**1. Introduction**

14 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

92 Urban Development

[2] A Faghri and E Egyháziová. Development of a computer simulation model of mixed motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on an urban road network. *Transportation Research*

[3] G Gould and A Karner. Modeling bicycle facility operation. *Transportation Research*

[4] PJ Gundaliya, TV Mathew, and SL Dhingra. Heterogeneous traffic flow modelling for an arterial using grid based approach. *Journal of Advanced Transportation*, 42:467–491, 2008. [5] B Jia, XG Li, R Jiang, and ZY Gao. Multi-value cellular automata model for mixed bicycle

[6] SI Khan and P Maini. Modeling heterogeneous traffic flow. *Transportation Research*

[7] XG Li, ZY Gao, B Jia, and XM Zhao. Modeling the interaction between motorized vehicle and bicycle by using cellular automata model. *International Journal of Modern Physics C*,

[8] C Mallikarjuna and KR Rao. Cellular automata model for heterogeneous traffic. *Journal*

[9] K Nagel and M Schreckenberg. A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. *Journal*

[10] BF Si, JC Long, and ZY Gao. Optimization model and algorithm for mixed traffic of urban road network with flow interference. *Science in China Series E*, 51:2223–2232, 2008. [11] TQ Tang, HJ Huang, and HY Shang. A dynamic model for the heterogeneous traffic flow consisting of car, bicycle and pedestrian. *International Journal of Modern Physics C*,

[12] J Vasic and HJ Ruskin. Cellular automata simulation of traffic including cars and

[13] DF Xie, ZY Gao, XM Zhao, and KP Li. Characteristics of mixed traffic flow with non-motorized vehicles and motorized vehicles at an unsignalized intersection. *Physica*

[14] Z Xue, GY Ming, and YX Kuan. A model of potential capacity of right turn movement at signalized intersections under mixed traffic conditions. In *Proceedings of the 3rd Urban*

*Record*, 1674:86–93, 1999.

*Record*, 2140:157–164, 2009.

*Record*, 1678:234–241, 1999.

*de Physique I*, 2:2221–2229, 1992.

20:209–222, 2009.

21:159–176, 2010.

*A*, 388:2041–2050, 2009.

flow. *European Physical Journal B*, 56:247–252, 2007.

*of Advanced Transportation*, 43:321–345, 2009.

bicycles. *Physica A*, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2011.12.018

*Street Symposium, June 24-27, 2007, Seattle, WA*, 2007.

Neither the City nor Planning are what they used to be. Both, in the last decades, faced heavy changes that profoundly destabilized the way the discipline of planning conceived itself and its object, the city.

In the last few decades, mainly under the pressure of urban sprawl, economic globalization, increasing social and ethnic differentiation, the city lost some of the most basic elements that defined it since antiquity: density, centrality, demarcation between urban and rural and functional and economic complementarity between its neighbourhoods. As frequently presented in the work of scholars on urban fragmentation, today's city is a loose agglomerate of quasi-autonomous socio-spatial entities, each evolving "independently" of the others, relying on its own resources and on exchanges within networks involving territories and actors on supra-city levels, like the regional or the global levels1.

This new "urban condition" was and still is perceived in the intellectual and the political spheres with very different appreciations. For some, in the name of the "right to difference" and "cultural resistance" in the face of homogenization, urban fragmentation is a welcomed situation where new forms of social and political "liberations" could take place (Soja & Hooper, 1993; Ley & Mills, 1993). For others, it is a spectre that haunts the future of urban societies, leading to social reclusion or to balkanization; and in any case to the disruption of what is perceived as the basis of the social and political urban life (Donzelot, 1999; Van Kempen, 1994; Harvey, 1996).

By profoundly marking the realities and the perceptions of the city in its present and future, urban fragmentation is raising a major challenge to urban planning. However, urban

<sup>1</sup> In fact, what is usually considered to be a scientific corpus on urban fragmentation is a quite vast and heterogeneous compilation of studies and essays in various disciplines, and we can find in it different – sometimes contradictory – definitions of urban fragmentation. We choose here to consider a more general definition that presents the essential characteristics of urban fragmentation and demarcates it from other concepts of socio-spatial differentiation like segregation, marginalization and relegation. We do not consider that the modeling this definition offers of the urban reality fits all urban agglomerations; we also believe that different types of socio-spatial dynamics may well be at work simultaneously. However, the dynamics that the archetype of urban fragmentation highlights are definitely the most challenging to urban governance and urban policies and pose the most serious questions for the planning discipline.

