点击排行
 
正文
全文下载次数:325
2019年第6期   DOI:10.22217/upi.2017.227
“自由之境”的自由与规则——荷兰奥斯特沃尔德“法治规划”实践研究
Freedom and Rules in the “Freeland”: An Investigation on Nomocratic Planning Based on the Case of Oosterwold, the Netherlands

朱静宜

Zhu Jingyi

关键词:治理;规划思想;法治规划;复杂性;受控自发性;框架手段;奥斯特沃尔德

Keywords:Governance; Planning Ideology; Nomocratic Planning; Complexity; Controlled Spontaneity; Framework Instrument; Oosterwold

摘要:

本文以荷兰阿尔梅勒—奥斯特沃尔德的“自由之境”规划方案为例,阐述了其“法治规划”的思路。法治规划的思路与以土地利用为中心的理性主义规划不同,强调利用分散的知识,将城市发展的自发性组织到以过程为导向的规则框架中,利用“模式手段”对个体行为进行约束。该思路建立在对理性主义规划和综合规划批判的基础上,以过程调控代替蓝图绘制,可以更有效地应对城市发展的不确定性。在案例分析中,着重分析了构成“奥斯特沃尔德自由之境”方案的规则要素以及土地开发模式等,提出案例背后的通过法治规划与私人规划激发“受控自发性”的思路,在弱化土地利用规划、强调更灵活的规划手段的今天,有一定的借鉴意义。

Abstract:

The paper uses the example of “Oosterwold Freeland” to illustrate the idea of nomocratic planning. Nomocratic planning is different from the rational model of urban planning centered around land use plan, in that it emphases the use of dispersed and practical knowledge, the organization of the inherent spontaneity of urban development, and the use of a set of framework intending to regulate the development process with patterning instrument. This mode of planning is based on the critiques of rational and comprehensive planning, and aims to control the development process rather than the final product, which is more effective in dealing with urban uncertainties. In the case study, crucial elements and land development processes of “Oosterwold Freeland” is analyzed to unveil how the ideas of nomocratic planning and private planning can stimulate controlled spontaneity, which is inspiring in view of the declining of the traditional idea of land use planning and a demand for more flexible planning tools.

版权信息:
基金项目:
作者简介:

朱静宜,伦敦大学学院巴特莱特规划学院, 博士研究生。jingyi.zhu.17@ucl.ac.uk

译者简介:

参考文献:
  • [1] 童明. 现代城市规划中的理性主义[J]. 城市规划汇刊, 1998(1): 3-8.
    [2] 仇保兴. 19 世纪以来西方城市规划理论演变的六次转折[J]. 规划师, 2003(11): 5-10.
    [3] LEWIS N P. The planning of the modern city: a review of the principles governing city planning[M]. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 1916.
    [4] BOYER M C. Dreaming the rational city: the myth of American city planning[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986.
    [5] DAVIDOFF P. Advocacy and pluralism in planning[J]. Journal of the American institute of planners, 1965(31): 331-338.
    [6] DICARLO G. Architecture’s public[M] // ONES P B, PETRESCU D, TILL J. Architecture and participation. Abingdon: Spon Press, 2007: 3-22.
    [7] FAINSTEIN S. S. New directions in planning theory[J]. Urban affairs review, 2000(35): 451-478.
    [8] BANHAM R, BARKER P, HALL P, et al. Non-plan. experiment in freedom[J]. New society, 1969(13): 435-441.
    [9] HOLCOMBE R G. Planning and the invisible hand: allies or adversaries?[J]. Planning theory, 2013(12): 199-210.
    [10] FONTENOT A. Notes toward a history of non-planning[J/OL]. Place journal.(2015) [2016-10-23].
    https://placesjournal.org/article/notes-towarda-history-of-non-planning/.
    [11] HAYEK F A. Law, legislation and liberty: a new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy, v. 1: rules and order[M]. London: Routledge, 1973.
    [12] JACOBS J. The death and life of great American cities[M]. New York: Random House, 1961.
    [13] COZZOLINO S. Insights and reflections on Jane Jacobs’ legacy. toward a Jacobsian theory of the city[J]. Territorio, 2015(72): 151-158.
    [14] MORONI S. Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction: urban codes for self-organising cities[J]. Planning theory, 2014(14): 248-267.
    [15] INNES J E, BOOHER D E. Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy[M]. London: Routledge, 2010.
    [16] PORTUGALI J. Complexity theories of cities: implications to urban planning[M] // PORTUGALI J,MEYER H, STOLK E, et al. Complexity theories of cities have come of age. Berlin: Springer, 2012: 221-224.
    [17] ALEXANDER E R, MAZZA L, MORONI S. Planning without plans? nomocracy or teleocracy for social-spatial ordering[J]. Progress in planning, 2012(77): 37-87.
    [18] BUITELAAR E, GALLE M, SOREL N. The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands[M] // ANDERSSON D E, MORONI S. Cities and private planning: property rights, entrepreneurship and transaction costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014: 248-268.
    [19] Municipality of Almere. Structural vision, Almere 2.0, environmental planning[R]. 2009.
    [20] COZZOLINO S, BUITELAAR E, MORONI S, et al. Experimenting in urban self-organization. framework-rules and emerging orders in Oosterwold (Almere, The Netherlands)[J]. Cosmos+taxis, 2017(4): 49-59.
    [21] MORONI S. Rethinking theory and practice of land-use regulation. towards nomocracy[J]. Planning theory, 2010(9): 137-155.
    [22] VAN STRAALEN F M, WITTE P, BUITELAAR E. Self-organisation in Oosterwold, Almere: challenges with public goods and externalities[J]. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 2017(108): 503-511.
    [23] ANDERSSON D E. Cities and planning: the role of system constraints[M] // ANDERSSON D E, MORONI S. Cities and private planning: property rights, entrepreneurship and transaction costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014: 19-37.
    [24] FOLDVARY F E. Governance by voluntar y association[M] // ANDERSSON D E, MORONI S. Cities and private planning: property
    rights, entrepreneurship and transaction costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014: 66-92. 

《国际城市规划》编辑部    北京市车公庄西路10号东楼E305/320    100037
邮箱:upi@vip.163.com  电话:010-58323806  传真:010-58323825
京ICP备13011701号-6  京公网安备11010802014223

5588937