**2.2 "Bricolage planning"**

100 Urban Development

The main critiques of Boelens to the adoption of ANT as a framework for the analysis of urban planning could be summarized in three points. First, the absence of a normative dimension in ANT while planning is much a discipline where intention has a central place. Second, the secondary role of objects compared to human-actors in planning where objects are always intermediary and rarely actors, which makes a strong focus on objects not always productive. Third, the agnostic – if not cynical position (Webb, 2010) – of ANT towards

Boelens' critiques have received interesting responses from other authors (Rydin, 2010; Webb, 2010). We rally those responses and believe that ANT has much more potential than that assigned to it by Boelens. For instance, as Rydin (2010) argues, the objects we should focus on in applying ANT framework to planning are less the objects of the planning procedures than the objects that make part of sociotechnical systems that planning is trying to affect. In this case we might well find objects "authoring" networks by problematizing a social situation and getting some human groups to take positions and change their relations with other actors and objects. ANT has also a particular relevance in the study of informality and manoeuvring spaces (Tait, 2002). By mapping the actor-networks we can identify the nodes where some actors could hold a position giving them the opportunity to widen the possibilities by enrolling actors and resources in other networks or by forming their own networks. As for Boelens argument about the lack of normative dimension in ANT, we believe effectively that ANT puzzles: it cannot be classified neither as a normative theory nor as a critical theory – the standard two categories of planning theory. However this makes much the point of ANT: "*Planning activity involves a range of actors and actants interacting, engaging with each other (a rather neutral term), enrolling each other (a less neutral term) and producing outcomes which are a mix of the desired and un-desired, the intended and the unintended consequence. Thus ANT itself challenges the simple distinction critical and normative* 

Another recurrent question that poses much of a challenge to the sociology of translation in ANT is its difficulty in analysing stability. In fact, the sociology of translation was developed to understand innovation and the formation of innovation networks. Callon's (1986) identifies a fourth and last step in a translation, the "mobilization of the allies", to get the maximum support to the translation and wider its scope, but Callon does not say anything of the aftermath of the translation, how will this actor-network stabilize itself on the long run. It might be more or less easy to get actors to work together to achieve a certain translation at a certain moment but it is more difficult to maintain this cooperation. Time will bring other problematizations – to use Callon's terminology – causing other actor-

This distinction between the short-term and long-term is central to our argument. For an urban development to go through, a certain agency between different objects and actors must be stabilized as an outcome of one actor translating others for a certain project very limited in space and time. The will of this "author", as long as he manages to mobilize the necessary resources for his urban development, is the only thing that counts. In the light of ANT, city-level urban planning seems more complex and difficult to achieve than urban developments. In fact, it faces two important challenges. On one hand, urban planning tradition has always been linked to a certain conception of public interest. The authorities in charge of planning, in lot of cities, are still conceiving their role in that perspective.

networks to emerge and probably hinder the stability of this actor-network.

central values like democracy and sustainability.

*planning theory*" (Rydin, 2010).

Laboratories had been an important field of study in the Sociology of Science and in Science and Technology Studies since the seventies. A large number of authors contributed to their study. There is no single model of what is a laboratory and how it functions. However, since we're in the ANT perspective, we propose here to adapt this broad definition of a laboratory that is relevant to our argument: laboratory "*is a typical form of organization of the 'society of knowledge'. Its capacity to act on the world of objects and its dynamism are related to its know-how and to its capacity to reconfigure the entities of the natural and social world*"6 (Vinck, 2007, pp.161).

Laboratories are "unstable environments" in different aspects. On one hand, Vinck (2007) stresses that in the case of the laboratory, organization is somehow different than in traditional bureaucracy or production environments. It is more fluid and open. Researchers of a laboratory come in and out of a laboratory, their contribution may be punctual and they're even not necessarily working in the same physical place. On the other, in a laboratory, researchers work with objects (physical or ideal) whose forms, statuses and boundaries are not stabilized and pose interesting questions to science. The way a laboratory operates is by reconfiguring resources: *"Laboratories fusion and reorient existing sociotechnical entities, disconnect and transform them to set them up in new phenomenological and relational universes"*7 (Vinck, 2007, pp. 162).

