“Metropolitan Reticular Matrix Planning”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Metropolitan Reticular Matrix Planning detected that, counter to Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory, metropolises and urban systems do not exist in ‘featureless plains’. This notion is the precondition to the application of Christaller's theory.^[2] To the contrary, Metropolitan Reticular Matrix Planning analyzes that most metropolises develop in a particular geographical site, a strategic location for economic and social relations.^[3] A strategic location is one that has a comparative advantage mostly related to a point of transition between two geographical systems: the comparative advantage at the border between two ecosystems.

Strategic locations are places like seaports, river crossings, mountain passages or foothills. Often each ecosystem requires a different mode of transportation. The geographical comparative advantage that requires a logistic intermodal node has been the economic and social base on which metropolises grow.

Geographical features are most commonly linear: a coast, river, ridge, etc. Metropolises are thus naturally determined by a linear direction inconsistent with the circular or hexagonal approach taken by Christaller’s theories and most common historical urban planning.

The proper response to linearity is the development of a gradient approach: parallel lines to the main linear feature produce a transversal force gradient. The reticula vertebrates the system in a natural way and responds to the location needs better than the hexagonal or orbital systems.

Metropolitan scales

As an aggregation of urban units, the metropolis has a different scale. The integration of the urban and metropolitan scales is the focus of most metropolitan planning conflicts. A scale dialogue has to be articulated. It builds beyond the urban (1:5,000) and metropolitan (1:50,000) scales upwards to the national (1:500,000) and continental (1:5,000,000), as well as downwards to the urban design (1:500) and architecture (1:50) scales.

'Chess on a Tripod'

Metropolitan Reticular Matrix Planning has been described as the ‘Chess on a Tripod’ (CT) Method. The Method consists of two principles:

Chess: (Also called Chessboard Planning) The Grey infrastructure (transportation) reticula form the basic chessboard pattern. Every municipality located in the core of this cellular structure plays a different role in the metropolitan system. The role played, decided in dialogue between the municipality and the regional-metropolitan authority, can be visualized as the role of the pieces in the Chess Game.

As in Chess, the location of these figures (which represent metropolitan functions) determines the results of the 'game,' i.e. control of the territory and the capacity to build up an economically efficient, socially equitable and environmentally sustainable metropolis.

Tripod: The development of a metropolis is based on a three-legged system: economy, sociology and environment. The three legs are under the control of the governance system, which is what unites the policy making of the three realms.^[4] The stool represents the government and the three legs constitute the tripod.

The objective of economic policies is to achieve efficiency. The objective of social policies is to achieve equity. The objective of environmental policies is to achieve sustainability (often involving implementing Green infrastructure. The objective of institutional governance is to achieve equilibrium (‘Ethical Equilibrium’) among the three areas.^[4]

It is upon this tripod mechanism that metropolitan planning must evolve its spatial integrative policies to maintain the efficiency, equity, sustainability and equilibrium in the 5 subsystems (Environment, Transport, Housing, Productive Activities and Social Facilities) that constitute the metropolitan system.

Mechanisms

The mechanisms of the CT planning method require dialogue beyond that among the 3 legs of the stool, the Fabric and Form, and the 5 sub-systems. There are other realms of metropolitan decision making dialogues included in the method:

The Reticula, like a music pentagram, are the structural framework to hold the notes. The cells of the Matrix are the substantive units. They constitute the uniqueness of metropolitan space: the architecture of the metropolis.

Difference from urban planning

The elements of the CT Method (mentioned above) make it a markedly different system than the common methodologies of urban planning.

The CT Method argues that while urban planning relates the administration (local authority) and the administrated (citizens), Metropolitan Planning relates the various administrations among themselves. The indicative (versus compulsory) procedure, consensus building emphasis and the mechanisms (variability, adaptability, time and sectors) are different, as is reflected both in process and outcome. Addressing metropolitan mechanisms with common urban planning methods is at the origin of the failures of metropolitan planning.

Applications of the method

The CT Method has been applied within the World Bank for strategic analysis of rapidly growing metropolises, allowing for both long term development vision as well as short term decision making for structural projects, as is the case of NaMSIP (Nairobi Metropolitan Services Improvement Project).^[5]

Influences of the system also may be seen in the Panama Metropolitan Plan (Panama 1997) and the Strategic Plan of Colombo (Sri Lanka 1996).

The method has been used in some academic institutions and universities to develop urban projects in Bari, Dar es Salaam, Cairo and Tehran within a consistent metropolitan context.^[6]

Madrid Metropolitan Plan

The Madrid Metropolitan Plan was the first application, under the direction of Pedro B. Ortiz, of the CT method, approved administratively in 1996 and backed by the Madrid Regional Parliament in May 1997.^[7]

The Plan was the physical continuation of a previously developed exercise of Strategic Urban Planning in 1989-1994 and established a framework for the future development of the Metropolis of Madrid. The numerous territorial decisions taken during the enforcement period until the new Planning Law of 2001 required revision and approval, have been determinant to the actual shape and efficiency of the metropolitan structure of Madrid.

Under the plan, to respond to the rapid growth Madrid was experiencing (50% every 20 years), the Metropolitan Reticular Matrix Planning methodology was set in place. The CT Method principles are the foundation of the design, implementation and management of this Metropolitan Plan.

References

1. ^Madrid Community Formal Approval (Spanish){{dead link|date=June 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
2. ^Christaller, Walter (1933): Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Gustav Fischer, Jena.
3. ^Febvre, Lucien (1925): A Geographical Introduction to History. in collaboration with Lionel Bataillon, London. (Originally published in Paris in 1922 as La Terre et l'évolution humaine : introduction géographique à l'histoire.)
4. ^¹Spangenberg J.H.; Omann I.; Hinterberger F: (September 2002). "Sustainable growth criteria - Minimum benchmarks and scenarios for employment and the environment." Ecological Economics Volume 42, Number 3, pp. 429-443(15).
5. ^List of World Bank D4D Propositive Analysis reports.
6. ^Politecnico di Milano {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927084123/http://europaconcorsi.com/projects/177244-DAR-SMART-SUSTAINABILITY-OF-IDENTITY |date=2011-09-27 }}
7. ^Madrid Regional Parliament official publication (Spanish){{dead link|date=June 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

Reticular Matrix Planning methodology