Tactical Urbanism Using Pattern Language Toolkits

Abstract In recent years tactical urbanism has arisen as an approach to make beneficial urban changes catalytically, using limited resources. But to be most effective, such an approach requires effective tools that can work together in coordinated toolkit form. he tools must be able to evolve and adapt to specific pro!ect requirements and barriers. "e describe herein a methodology aimed at meeting these requirements, using an e#panded system of pattern languages. $uch systems have proven enormouslty effective in software design and other fields, though they have been neglected in the fields of urban planning and design. %s we discuss, this presents an intriguing opportunity for tactical urbanists. Introduction Over the last several years, the topic of tactical urbanism has arisen along with related concepts of urban acupuncture, peer-to-peer urbanism, and economic gardening. All of these concepts and approaches follow the insight, perhaps first discussed thoroughly by Jane Jacobs, that urban planning and design are not linear processes, but re uire an understanding and e!ploitation of the dynamics of self-organi"ation # an understanding, as Jacobs put it, of the $ind of problem a city is %Jacobs, &'(&). *hese insights have been given special urgency by the evident challenges of achieving more wal$able, compact, mi!ed-use developments in urban and suburban settings. +conomic resources are scarce # particularly since the ,--. financial crisis # and at the same time, significant barriers remain to this $ind of development, relative to more conventional, speciali"ed, segregated forms of development. A more leveraged $ind of approach is needed, and one that ma$es more effective use of limited resources %/ehaffy, ,-&,a). *his is the challenge for a more effective tactical urbanism. *he problem is particularly challenging in e!isting urban areas see$ing infill pro0ects. A successful infill development strategy must move beyond well-intentioned plans to carefully assess these barriers, and identify the specific tools needed to overcome them. 1t must also recogni"e that different sites will often re uire very different tools, types of tools, and combinations of tools. 2inally, it must ma$e these tools and resources available to the diverse parties who are actually implementing development # some of them at fine-grained scales. *his is especially important in the current economic environment. An approach that meets this need is to develop fle!ible tool$its that can bring a range of tools to bear on different sites with varying needs. *hese tool$its need to be able to combine the different $inds of tools that are needed in the development process # design types, regulatory and entitlement processes, funding mechanisms, partnership structures, collaborative planning processes, and other resources. 3ut they must do so in a way that allows the tools to wor$ together, and to do so in a relatively simple, easy-to-use form. *his capability has been referred to as plug and play # a format in which different tools are made available, relatively easy to use,

and able to wor$ together. The Nature of the Barriers 4hile the mi! and intensity may vary by location, many of the barriers are common to any infill pro0ect in almost any city. 5ome of these barriers are more challenging in suburb-heavy cities li$e 6hoeni!, Ari"ona, in part because that region, li$e others, has developed a ma0or portion of its economy around edge or greenfield development, and e!isting tools, s$ills and resources are still geared largely to support this class of development. 3y contrast, tools to support infill development have limited availability or, where they do e!ist, limited functionality in the present environment. As part of our research in 6hoeni!, 7ew Orleans, 6ortland and other cities, we consulted with an array of sta$eholders and gathered their input about barriers. 2or 6ortland8s /etro government, we co-authored a report on barriers to sustainable development in the 9enters and 9orridors %:elley et al., ,--'). 4e can summari"e the identified barriers as follows; Uncertainty in the entitlement process, in part because of high scrutiny and potential opposition by sta$eholders, within a public process that does not yet provide substantial regulatory support for more wal$able mi!ed-use, compact infill development. Relative cost of higher-density projects, especially when structured par$ing is needed to fulfill par$ing re uirements or e!pectations. Regulatory complications from mixed-use and infill development, which tend to ma$e this form of development slower and more costly than greenfield development. Fragmented land ownership patterns. 1t is often difficult to assemble parcels of land that are of sufficient si"e to ma$e a viable redevelopment pro0ect. Competitive advantages for su ur an edge development relative to infill development. *hese include natural advantages %such as lower development costs) and artificial advantages %such as lower permit fees and other effective subsidies). *his has the effect of ma$ing infill development relatively uncompetitive, and more difficult to finance and sell. !Chic"en and egg# pro lem of wea" mar"ets in areas where amenities have not yet been developed %e.g. lac$ of groceries, etc) and where there are negative aspects of amenities within e!isting neighborhoods %e.g. empty buildings, etc). *his is a particular challenge within large areas of central cities that have e!perienced economic depression as a result of sprawl policies. *here is one other factor that is very important at the present time, but may become less important as financial mar$ets stabili"e; $ac" of capital for larger, more conventional development projects. *here are notable e!ceptions in larger multi-family rental, but other mar$ets, especially mi!ed-use retail, are li$ely to remain wea$ for the foreseeable future.