This experimental aspect of the laboratory is it's real strength, it makes it do things (innovations, discoveries) that cannot develop in other types of organizations. However, it is also its major Achillies' heel. This openness and instability can easily lead to the disruption of the laboratory. Good communication and mutual understanding is here central. It is common in laboratories to have people from different disciplinary backgrounds, with different methodologies and sometimes values. To get these researchers working together, there is a great deal of communication issues to be stabilized. That's why in laboratories protocols, classification methodologies, definitions and other conceptual objects are central for its functioning.

In this fragmented world where diversity and disruption render intelligibility more difficult, we believe that the laboratory model – where experimentation and accumulation are the

<sup>6</sup> Personal translation from French

<sup>7</sup> Personal translation from French

Bricolage Planning: Understanding Planning in a Fragmented City 103

needs a great effort of network building and resources' gathering. To do so these actors "problematize" situations, "experiment" with tools and try to "generalize" their experiments by systemizing them. Issues faced in urban settings maybe pretty much similar, each situation remains unique and poses important challenges to models of city planning and management. So the importance of local experimentation and learning

In a fragmented world, problematization helps setting a boundary that is necessary to apprehend any issue. In the structuralist conception a problem will be a malfunction in some aspect of the structure. It is usually resolved by the intervention of the proper responsible actor or administration. In a fragmented and networked world, problems are interrelated to each other; actors implicated in them too. In a Bricolage perspective – that does not claim a higher understanding of the world – problematization helps to understand what exactly to look for, and what and who is concerned. The what and who will define the

Experimentation is to make trials by testing an idea or a method on a restricted number of resources. The bricoleur takes chances only with a limited amount of his resources. In fact, as Levi-Strauss says, the bricoleur's universe of instruments is closed and its rate of renewal is not stable. In this experimentation, what is at stake is a restricted "reality": does this solution fit the problem at hand? Experimentation does not claim to offer answers of wider strategic nature. But at the same time the results of the experimentation, as in the laboratory, brings in questions on the place of this experimentation in the wider scheme of things.

This is when the generalization takes place. It poses the question of the reproducibility of the experimentation conclusions in variant situation, on one hand, and it leads to thinking how the new instrument that has been produced could serve for wider strategic tasks. It is at this stage, and in response to these challenges, that the question of stabilization of the experience to serve in different context, and that of strategic thinking, come to impose themselves. This is when the bricoleur becomes an engineer, when the "what" reclaims its place next to the

Experience here is the key word. It means the knowledge of the existing resources, and a know-how in articulating them. We consider that experience represent a central explanatory variable of the success of a bricolage planning process. This bricoleur's experience is crucial for having a certain control and capacity of action. There are different kinds of experiences. Some are held by different actors and could be mobilized by the actor-network at a certain moment to face a certain challenge, others are constructed through experimentation and generalization. The primary kind of experience is that of familiarity. A regime of familiarity is one where direct contact – even in the literal sense of the word – defines the relation between an actor and an object (Thévenot, 1995). This is usually a relation that results of daily interaction between actors and between actors and objects (tools, ideas and spaces). Local actors have this kind of knowledge concerning their locality, its places, issues and assets. Other actors may have a familiarity with special sectorial issue, this is the case of some NGOs or professionals. But usually the most interesting kind of experience for an actor-network is that constructed in the network through experimentation. This experience is not likely to be lost by the "betrayal" of a certain resourceful actor leaving the network.

bricoleur's "world of instruments", to use Levi-Strauss words.

"how", in brief, when planning emerges.

processes.

base of knowledge, protocols the base of meaning and flexible networking a mode of production – could well serve urban planning. It is in this light that we propose here a "bricolage planning".

