Table 1 – Proposed differences between conventional approaches and tinkering approaches
Conventional
Mode Tailor-made materials and tools – one function , generic solution
Tinkering approaches
Modified materials and tools , multiple functions , experimentation , playfulness , strongly anchored in local context , anticipation
Characteristics
Monolithic grey , costly to repurpose
Hybrid ( blue-green , grey ) potential to repurpose
Management |
Often single subcomponent |
Adaptive , multiple components |
Capital |
Mostly financial and manufactured |
More human and social |
Path dependence |
Strong |
Weaker |
Risk approach
Linear thinking , high predictability fail-safe
Non-linear , high uncertainty safe to fail
Governance More top-down Adaptive both top-down and bottom-up , more participatory
An urban tinkering approach has the potential to create infrastructure with an innate potential to change function in response to the changing environment around it . It promotes the idea of engaging in small-scale urban experiments that cumulatively have the potential to transform urban landscapes on a larger scale . The framework incorporates the assumption that the future is uncertain and volatile , and therefore different future scenarios are anticipated at the design stage , allowing for a proactive approach throughout the project ’ s life cycle .
Figure 1 . A comparison between a traditional linear approach and tinkering approaches
The core principles of urban tinkering can be summarised as :
• diversity of approaches manifested through continuous experimentation using multiple approaches to existing urban challenges
• shift in function manifested through repurposing the uses and functions of existing elements
• sense of place manifested through the participation of multiple local stakeholders in highly localised projects
• coordination – adaptive management , adaptive governance , anticipation manifested through the successful alignment of top-down and bottomup approaches to addressing urban challenges
• extended time horizon manifested through the success of the cumulative impact of multiple smaller-scale projects
• multi-systems approach manifested through the successful collaboration of multiple stakeholders across disciplines in which experiments are linked to achieve common goals and objectives .
CONCLUSION The rapid rate of global social , political and environmental changes has resulted in outdated , non-functional urban landscapes and infrastructure . Although not a panacea , urban tinkering can cumulatively address local and regional challenges by introducing an adaptive , inclusive , practical and playful approach to these challenges . It assumes that we are ignorant of the future conditions that we might face , and allows for a flexible approach in which the cost of experimentation is low enough to inspire a willingness to implement change in any environment .
Llwelyn Coertzen
51