Overcoming the Barriers: Changing the Structure of Incentives and Disincentives *o understand the tools and strategies needed, we should begin by recogni"ing that every act of development occurs within a conte!t of incentives and disincentives # a $ind of operating system that governs how much something costs, in relation to how much it is rewarded. *his operating system includes the laws, rules, fees, standards, and all the other parameters that govern what can be done and where, and for what cost and reward. 2or most pro0ects, the mar$et itself provides perhaps the most obvious set of incentives and disincentives -- namely, whether buyers %or renters) are prepared to pay a price sufficient to cover the cost of development, plus a competitive profit. *he more they are willing to pay above the threshold of profitability, the more there is an incentive for that development to occur. 9onversely, if they are not willing to pay enough to ma$e a minimum threshold pro0ect, then developers say the pro0ect doesn8t pencil - and in most cases, it simply doesn8t get built. 3ut mar$et behavior does not arise in a vacuum. 3uyers have their own set of incentives and disincentives, which often depend on conditions set by the public sector. 9onstruction and e!pansion of public infrastructure %roads, water, etc) is clearly a ma0or incentive to development, and a disincentive when that infrastructure becomes inade uate. Other sources of buyer incentives and disincentives include the cost of resources and services, the structure of ta! policy, and the pricing signals of such services as toll roads and par$ing charges. 3uyers also have non-economic incentives, of course, including neighborhood aesthetic appeal, amenities, convenience, attractiveness, and peer-group desirability. *hese in turn are sensitive to public investments in area services and amenities, and the perceived uality and effort made by the public sector in things li$e schools, par$s, streetscapes, public transportation and other amenities. /any of these conditions develop slowly, and are difficult %and usually e!pensive) to change uic$ly. *here are also important incentives and disincentives in the cost of development itself. *his includes the cost of planning and entitlement, the cost of regulatory re uirements, the cost and comple!ity of construction, and # one of the most significant for the public sector # the cost structure of development fees, including infrastructure system development charges. *hese are often consciously structured in a way that incentivi"es suburban edge development, which is used to generate new ta! base and additional economic activity. *he regulatory and entitlement process is often also greatly streamlined in smaller suburban 0urisdictions, adding more powerful incentives to this form of development. *herefore it is not a surprise to see that while many infill sites stand vacant, including many along the new 6hoeni! light rail line, for e!ample, the overwhelming volume of development activity in 6hoeni! and other similar regions remains at the suburban edge. *his pattern of uneven regional development reflects an uneven playing field when it comes to incentives. 1f the public sector wants to see a more spatially efficient form of development that ma$es greater use of e!isting inner-city resoures, and li$ely lowers worrisome e!ternality costs # which will hit future ta!payers and citi"ens especially hard - then it must e!amine the steps needed to rebalance the incentives and disincentives.