Bricolage Planning: Understanding Planning in a Fragmented City 95

positions. The overarching systemic perspective of traditional land-use planning and the political charge of participatory and advocacy planning that gave the planner a central role in urban development did not fit this era of "privatization planning". Planners become more or less apolitical mercenaries who use their knowledge to perform three tasks: providing technical documents and expertise in land-use planning, using their negotiation know-how in order to persuade stakeholders of the set project and agenda, and monitoring and

This depoliticization of the planning practice, however, does not mean the depoliticization of the stakes of the issues the planning agendas are dealing with. Urban planning is more than ever a political question. In the context of urban fragmentation more entities are developing autonomously from their surroundings or even the rest of the city, consequently complexifying issues of access to resources and land control, rendering them more conflictual. Decentralization and market power have attracted more stakeholders in the planning arena with very different and conflicting interests and agendas. This has heavily weakened the legitimacy of "functional" public urban planning. In fact, apolitical land-use planning technicism, dominant in the planning practice, cannot deal with this governance

The answers and alternatives proposed by the "post-structural" theories of planning revolve on the central question of dealing with this politicization of planning. However, despite their refreshing and invigorating aspect and their occasional appropriation by some urban practitioners and decision makers, as said earlier, they failed to evolve into effective and durable practices. Boelens (2010, p. 30) offers however for that a somehow different explanation than Dear: *"I assume that this might have something to do with the fact that time and time again these alternatives were still formulated within the existing planning framework, from a specific governmental, or at least government-related, view on planning: from the inside-out."*

In fact, in his "actor-relational approach" (ARA) to planning and by building on works on "associative democracy" (AD) (Cohen & Rogers, 1992; Hirst, 1994; Pierre, 2000 cited in Boelens, 2010), Boelens (2010) urges a somehow radical break from the government-led planning. He defends the rise of an "entrepreneurial style of planning" led by a "planning regime" based in civic society and private actors. In this regime the public actor is a partner but not a leader. The problem here with the public sector "*is the rigidity that surrounds the way it seeks to manage plural interests and the subject role this assigns to the private sector*"

Clearly, planning today is a field in reconstruction where new ways of thinking and making the city are experienced. This proposition of Boelens is one among several in planning studies that focus on the need for the development of a localized network of actors that would work together in order to develop "bottom-up" or "outside-inwards" planning agendas and territories. These propositions see themselves as ways to deal with the increasing fragmentation of space and society and the development of multi-scale actors in today's network society. New tools are put forward, and more importantly, effort is made to charter new ways for gathering resources and organizing actors to act together in a

However, in today's cities, urban development does not necessarily follow urban planning. Urban development initiatives are booming everywhere: various local authorities, private

evaluating the performance of a project (Dear, 2000).

complexity.

(Webb, 2010, p. 3).

synchronized way on the urban realm.

planning itself as a discipline, theory and practice has known, for the same period, important changes. In fact, the decades since the late sixties has known a proliferation of competing planning theories. These theories reflect different philosophical, political and practical positions on deep cultural, political and economical changes.

In "deconstructing urban planning" Dear (2000) offers an interesting panorama of the urban planning discipline after World War II, in the United States, Canada and Britain. Boelens (2010) focuses on the Netherlands, however we believe that his conclusions that intersect with those of Dear touch the reality of the situation of the urban planning discipline in a wider scope. In both presentations we see a clear move from the technocratic urban planning of postwar reconstruction to the boom of planning theories in the 1970-1990 decades, to the "pastiche" urban planning and the profound crisis in the planning discipline today.

Urban planning witnessed the rise of what is called 'new scientism', a systemic urban planning approach with its technocratic drift towards modelling and rationalization of decision-making. At the same time in the 70s, the rising politicization and demand for larger popular participation in decision-making in politics spilled over in planning leading to different forms of what Dear calls 'Choice theory' approaches: citizen participation and mutual learning in the transactive-creative approach, advocacy planning approach, neomarxist radical critique theory of planning and communicative planning approach.