Bricolage is a French word that usually designates a "do-it-yourself" activity. We rely here on the definition and conception Claude Levi-Stauss (1962, pp. 26-27) gives to this activity: *"there still exists among ourselves an activity which on the technical plane gives us quite an understanding of what a science, that we prefer to call 'prior' than 'primitive', could have been on the plane of speculation. This is what is commonly called 'bricolage' in French. […] The 'bricoleur' is apt to perform a large number of diverse tasks; but, unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with whatever is at hand, that is to say with a set of tools and material which is always finite and is also heterogeneous because what it contains bears no relation to the current project, or indeed to any particular project, but is the contingent result of all occasions that have been to renew or enrich the stock or to maintain it with the residues of anterior constructions and destructions* "8.

We borrowed the idea of 'bricolage planning' from Rowe & Koetter (1978) in their classic book "Collage city". In the face of the crisis of planning they defend an approach to urban planning that would not fall into scientism nor surrender in the face of dominant 'laisserfaire' ideology. We largely follow their line of thought and believe that a 'bricoleur' attitude to planning that gives up the belief in "true answers" and go for "what is at hand" could be a viable alternative. However, we distance ourselves from formalist – design-oriented – 'bricolage' they're defending, and defend a wider actor-network building 'bricolage' that try to hold together actors, spaces, development projects and planning tools.

In our discussion of the crisis of urban planning it was clear that this discipline hasn't managed to build a solid practical alternative to what has been the core of the discipline for decades, urban planning – presented as a "rational" exercise to build a "functional" city. The city that is no more what it was, and rationality is much questioned. The proposed alternatives in the literature are for collaborative participatory planning, advocacy planning or what Boelens (2010) calls an outside-inward approach to planning, giving the initiator role in creating a planning regime to civic society and private sector actors.

The three alternatives mentioned above have different philosophical and political backgrounds in defining what is seen as the best fitting way to articulate public authorities' will with those of other actors. The collaborative planning approach believes in the role of participation, the advocacy planning believes in the potential of the counter-project to inflect imposed top-down planning, while the actor-relational approach of Boelens (2010) defends an associative democracy of planning giving public authority a secondary role. However, all three approaches are rooted in the need to build a cohesive and comprehensive planning project – focus of the planning activity – before engaging in any action on the ground. It is mainly in that bricolage planning is different.

Bricolage planning based on ANT, at this point puts as ANT the "how" before the "what". Its main concern is to make actors able to act. In a fragmented world, the capacity to act is a complex exercise, since power and resources are diluted in different structures and places. It

<sup>8</sup> The translation from French is that of Rowe & Koetter (1978)

base of knowledge, protocols the base of meaning and flexible networking a mode of production – could well serve urban planning. It is in this light that we propose here a

Bricolage is a French word that usually designates a "do-it-yourself" activity. We rely here on the definition and conception Claude Levi-Stauss (1962, pp. 26-27) gives to this activity: *"there still exists among ourselves an activity which on the technical plane gives us quite an understanding of what a science, that we prefer to call 'prior' than 'primitive', could have been on the plane of speculation. This is what is commonly called 'bricolage' in French. […] The 'bricoleur' is apt to perform a large number of diverse tasks; but, unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with whatever is at hand, that is to say with a set of tools and material which is always finite and is also heterogeneous because what it contains bears no relation to the current project, or indeed to any particular project, but is the contingent result of all occasions that have been to renew or enrich the* 

We borrowed the idea of 'bricolage planning' from Rowe & Koetter (1978) in their classic book "Collage city". In the face of the crisis of planning they defend an approach to urban planning that would not fall into scientism nor surrender in the face of dominant 'laisserfaire' ideology. We largely follow their line of thought and believe that a 'bricoleur' attitude to planning that gives up the belief in "true answers" and go for "what is at hand" could be a viable alternative. However, we distance ourselves from formalist – design-oriented – 'bricolage' they're defending, and defend a wider actor-network building 'bricolage' that try

In our discussion of the crisis of urban planning it was clear that this discipline hasn't managed to build a solid practical alternative to what has been the core of the discipline for decades, urban planning – presented as a "rational" exercise to build a "functional" city. The city that is no more what it was, and rationality is much questioned. The proposed alternatives in the literature are for collaborative participatory planning, advocacy planning or what Boelens (2010) calls an outside-inward approach to planning, giving the initiator