*herefore we can e!press the steps that the public sector can ta$e, in partnership with private and 7<O entities, to help overcome the infill development barriers previously summari"ed; %ncrease certainty in the entitlement process by providing a clear framewor$, and clear, wor$able regulatory re uirements such as "oning codes. 6rovide a more formali"ed process for public and sta$eholder involvement that increases neighborhood confidence in the uality of the result. $ower the relative cost of higher-density projects, by easing par$ing re uirements and other ma0or drivers of cost. 4or$ to reduce cost through economies of standardi"ation in the process. &treamline regulations for mixed-use and infill development, by coordinating otherwise conflicting re uirements, and by offering pre-approved types that overcome regulatory barriers. 'or" to overcome fragmented land ownership patterns by partnering with entities that can identify and assemble opportunity sites. 6rovide incentives for owners to collaborate with each other and with other developers to create coordinated development. =se codes that provide ma!imum fle!ibility in use, while assuring ma!imum coordination of form %such as form-based codes). $evel the playing field relative to su ur an edge development by eliminating hidden subsidies and re uiring all development to pay its true cost to ta!payers and citi"ens. +!amine fees and other pricing signals, and consider tools such as feebates to e uali"e incentives for infill development. 9onsider targeted public investment catalytic pro0ects across a range of scales %a few large, many small, etc.) to promote additional growth. (vercome the !chic"en and egg# pro lem of wea" mar"ets by identifying areas with wea$ amenities %e.g. food deserts) and by incentivi"ing needed amenities that can be provided reasonably %e.g. farmers8 mar$ets). 3uild on e!isting resources to create desirable amenities, if necessary through modest means %e.g. artist studios, galleries, etc). Compensate for lac" of capital for larger, more conventional development projects, by incentivi"ing smaller, pay-as-you-go development, and by preparing sites for incremental development as capital becomes more available. All of these issues are interrelated, and the specific tools developed to address them must also be interrelated and coordinated. /oreover, they must be made available within a coordinated planning framewor$ that is sensitive to the varying re uirements of different development sites. *his is the intention of the 6lace *ypes system, which we discuss below.

Place T !es" Conce!t *he concept of place types has been used by a number of planners to identify the uni ue

attributes and appropriate new components of different planning areas %5acramento Area 9ouncil of <overnments, ,-&-). *hese elements will vary not only by land use, but also by character. 2or planners, 6lace *ypes provide a $it of planning parts that can be combined together as the planning proceeds, and as the outcomes can be assessed by local sta$eholders. 6lace *ypes have been applied more specifically for planners of transit-oriented development or *O>. Again, it has long been recogni"ed that different *O>s will vary greatly according to their location within the urban area, and in particular, their level of urbani"ation . *herefore a one si"e fits all model of *O> development will not be ade uate. 6lace *ypes, by contrast, allow a more customi"ed, mi! and match $ind of planning process, which allows the development to adapt more specifically to conte!tual conditions. 2or e!ample, the 9ity of 6hoeni! is now considering a system of 6lace *ypes to coordinate planning in the *O> areas along its light rail system &'igure (ne, below). Again, the goal is to respond to needed variations in land use mi!, housing type, scale, intensity and other elements.

'I*+,- (.-. % /lace ype system adopted by the 0ity of /hoeni#.

3ut for 6hoeni! and other cities, the uestion remains; will it be enough to identify the planning types, without also identifying the tools needed to overcome the barriers, and plan strategically for bottom-up growth? <iven the need for a coordinated strategy, could %and indeed, should) these approaches perhaps be combined into one e!panded methodology? *his is the central sub0ect of our research, and the proposal that we present herein for further research and development. And if such a combined, e!panded methodology is to be underta$en, what is the model that will be used to coordinate the elements, so as to preserve ma!imum fle!ibility while achieving ma!imum coordination? 9an the 6lace *ypes model be used as a basis for an e!panded system that includes incentives and other process tools? The Ca!abilities of Pattern #anguages A tool for such an e!pansion might well come in the form of a design system $nown as a pattern language. *he system was developed by architect 9hristopher Ale!ander, and it has recently seen a dramatic increase in research and application across a wide range of fields, including engineering, product design, economics and biology. *he system is perhaps best $nown for its success in computer software, where patterns are used in many common programs, and in the /ac and i6hone operating systems. 6attern langauges have demonstrated a remar$able capability to coordinate a range of disparate design elements, through a modular plug and play $it of parts that is adaptable to a range of conditions and problems. Although they were developed originally to handle physical design, their success in other fields shows that pattern languages are suitable for the design of processes and other non-physical systems # including, it would seem, the physical and non-physical aspects of urban development. 4hat has not been done, as far as we are aware, is to combine these approaches into one coordinated system. *his, we believe, could mean that there is an important but unreali"ed opportunity to develop such a resource as a tool for tactical urbanism within e!isting urban areas. 1ndeed, that has been an important uesiton for our research, and we can report that we do see great promise in this wor$. 3ut at the same time, the pattern language system also illustrates well the wider point that such a tool$it approach, by any other name, is very much needed to unloc$ the development potential of urban areas. Our pro0ect has therefore focused on developing a representative sample of 0ust such fle!ible tools, within a tool$it system. 5uch tools may include; - 3uilding types and elements - @andscape features - 9ommunity amenities - 2inancial tools - 6rocess tools %e.g. partnership models) - >iagnostic tools %e.g. chec$lists, certifications)