Boelens (2010) uses the term "post-structuralist" theories of urban planning to describe this category of theories and includes in it other more recent works. These theories are clearly affected by the evolutions in social and philosophical studies : building on Habermas's theories on communicative action we have "the interactive and collaborative planning" (Healey, 1997; Innes, 1995), on Foucault's theories "the discursive approach to planning, politics and design in the public realm" (Hajer, 1995, 2001), on Lefebvre's work "the heterogeneous conception of space and time" (Amin & Thrift, 2002; Massey, 1999; Thrift, 1996), on Lacan, Deleuze and Guattari "the multiplanar approach to planning" (Gunder & Hillier, 2009; Hillier, 2007), but also "the actor-centred institutionalism" (Scharpf, 1997) and "network urbanism and planning" (Dupuy, 1991).

However, these different theories and approaches to planning had the difficulty to assert themselves and conquer the planning practice. *"By the late 1980s, planning theory had become a conflictual Babel of separate languages, almost all of which were voluntarily ignored by practitioners. For its part, planning practice had devolved into a ritualized choreography of routines"* (Dear, 2000, p. 124). By the 1990s, this fragmentation of the discourse on urban planning theory led in practice to the development of "pastiche planning". We can see a clear move in this decade into an eclecticism in the planning practice where urban planners tend to take "a bit of this, and a bit of that" to formulate and manage their projects.

For Dear (2000) this stresses the deep crisis in planning faced with radical changes in the traditional environment of the planning discipline. In fact, as of the late 1980s, planning became increasingly privatized: *"the growth of planning personnel in private sector positions, the packaging and marketing of planning for sale, and the prominent trend in planning education toward a development-oriented curriculum"* (Dear, 2000, p. 125). The 1980s recession and the political change with the neo-liberal policies as of the 80s, with the Thatcher and Reagan administrations and their attack on the ideologies of planning, contributed also largely to this crisis of this discipline. These changes sent planners increasingly to subordinate

planning itself as a discipline, theory and practice has known, for the same period, important changes. In fact, the decades since the late sixties has known a proliferation of competing planning theories. These theories reflect different philosophical, political and

In "deconstructing urban planning" Dear (2000) offers an interesting panorama of the urban planning discipline after World War II, in the United States, Canada and Britain. Boelens (2010) focuses on the Netherlands, however we believe that his conclusions that intersect with those of Dear touch the reality of the situation of the urban planning discipline in a wider scope. In both presentations we see a clear move from the technocratic urban planning of postwar reconstruction to the boom of planning theories in the 1970-1990 decades, to the

Urban planning witnessed the rise of what is called 'new scientism', a systemic urban planning approach with its technocratic drift towards modelling and rationalization of decision-making. At the same time in the 70s, the rising politicization and demand for larger popular participation in decision-making in politics spilled over in planning leading to different forms of what Dear calls 'Choice theory' approaches: citizen participation and mutual learning in the transactive-creative approach, advocacy planning approach, neo-

Boelens (2010) uses the term "post-structuralist" theories of urban planning to describe this category of theories and includes in it other more recent works. These theories are clearly affected by the evolutions in social and philosophical studies : building on Habermas's theories on communicative action we have "the interactive and collaborative planning" (Healey, 1997; Innes, 1995), on Foucault's theories "the discursive approach to planning, politics and design in the public realm" (Hajer, 1995, 2001), on Lefebvre's work "the heterogeneous conception of space and time" (Amin & Thrift, 2002; Massey, 1999; Thrift, 1996), on Lacan, Deleuze and Guattari "the multiplanar approach to planning" (Gunder & Hillier, 2009; Hillier, 2007), but also "the actor-centred institutionalism" (Scharpf, 1997) and

However, these different theories and approaches to planning had the difficulty to assert themselves and conquer the planning practice. *"By the late 1980s, planning theory had become a conflictual Babel of separate languages, almost all of which were voluntarily ignored by practitioners. For its part, planning practice had devolved into a ritualized choreography of routines"* (Dear, 2000, p. 124). By the 1990s, this fragmentation of the discourse on urban planning theory led in practice to the development of "pastiche planning". We can see a clear move in this decade into an eclecticism in the planning practice where urban planners tend to take "a bit of this,

