Publication:
Multi-identity planning process in a studio course; How to combine different ideologies/identities in integrative coherent planning?

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorPorat, Idan
dc.contributor.authorShach-Pinsly, Dalit
dc.contributor.authorGolan, Lihi
dc.contributor.authorGarfunkel, Dorit
dc.contributor.authorLandau, Dana
dc.contributor.authorNachshon, Alvit
dc.contributor.authorNimrod, Einat
dc.contributor.authorPaz, Anat
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-06T10:30:12Z
dc.date.available2023-12-06T10:30:12Z
dc.date.issued2015en
dc.descriptionBook of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July, 2015en
dc.description.abstractThe planning process as is developed in a planning studio is a demonstration of a microcosmos of diver’s concepts dealing with ideologies and identities seeking for acknowledgment and spatial recognition. In a modern world of multi and dynamic identities aspire of selfrecognition of regions, towns and communities, a place-base identity becomes a core aspect, where dynamic identities and ideologies are something that we need to take into planning consideration. The planning process needs to give present solutions to places situated in a dynamic process of change. Where their place-base identity and self- recognition are changing, and the future of identity/identities is steel unclear. These are the questions we asked in a metropolitan planning studio that give our students a chance to translate and transform their conceptual ideas to spatial policy plans. One of the aspects that considerably stick-out is the complex thinking of iterative top-down Bottom-up approaches. This approach can create a multi-dimension and coherent planning alternatives (where most of the alternatives combination are possible), and spatial solutions may arise from communities along their changing processes. In this paper we present two alternatives spatial plan development in a studio course based on planning proses that embrace this line of thinking. The first alternative is based on an ARCView GIS model builder that assist in creating spatial locations in a region were each town and village can define their own spatial future and still be a part of a collective ideology. The second alternative simulates spatial locations for a mixture of future identities based on present identities and the different route each identity may take during its growth process and possibilities of identity that changes in time. The results of these two research planning processes were non-conventional, highly dynamic, aspire with complex plans, aside of highly applicability and flexibility addressing wide range of ideologies and identities.
dc.description.versionPublished Versionen
dc.identifier.isbn978-80-01-05782-7en
dc.identifier.pageNumber359-373
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/1052
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.publisherAESOPen
dc.rightsopenAccessen
dc.rights.licenseAll rights reserveden
dc.sourceBook of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July, 2015en
dc.titleMulti-identity planning process in a studio course; How to combine different ideologies/identities in integrative coherent planning?
dc.typeconferenceObjecten
dc.type.versionPublished versionen
dspace.entity.typePublication
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
026.pdf
Size:
1.27 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
19 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed to upon submission
Description:
Download
Collections
2015 Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July