The Conce!t of Place Net$or%s" 1t is important to understand that patterns and pattern languages provide an essential capability that is not easy to achieve within a more linear technology; the ability to create functional networ$s, in both structure and process. /any of the successes within software design are attributable to this capability %/ehaffy and 5alingaros, ,-&,A 5alingaros, ,---). /oreover, urban systems can also be understood as inter-connected networ$s, and this capability gives them a much greater character of richness and comple!ity %Ale!ander, &'(B). *his inter-connected networ$ pattern stretches across $inds of structures as well as scales of structure. 2or e!ample, street networ$s, pedestrian paths, small and large room-li$e urban spaces, even building details, all manifest this same type of networ$ structure %5alingaros, ,--.). @i$ewise, the processes that people undergo to structure such spaces, and the tools and approaches they use, also manifest the characteristics of networ$s. All of these structures e!tend across a wide range of scales %5alingaros, ,--C). *herefore, it is beneficial to *actical =rbanists to have a unified map of the $ind of phenomenon they are dealing with # the $ind of problem a city is, as Jacobs put it # and such a unified map or theory might be termed the theory of place networ$s. Our 0ob is to understand the networ$s that e!ist, and moreover, that are constantly being organi"ed and re-organi"ed by the users themselves. *hese re-organi"ations ta$e the form of minor mutations to their connective relationships %closing or opening doors, drawing of blinds, closing of gates etc.) to larger and more permanent mutations %planting of hedges, addition of fences etc), to the more permanent $inds of changes %addition of doors, reconstruction of facades, construciton of new spaces entirely, etc). *he 0ob of the *actical =rbanist is not to anticipate these mutations and ma$e them for the users # an approach that is closer to the old top-down model of arhcitecture and urbanism # but to actually empower the users to ma$e these mutations themselves, as autocatalytic agents. 1n this way, the *actical =rbanist is not creating urban growth, which will always be inherently limited, but is facilitating growth on a possibly much larger, certainly more comple! scale. 1t is the growth of many agents interacting in a more comple! pattern, as opposed to the growth directed by a single agent, no matter how brilliant. %5ee also /ehaffy, ,-&,b) *his approach has the additional advantage, essential to the goals of tactical urbanism, of re uiring far fewer initial resources. 1nstead, the tools provided are targeted and catalytic, and, if they are well-designed, can greatly leverage very limited resources to achieve better urban changes sooner. Structure of the Place Pattern" S stem *he place patterns, then, are in effect master patterns that refer to a specific place, for e!ample, along a light rail line %a town center, neighborhood center, etc.) and that allow modular coordination with other patterns that provide details, address barriers and offer resources. 1n some cases these other patterns %which we refer to here as sub-patterns) will be specific to one or more 6lace 6atterns, and in other cases they will be applicable to a range of 6lace 6atterns. 3ut

in all cases these sub-patterns will address specific challenges of placema$ing. 5ince the sub-patterns incorporate tools to unloc$ the potential of a given place, they are not limited to physical design. *hey include diagnostic patterns %tools to understand what e!ists and what are li$ely to be ne!t steps), other process patterns %collaborative tools, education tools and processes, etc.) and other $inds of tools %economic mechanisms, planning tools, etc.) *his combination of very different tool types into a single, plug and play system, is a fundamentally important change in methodology, with a strong corresponence to $ey brea$throughs in software design. *he illustration below %2igure *wo) demonstrates how the sub-patterns may be applicable to more than one 6lace 6attern, though they are li$ely to be written originally for 0ust one, as part of the pro0ect pattern language for that place.

'I*+,- "(1 he /lace /attern system. $ub2patterns are coordinated to facilitate the construciton of a single /lace /attern &a master pattern) but may be be reused within several different place patterns.