The three alternatives mentioned above have different philosophical and political backgrounds in defining what is seen as the best fitting way to articulate public authorities' will with those of other actors. The collaborative planning approach believes in the role of participation, the advocacy planning believes in the potential of the counter-project to inflect imposed top-down planning, while the actor-relational approach of Boelens (2010) defends an associative democracy of planning giving public authority a secondary role. However, all three approaches are rooted in the need to build a cohesive and comprehensive planning project – focus of the planning activity – before engaging in any action on the ground. It is

Bricolage planning based on ANT, at this point puts as ANT the "how" before the "what". Its main concern is to make actors able to act. In a fragmented world, the capacity to act is a complex exercise, since power and resources are diluted in different structures and places. It

*stock or to maintain it with the residues of anterior constructions and destructions* "8.

to hold together actors, spaces, development projects and planning tools.

role in creating a planning regime to civic society and private sector actors.

mainly in that bricolage planning is different.

8 The translation from French is that of Rowe & Koetter (1978)

"bricolage planning".

needs a great effort of network building and resources' gathering. To do so these actors "problematize" situations, "experiment" with tools and try to "generalize" their experiments by systemizing them. Issues faced in urban settings maybe pretty much similar, each situation remains unique and poses important challenges to models of city planning and management. So the importance of local experimentation and learning processes.

In a fragmented world, problematization helps setting a boundary that is necessary to apprehend any issue. In the structuralist conception a problem will be a malfunction in some aspect of the structure. It is usually resolved by the intervention of the proper responsible actor or administration. In a fragmented and networked world, problems are interrelated to each other; actors implicated in them too. In a Bricolage perspective – that does not claim a higher understanding of the world – problematization helps to understand what exactly to look for, and what and who is concerned. The what and who will define the bricoleur's "world of instruments", to use Levi-Strauss words.

Experimentation is to make trials by testing an idea or a method on a restricted number of resources. The bricoleur takes chances only with a limited amount of his resources. In fact, as Levi-Strauss says, the bricoleur's universe of instruments is closed and its rate of renewal is not stable. In this experimentation, what is at stake is a restricted "reality": does this solution fit the problem at hand? Experimentation does not claim to offer answers of wider strategic nature. But at the same time the results of the experimentation, as in the laboratory, brings in questions on the place of this experimentation in the wider scheme of things.

This is when the generalization takes place. It poses the question of the reproducibility of the experimentation conclusions in variant situation, on one hand, and it leads to thinking how the new instrument that has been produced could serve for wider strategic tasks. It is at this stage, and in response to these challenges, that the question of stabilization of the experience to serve in different context, and that of strategic thinking, come to impose themselves. This is when the bricoleur becomes an engineer, when the "what" reclaims its place next to the "how", in brief, when planning emerges.

Experience here is the key word. It means the knowledge of the existing resources, and a know-how in articulating them. We consider that experience represent a central explanatory variable of the success of a bricolage planning process. This bricoleur's experience is crucial for having a certain control and capacity of action. There are different kinds of experiences. Some are held by different actors and could be mobilized by the actor-network at a certain moment to face a certain challenge, others are constructed through experimentation and generalization. The primary kind of experience is that of familiarity. A regime of familiarity is one where direct contact – even in the literal sense of the word – defines the relation between an actor and an object (Thévenot, 1995). This is usually a relation that results of daily interaction between actors and between actors and objects (tools, ideas and spaces). Local actors have this kind of knowledge concerning their locality, its places, issues and assets. Other actors may have a familiarity with special sectorial issue, this is the case of some NGOs or professionals. But usually the most interesting kind of experience for an actor-network is that constructed in the network through experimentation. This experience is not likely to be lost by the "betrayal" of a certain resourceful actor leaving the network.

