Please visit my web page "Urban Tenets" at https://urbantenets.nl/
************************************************
A saying that goes something like - Every peasant measures the sea with the pond in their village - Anonymous
And we also remember the story of elephant, how it was
assessed differently, blindfolded.
That is, we have our own idea of scale or measurement unit
or performance measurement; at individual level, at institution level and at
fraternity level. And we see city as an object of analysis form these lenses.
How city is performing? Depends on the position which each
actor takes while posing such question. For instance, real estate developer may
see city from asset perspective, assessing city on a per square feet real
estate basis, while assigning each zone and neighbourhood a price tag. Urban
designers may visualise city as interplay of mass, in terms of built and open
spaces, and assigning weightage to each zone based on form and order. Landscape
architects, might visualise city as punctuation of green and open within built
environment, and assessing liveability of different neighbourhoods based on
percentage and access to green. Climate scientists may visualise city as a heat
map of energy usage intensity and might like to assess city on per capita
energy usage or carbon footprint. Social scientist might be judging city in
terms of Human Development Index/ per capita income/ happiness index etc.
Transport planners may like to assess city, in terms of road density and model
split, spatially assessing city based on ease of access to public transport.
Engineers may judge performance as per capita power and water availability etc.
And so on. List is long. Though mostly it remains a composite assessment based
on quantitative and qualitative parameters. But sure qualitative also still has
benchmark, scale.
City as a physical dynamic entity may mean different things to different actors, stakeholders and fraternity, but it practically cannot fit 100% in the aspiration and assessment matrix of each actor. There may be mismatch in their aspirations and assessment satisfaction, because of different assessment tools they use, assessment scale with which they are comfortable with, intuitively. So usually consensus in city making process is reached when parties arrive at a win-win situation after rounds of discussions and deliberations, also a trait of network governance.
As cities are expected to change, at the same time
measurement scales and industry wide fixation or affinity with particular
assessment indices also need to change/ evolve over time, in a synergistic
manner. We sometimes need to leave a particular stand or position to see things
from each others perspective, to appreciate "City" for instance, in
the grand scheme of things.
Author: Anoop Jha
[Recent update
Starting 2024, launching urban management, interior design, home decor and commissioned artwork services in the Netherlands, serving local as well as international remote clients.
Please Note, that I am also conducting a FREE 45-minute online individual consultation on your interior design and home decor needs and aspirations if you are in the Netherlands or even internationally. Drop me an email at anoop.jha@gmail.com
Please visit my web page "Urban Tenets" at https://urbantenets.nl/
Instagram interior design page @urbantenets
Instagram fine art and illustration page @urbanoregional
My LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anoopjha/
************************************************
#urbanplanning #urbandevelopment #urbanmanagement
#urbandesign #smartcity #Amsterdam #Utretch #Hague #Delft #Eindhoven #Rotterdam
#Netherlands
No comments:
Post a Comment