters and unexpected experiences, which tend to
stimulate people and further interactions among them. The essay lays down the difference,
that closed systems are the ideal principle for capitalists and industrialists; who crave
homogeneity, predictability, closure and balance in form, whereas radical planners prefer to
create discord. If a city is opened up, leading to adaptations and additions to existing
structures, it will increase the use of organic and un-neat public spaces that are drastically
different in terms of their nature, and adds more variety and depth in terms of spatial
characteristics.
Three different school of thoughts are presented when it comes to open city; one
talks about overcrowding in itself, the second talks about informally crowding people in a
way that there is spontaneous interaction, competition, growth and collusion, all stemming
from the physical density of people itself. However, the third and final thought by Richard
Senate himself, states that density of spatial form is what will ultimately stimulate interaction
among people, in shaping an open city, where the design matters more.
Three parameters for a well-designed open city are stated, which are termed as;
ambiguous edges between parts of a city, incomplete building forms and unresolved
narratives in terms of development.
Ambiguous edges states the presence of two edge typologies; boundary and border.
Border is an edge of clear distinction and difference, whereas a boundary is where interaction
between two different entities occurs. Boundaries are more prone to exchange and transfer of
entities, whereas borders demarcate a territory. Boundaries and borders are alluded to walls
and membranes in biological terms. Where walls guard the entity and prevent any sort of
interchange, a membrane is more open, porous yet resistant. A membrane keeps a certain
things, and allows for other elements to flow in and out. So a membrane maintains both
conservation and resistance. Boundaries in a city have functionally segregated spaces by
streams of traffic, and the new up and coming idea of a gated community has further
supported the idea of isolated and interaction less living among people. Senate, states his own
example of Spanish Harlem, where he exclaims that a community centre shan’t be literally
placed at the centre of an area, but rather on edges in order to further congregation of people
from different strata, so as to indulge them into some sort of activity or interaction with each
other.
Incomplete building forms are considered as entities purposely left unfinished, or
light in nature, so much so that they can be added to, or altered in the interior over the course
of time, with changes in needs, so that the space is future friendly. In order to achieve success
in making successful incomplete forms, there needs to be a very light and subtle interrelation
between form and function, due to the ever-changing nature of the latter. Modern
infrastructure tends to be extremely rigid due to complex service systems. It is only when
using the resources and technology available are we able to create adaptable structures that
we’ll create spaces that are living and evolving.
Unresolved narratives create ambiguity and complexity that is meant to transcend
any sort of clarity or linear understanding of a concept or space, it leads to productive
constructs in terms of social relations as well as the meaning of space, adding more depth to it
in terms of its purpose. A comparison is drawn between linear processes which lead straight
to the conclusion, and dialogic: which is more process driven.
So a Closed System is compared to a linear narrative, which is purely result oriented
and every minor detail and dimension is locked down, with no room for growth, addition,
subtraction or edition. This system may aim towards efficiency, but efficient spaces are not
always the most qualitative spaces.
Open Systems on the other hand, is open to possibilities, permutations and
combinations, problem solving and discovering new processes of development and creation
of in numerous consequences.
Ultimately, an open city is the type of system which belongs to the people, is what
makes those imperfections, non-efficient layouts more interesting, open to interpretation,
highly subjective space. A space which grows and embraces change, for the time that is to
come, a system that is friendly towards the future.