Bricolage Planning: Understanding Planning in a Fragmented City 105

governmental agencies directly depending of the prime minister: the Council for Development and Reconstruction. The strategy was based on road infrastructures to boost mobility and link the different war territories. It also decreed a number of large urban development projects in the suburbs and the city-centre in order to bring in a new dynamic

Even though the government could count on a centralized state structure, the backing of a large business community and the general enthusiasm for reconstruction, the majority of the large urban development fell behind the expectations of their promoters and mobility did not prove to be synonym of openness. Physical barriers that cut Beirut into different sectors in the war were progressively pulled out. Still mobility across the across demarcation lines between communities' territories was kept limited. The communitarian distribution of the population in the post-war era was similar to that of the war. Communitarian political parties or traditional leaders were still very influent in different zones of the city and continued to act on "their" zones of influence through a wide variety of affiliated NGOs offering services to the population – services that came to be more precious with the

As of the mid-nineties the reconstruction project was in a bottleneck. The peace in the Middle East did not come. The continuing external and even internal confrontation jeopardized the chances of Beirut to emerge as a central business platform for the region. Most developments faced the political resistance of the dominant communitarian parties

The different communitarian political groups on the national level saw in the "return of the municipalities" a way to break out of this stalemate situation. Municipal elections were organized in 1998 after 35 years of break out. Municipalities were seen as a way to partially compensate the retreat of the central state from a lot of social issues that it had no longer the

**3.2 Municipal building in Beirut post-war suburbs: Sharing a similar history and** 

The agglomeration of Beirut is a large urban continuum covering 468 km2, stretching over 60 km along the Mediterranean coastline and reaching 25 km to the east (Faour et al., 2005). It includes around 121 municipalities. The area called the suburbs of Beirut comprises a number of municipalities in the peri-central areas of the agglomeration. This area is where fragmentation dynamics are the most developed. We can see near to each other, however in almost complete autarchy, informal settlements, high-end neighbourhoods, an airport, a large university campus, various large scale public buildings, a golf club, industrial zones, populous communitarian neighbourhoods, hotel resorts and large malls. It is somehow the

The localities of the suburbs share practically the same historical path. These suburbs are not the mere extension of the old city-centre of Beirut. They always had their own economical and political development that, though linked with the city-centre, was not dependent of it. Back in the early fifties of the last century, the suburbs were still made of dispersed middlesized to large localities organized by municipalities where the traditional family clans competed for the municipal council. Each village was separated from the other by large

of investment in the real-estate and service sector.

extensive economic neoliberal policies of the government.

finances nor the needed structures to deal with.

**facing the same challenges** 

and leaders in the regions where they were planned to be constructed.

perfect example of Dear's (2000) chessboard model of a fragmented city.

Bricolage planning is hence an actor-networks building and stabilizing operation. It relies on small direct operations, mainly urban development operations that could be more or less easily put together by mobilizing ad-hoc resources. At the same time it has long-term ambitions in dealing with an issue, a community or a territory. These ambitions are not necessarily clearly stated, and the way to reach them hardly obvious. This makes the analogy with the laboratory very interesting. The actors are there, but they may come and go in the network depending on projects' availability. It is from the accumulation of different experiences that a general scheme, a larger vision – a "theory" in the laboratory's world – could emerge and be defended as a strategic option guiding the actor-network activity. This is how different autonomous urban development initiatives could lead to an urban planning strategy, which in turn guides the orchestration of other urban development actions. As in a laboratory, it is communication that is at the core of the bricolage planning actor-network's activity and stability.

In this study, we use some Beirut suburbs' municipal actor-networks as case studies for developing our 'bricolage' planning approach. We believe that in these suburbs municipal actor-networks have worked for the last twelve years as bricoleur, using their universe of tools to put together number of urban development initiatives, while some of them are moving now to become "engineers" in planning larger scale territories. We'll try to analyse how agencies of local actors, spaces and projects in fragmented cities emerge as actornetworks, how they experiment different actions and put together and coordinate different development initiatives, how capitalization of experiences may lead them to developing larger urban planning strategies.