For Dear (2000) this stresses the deep crisis in planning faced with radical changes in the traditional environment of the planning discipline. In fact, as of the late 1980s, planning became increasingly privatized: *"the growth of planning personnel in private sector positions, the packaging and marketing of planning for sale, and the prominent trend in planning education toward a development-oriented curriculum"* (Dear, 2000, p. 125). The 1980s recession and the political change with the neo-liberal policies as of the 80s, with the Thatcher and Reagan administrations and their attack on the ideologies of planning, contributed also largely to this crisis of this discipline. These changes sent planners increasingly to subordinate

"pastiche" urban planning and the profound crisis in the planning discipline today.

marxist radical critique theory of planning and communicative planning approach.

"network urbanism and planning" (Dupuy, 1991).

and a bit of that" to formulate and manage their projects.

practical positions on deep cultural, political and economical changes.

positions. The overarching systemic perspective of traditional land-use planning and the political charge of participatory and advocacy planning that gave the planner a central role in urban development did not fit this era of "privatization planning". Planners become more or less apolitical mercenaries who use their knowledge to perform three tasks: providing technical documents and expertise in land-use planning, using their negotiation know-how in order to persuade stakeholders of the set project and agenda, and monitoring and evaluating the performance of a project (Dear, 2000).

This depoliticization of the planning practice, however, does not mean the depoliticization of the stakes of the issues the planning agendas are dealing with. Urban planning is more than ever a political question. In the context of urban fragmentation more entities are developing autonomously from their surroundings or even the rest of the city, consequently complexifying issues of access to resources and land control, rendering them more conflictual. Decentralization and market power have attracted more stakeholders in the planning arena with very different and conflicting interests and agendas. This has heavily weakened the legitimacy of "functional" public urban planning. In fact, apolitical land-use planning technicism, dominant in the planning practice, cannot deal with this governance complexity.

The answers and alternatives proposed by the "post-structural" theories of planning revolve on the central question of dealing with this politicization of planning. However, despite their refreshing and invigorating aspect and their occasional appropriation by some urban practitioners and decision makers, as said earlier, they failed to evolve into effective and durable practices. Boelens (2010, p. 30) offers however for that a somehow different explanation than Dear: *"I assume that this might have something to do with the fact that time and time again these alternatives were still formulated within the existing planning framework, from a specific governmental, or at least government-related, view on planning: from the inside-out."*

In fact, in his "actor-relational approach" (ARA) to planning and by building on works on "associative democracy" (AD) (Cohen & Rogers, 1992; Hirst, 1994; Pierre, 2000 cited in Boelens, 2010), Boelens (2010) urges a somehow radical break from the government-led planning. He defends the rise of an "entrepreneurial style of planning" led by a "planning regime" based in civic society and private actors. In this regime the public actor is a partner but not a leader. The problem here with the public sector "*is the rigidity that surrounds the way it seeks to manage plural interests and the subject role this assigns to the private sector*" (Webb, 2010, p. 3).

Clearly, planning today is a field in reconstruction where new ways of thinking and making the city are experienced. This proposition of Boelens is one among several in planning studies that focus on the need for the development of a localized network of actors that would work together in order to develop "bottom-up" or "outside-inwards" planning agendas and territories. These propositions see themselves as ways to deal with the increasing fragmentation of space and society and the development of multi-scale actors in today's network society. New tools are put forward, and more importantly, effort is made to charter new ways for gathering resources and organizing actors to act together in a synchronized way on the urban realm.