1n our research, we have developed specific e!amples of 6lace 6atterns and sub-patterns, to evaluate this approach, and to get sta$eholder feedbac$. 4hile this is by no means a complete set of patterns, it does begin to suggest the structure of such a 6lace 6attern system. /oreover, such a system will by necessity be evolutionary, and able to adapt to new conditions, opportunities and challenges as they develop. *he structure of this pilot 6lace 6attern system follows the structure and layout of Ale!ander8s &'DD boo$, for three reasons. One, the pattern language structure is well-established and familiar to many people. *wo, the format is visually accessible and not li$ely to be intimidating to lay people, including sta$eholders, who may be encouraged to write their own patterns. *hree, the boo$ itself can easily become a repository of additional patterns for ease of use, which will all be compatible with one another in loo$ and function. 2ollowing is a sampling of illustrative e!amples of a 6lace 6attern system that we have constructed for infill development in several cities.

'igure hree1 e#amples of a master pattern & own 0enter) and a sub2pattern &'armers3 4arket). hese are designed to be written and5or chosen by local people, as they seek coordinated small2scale approaches to local urban problems and needs.

'igure 'our1 a pattern language developed for .ew (rleans after 6atrina, displayed on the $mallest 'ederated "iki computer2based system.

'igure 'ive1 another e#ample of the computer2based system, showing process tools as well as type tools. .ote that the $mallest 'ederated "iki platform allows handling and processing of metrics, and modeling of the effects of various scenarios.

'igure $i#1 the $mallest 'ederated "iki system is well2adapted to hand2held technology such as i/hones. 7ere a feeling map diagnostic tools allows tactical urbanists to gather peer to peer and crowdsource data about an urban site.

Conclusions *he promise of tactical urbanism is in its ability to leverage limited resources and trigger much wider beneficial changes. 3ut that promise can only be reali"ed with neighborhood-scale technologies that allow people to identify and resolve their own local challenges. 6attern languages were developed to meet 0ust such a challenge # and yet ironically, have found much greater success in other communities. 4e believe they await much greater success in the built environment # but to do so, will need to be develped further in actual pro0ects, with actual users. *his, too, is in the spirit of peer-to-peer collaboration, local capacity-building, and tactical urbanism. &eferences Ale!ander, 9. %&'(B) A city is not a tree. Architectural forum. Eol. &,,. 7o. &. &'(B. Jacobs, J. %&'(&) he 8eath and 9ife of *reat %merican 0ities. 7ew For$; Gandom House. :elley, < et al., Achieving 5ustainable, 9ompact >evelopment in the 6ortland /etropolitan Area; 7ew *ools and Approaches for >eveloping 9enters and 9orridors. Accessed &,I,-I,-&, at http;IIwww.oregonmetro.govIinde!.cfmIgoIby.webIidJC&'C& /ehaffy, / %,-&,a) =rban Acupuncture in /edellin. (n ,esilient %rchitecture %blog), accessed &,I,-I,-&, at http;IImehaffy.posterous.comIurban-acupuncture-inmedellin-colombia /ehaffy, / %,-&,b). *oward a theory of place networ$s. Accessed &,I,-I,-&, at http;IImehaffy.posterous.comItoward-a-theory-of-place-networ$s /ehaffy, / and 5alinagros, 7. %,-&,) *he pattern technology of 9hristopher Ale!ander. 4etropolis /(: %blog). Accessed &,I,-I,-&, at http;IIwww.metropolismag.comIpovI,-&&&--DIthe-pattern-technology-ofchristopher-ale!ander 5acramento Area 9ouncil of <overnments, 6lace *ype /enu. Accessed &,I,-I,-&, at http;IIwww.sacog.orgIpublicationsIplacetypemenu.pdf Salingaros, N. (2003) Connecting the Fractal City. Accessed 12/20/2012 at http;IIwww.fractal.orgI5amenhang-1ndustrieel-OntwerpenI9onnecting-the-2ractal9ity.htm 5alingaros, 7. %,---). *he structure of pattern languages. Architectural Gesearch Kuarterly, L, pp &L'-&(,.