Revisiting the distinction between the natural and the artificial. Towards a properly urban ontology

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING Planning Theory Pub Date : 2023-04-06 DOI:10.1177/14730952231162189
Anita De Franco
{"title":"Revisiting the distinction between the natural and the artificial. Towards a properly urban ontology","authors":"Anita De Franco","doi":"10.1177/14730952231162189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article by Simone Amato Cameli (2021) is an interesting and challenging contribution to the debate on the nature of urban systems. His interest starts from a substantial, and shareable, dissatisfaction with the search for a convincing criterion to determine the natural or artificial nature of cities. The questions at issue are ontological ones (Bacchini and Piras, 2021; Varzi, 2021; Batty, 2022): What kinds of reality are cities? Which of the available theories is best able to describe their origin and specificity? These kinds of problems are crucial for urban studies. However, if on the one hand the arguments borrowed from other fields often seem partial, on the other hand, the arguments more internal to the disciplinary field often lack analytical rigour and clarity. As Cameli also recalls, the architect Colin Davies (2011: 109), for example, notes that urban settlements resemble “organic accretions” like “forests or coral reefs or insects’ nests”. However, there are fundamental analytical differences between these types of habitat: while the configuration of coral reefs and forests can also be created by pure chance and inertia (consider the effect of wind and sea currents), this does not happen for nests (whether of insects or other animals): to have the latter, an intent must bring them into reality. If it is true that every artificial structure is the result of a “deliberate act” (Davies, 2011: 109), to what extent can we speak of naturalness when the existence of certain entities depends on a purposive act by a living agent? To provide another preliminary example, the geographer Matthew Gandy (2005) revisits urban realms in light of science fiction images: he envisions a “cyborg urbanisation” where the combination of organic and technological material is conceived as a life-support system. Consider, for instance, the role of high-tech today in the management of physical amenities (e.g. sensors detecting energy utilities, smart building construction,","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952231162189","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article by Simone Amato Cameli (2021) is an interesting and challenging contribution to the debate on the nature of urban systems. His interest starts from a substantial, and shareable, dissatisfaction with the search for a convincing criterion to determine the natural or artificial nature of cities. The questions at issue are ontological ones (Bacchini and Piras, 2021; Varzi, 2021; Batty, 2022): What kinds of reality are cities? Which of the available theories is best able to describe their origin and specificity? These kinds of problems are crucial for urban studies. However, if on the one hand the arguments borrowed from other fields often seem partial, on the other hand, the arguments more internal to the disciplinary field often lack analytical rigour and clarity. As Cameli also recalls, the architect Colin Davies (2011: 109), for example, notes that urban settlements resemble “organic accretions” like “forests or coral reefs or insects’ nests”. However, there are fundamental analytical differences between these types of habitat: while the configuration of coral reefs and forests can also be created by pure chance and inertia (consider the effect of wind and sea currents), this does not happen for nests (whether of insects or other animals): to have the latter, an intent must bring them into reality. If it is true that every artificial structure is the result of a “deliberate act” (Davies, 2011: 109), to what extent can we speak of naturalness when the existence of certain entities depends on a purposive act by a living agent? To provide another preliminary example, the geographer Matthew Gandy (2005) revisits urban realms in light of science fiction images: he envisions a “cyborg urbanisation” where the combination of organic and technological material is conceived as a life-support system. Consider, for instance, the role of high-tech today in the management of physical amenities (e.g. sensors detecting energy utilities, smart building construction,
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视自然与人工的区别。走向一个恰当的城市本体
Simone Amato Camelli(2021)的文章对城市系统性质的辩论做出了有趣而富有挑战性的贡献。他的兴趣始于对寻找一个令人信服的标准来确定城市的自然或人工性质的实质性的、可分享的不满。争论的问题是本体论问题(Bacchini和Piras,2021;瓦尔齐,2021;巴蒂,2022):城市是什么样的现实?现有的理论中哪一种最能描述它们的起源和特异性?这类问题对城市研究至关重要。然而,如果一方面从其他领域借用的论点往往看起来是片面的,另一方面,学科领域内部的论点往往缺乏分析的严谨性和清晰度。Camelli还回忆道,例如,建筑师Colin Davies(2011:109)指出,城市定居点类似于“有机堆积物”,如“森林、珊瑚礁或昆虫巢穴”。然而,这些类型的栖息地之间存在根本的分析差异:虽然珊瑚礁和森林的配置也可以纯粹由偶然和惯性(考虑风和洋流的影响)创造,但巢穴(无论是昆虫还是其他动物)都不会发生这种情况:要想拥有后者,必须有一种意图将其变成现实。如果每个人造结构都是“蓄意行为”的结果(Davies,2011:109),那么当某些实体的存在取决于活体的有目的行为时,我们能在多大程度上谈论自然性?为了提供另一个初步的例子,地理学家Matthew Gandy(2005)根据科幻图像重新审视了城市领域:他设想了一个“半机器人城市化”,有机材料和技术材料的结合被视为一个生命支持系统。例如,考虑一下当今高科技在物理设施管理中的作用(例如,检测能源设施的传感器、智能建筑施工、,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Planning Theory
Planning Theory REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
20.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Planning Theory is an international peer-reviewed forum for the critical exploration of planning theory. The journal publishes the very best research covering the latest debates and developments within the field. A core publication for planning theorists, the journal will also be of considerable interest to scholars of human geography, public administration, administrative science, sociology and anthropology.
期刊最新文献
Post-growth planning: Cities beyond the market economy Book Review: Caring for place. Community development in rural England Planning and caring: A reflection Book Review: Against the Commons. A Radical History of Urban Planning Celebrating Patsy Healey (1940 - 2024)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1