However, in today's cities, urban development does not necessarily follow urban planning. Urban development initiatives are booming everywhere: various local authorities, private

Bricolage Planning: Understanding Planning in a Fragmented City 97

investigate the ways research networks develop in the fields of science. One of the main ideas of ANT is the consideration of objects (material or ideas) as actors – or actants as they call them – in these networks. Beyond social actors' power game logics, ANT draws the attention to the central role that these objects play in the construction and evolution of these

In an article titled "elements for a sociology of translation", Callon (1986) introduces one of the most interesting applications of ANT. The articles uses the metaphor of "translation" and "betrayal" to explain how an innovative idea gets to be systematized after getting different kind of actors and actants to work together for its success. The translation is a four stages process. First there is the problematization the lead actor makes of a certain phenomenon transforming it into an issue that needs to be dealt with by an intervention. This problematization may well get other actors and actants interested and thinking how this may concern them, Callon speaks of interessment. This interessment is the stage where the lead actor will target these actors and actants to get them to participate in the proposed intervention. If this happens and these actors bring in their resources to be part of the intervention. Callon speaks of translation if this is the case, if not he speaks of betrayal and dissolution of the actor-network. A fourth stage is that of mobilization that questions the possible generalization of the intervention to similar phenomena. In this stage the lead actor

The basic analytic position that made such a method relevant is what Callons (1986) calls "free association" indiscriminately between elements of Nature and elements of Society. This means that objects and actors are equal members in any network building. They equally can hold the network project by "translating" the project options, or equally can make it fail. They're not only instruments in the hands of the different actors, they have their own logic and modus operandi. For actors to enrol them they must "interest" them, even

Here, actor has a somehow different definition than its common understanding. *"Actors are entities, human or otherwise, that happen to act. They are not given, but they emerge in relations"*  (Law, 2004, p 102). An actor does not exist outside of an actor-network, he's an actor because he manages to define or alter relations between other actors or actants with whom he gets to form a network. He does so by using intermediaries. *"The intermediary does not serve to merely describe a set of relations, it also manages to order the actions of others. […] Through translation the* 

Networks too hold a different meaning. "*For actor-network theory, networks are not stable systems of links and nodes (like a telephone system); instead they are metaphors for associations and connections between entities which may be heterogeneous in character. Furthermore, they do not have scale in the traditional sense, but are simply longer or more intensely connected (Latour, 1997, p. 3)"*

Interestingly, urban planning and urban development are both, somehow, processes bringing together different actors (politicians, planners, technicians, economic, associative) and objects (spaces, construction materials and tools, but also a large set of legal, administrative, managerial, conceptual, scientific, literary and negotiation tools) and connecting them in different ways. In the last ten to fifteen years we see a rising interest among urban planning and urban studies scholars in ANT and other STS concepts. In the

*identity of actors is defined and negotiated and interaction is managed"* (Tait, 2002, p. 73).

becomes the spokesman of a certain complex reality to the outer-world.

adapt them by extending their capacities to fulfil new tasks.

networks.

(Tait, 2002, p. 73).

developers even civil society actors are leading their own urban development initiatives. These developments, of different scales and kinds, are in their great majority non-state initiatives and do not necessarily fit in a metropolitan urban strategic plan.

This situation poses different central questions to planning theory and to the future of planning. Is planning even necessary in this new context? Can urban development lead to urban planning? What does that mean for planning theory and practice?

We believe that in the age of the fragmented city, planning still has an important role. In fact, as Thévenot (1995) puts it, next to being a "prolongation of intentionality", a plan is also a communicative space around the semantics of action. And in today's city shaped of an agglomerate of places under the pressure of unstable global market dynamics and egocentric NIMBY local logics, planning could bring a necessary political dimension. We believe also that planning could be constructed from the bottom-up not necessarily by articulating development initiatives but by building on them.

This chapter aims at investigating these questions by relying on Sociology of Science and Science Studies' concepts and tools and case studies on Beirut suburbs' municipal networks. From these case studies we can see that in a fragmented city and on a local level, urban development initiatives are not necessarily a chaotic juxtaposition of autonomous projects. Local networks including different kinds of actors may well be in action. These local networks represent laboratories experimenting governance arrangements, urban planning tools and territory building strategies, without necessary calling them so. Some of these networks may join at a time or another to face more challenging supra-local issues. They do so by relying on their experience to attempt to engage in a more formal planning at a supralocal level. In this optic, planning and territories seem "condensations" of networks and development initiatives. Finally, the study of these experimentations in the light of the actornetwork theory (ANT) may help understand what we call here a "bricolage" approach to planning.
