www.systemic-design.net

1. by
Jeffrey Chan & Ye Zhang
Department of Architecture,National University of Singapore
Presentation, RSD6, AHO, Oslo, Norway, October 19, 2017
A Systems Approach to Designing Urban
Commons and their Sharing Practices:
Case Studies in Singapore

2. The urban commons? Two big questions…
- Harvey (2012): the urban commons can be produced, organized, used, and
appropriated—But how might we design the urban commons?
- Stavrides (2016): Inventive architectural solutions can contribute to the creation
of urban commons. But architecture alone cannot guarantee that the designed
spaces will become an urban commons.
How might the urban commons be designed using the systems approach?
- How is this approach different from the usual way architects design?
- What are the different set of questions and issues that may be relevant to the design
of the urban commons by relying on the systems approach?

3. Outline of the presentation:
1. Background:The contemporary urban condition
2. Key questions raised by the systems approach
3. Application of the systems approach: An urban design studio
4. Conclusion:Tentative findings
5. Further issues/questions…

4. Background:The contemporary urban condition
Context: Increasingly, neither the state nor the market has been able to address the various
struggles for urban resources; similarly, the various emerging needs of a plural public may
not have a ready market, and in the neoliberal urban condition, this means that these
needs are likely to go unmet.
- Conflict and fragmentation, rather than solidarity and togetherness, is the norm.The
ideal condition of ‘flourishing together’ when it exists, is likely to be offered in proxy
forms through the market (e.g., New Urbanist securitised ‘villages’ in the city).
- Today, there is very little that people—especially across different backgrounds—can
share with one another. Ignatieff (2017, p.51): the central ethical problem for the global
city is how to generate collaboration among strangers who do not share a common
origin.

5. - Limited sharing: public goods (e.g., green parks) and non-rivalrous goods that are
however offered through the market (e.g., private education/skill-upgrading courses)
- The urban commons: (i) Harvey (2012): is human relations engaged in the practice of
commoning; (ii) (Kip et al., 2015): comprises of three components: (a) resources; (b)
people who use these resources; (iii) rules or norms governing the usage of these
resources.
Background:The contemporary urban condition

6. Key (research) questions raised by the systems approach
- What is the system? What are the sub-components of this system? And what is the larger
system in which the system is situated?
- What are the goals of this system as urban commons? Whose goals are these and how
justifiable are these goals and by whose standards? What is the ethics of this system?
- What and where are the boundaries, and environment of this system?
- Does this system threaten other systems? To what extent does the presence of this
system nullify other systems?
- Who, or what, are the ‘enemies’ of this system? (see Churchman, 1979)
- What are the different criteria that can be used to evaluate this system?

7. Application of systems approach: an urban design studio
Theme: the studio explored what kind of urban commons and sharing system can be
designed for regenerating a multi-cultural historical neighbourhood in Singapore.
Structure: the generic urban systems including infrastructure, public amenities, economic
production and consumption, etc., were adopted as a basic reference for the design
investigation.
Schemes
- Sharing infrastructure
- Sharing open education
- Sharing production
- Sharing cultural heritage

8. - An ‘ordinary’ historic neighbourhood
without any monuments.
- Concentration of well-known
restaurants, cafes, bistros, etc.
- Once a hotbed for crimes
- A number of left-over amenities
- Weak community bonding
Joo Chiat, Singapore
Key features of the site:

9. Systems &
Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
- Self-driving cars
- Waste collection system
- Energy generation and
distribution system
- Credit account

10. Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
Systems &
Sub-systems Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Energy efficiency
- Enhanced mobility

11. Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
Systems &
Sub-systems Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Energy efficiency
- Enhanced mobility
- Higher social capital

12. Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
Systems &
Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Existing transport system, e.g. additional
traffic congestion and resultant low efficiency.
- Frugality
- Over-consumption
- Maximal catchment area of self-
driving cars
- Primarily organic waste

13. Scheme one: sharing infrastructure
Systems &
Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Energy consumption (e.g. high efficiency & high mobility >increase
of the number of cars > additional congestion > longer waiting time
> reduction of efficiency & higher energy consumption)
- Social capital (e.g. sense of belonging)

14. Scheme two: sharing open education
Systems &
Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Membership & online platform
- Open schools
- Under-utilised public facilities

15. Scheme two: sharing open education
Systems &
Sub-systems Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Open network & continuous learning
- Community engagement

16. Scheme two: sharing open education
Systems &
Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Existing education programs
- Reputable teachers & programs
- Certified private programs
- Market rentable spaces
- Geographical proximity
- Language

17. Scheme two: sharing open education
Systems &
Sub-systems
Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
systems
Enemies Evaluation criteria
- Inclusivity (e.g. diversity of programs > reputable teachers
& market rentable space > increase of membership fees >
exclusion of low-income residents)
- Performance of understanding

18. Summary of hypothetical schemes
Systems/Sub-
systems
Goals & Ethics Boundaries
Threats to other
Systems?
Enemies?
Criteria for
evaluating
system’s
performance
A: Sharing
Infrastructure
self-driving cars;
waste collection;
energy generation &
distribution system;
credit account system
energy-efficiency;
enhanced mobility;
social capital
Responsibility
maximal range of
the electric cars;
primarily organic
waste
existing traffic
systems (e.g.,
congestion)
frugality;
over-consumption
energy
consumption;
social capital
B: Sharing Open
Education
open schools;
under-utilitsed public
amenities;
membership & online
platforms
public education;
community
engagement
Equity
geographical
proximity; language
existing education
programs
Reputable teachers &
programs; certified
private programs;
market rentable spaces
that compete with this
program
inclusivity;
performance of
understanding
Rivalrous use? Does one user’s
exclude another from using?
Regulation/rules
governing use?
Depletability? Do resources
deplete when consumed?
Excludability? Who or what
does the commons exclude?
yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes for space; no for knowledge no
A: Sharing
Infrastructure
B: Sharing Open
Education

19. Conclusion: tentative findings
- ‘Enemies’ of systems should be carefully investigated and deliberately taken together
with the goals for evaluating the performance of systems
- Goals of systems may inadvertently become ‘enemies’ of the system, where the
attainment of design goals undermine the original aims (e.g. Generating more waste to
earn more credit for shared rides): identifying areas where moral hazards can emerge
may be a first step.
- Sharing of resources that can be depleted or rivalrous, e.g. using up spaces may either
constrain or facilitate the sharing of resources that are non-depletable, e.g. knowledge,
and other forms of social capital. (Sharing open education where space sharing may give
birth to new programs)

20. - Existing models of commons tend to presuppose (i) commoning practices; (ii) some forms
of reciprocal sharing behaviors—of either the mutual eschewing of free-riding behavior, or
mutual-contribution, etc. But both in turn presume the ability to contribute in some ways. In
many urban societies today, the people who need the benefits of commons far exceed the people
who have the means to contribute to the commons.
If so, then what other preconditions must exist for a sustainable urban commons that
not only persist, but also can continue to grow?
To answer this question, one possibility is to consider philosopher Logstrup (2007, p.
142) suggests (and projected to apply in the urban commons) as the radical imagination
of the Golden Rule: we should do what we want other people to do unto us.
And further issues/questions…

21. - Urban commons may have systems that are characterized by socio-technical risks. Unlike
the common-pool resources (CPRs) systems studied by Ostrom (2006), urban commons is
likely to entail novel (unprecedented) large-scale, tightly coupled, complex systems (e.g.,
bio-waste digestor) that suggests the need to share risks (as well as benefits).
How risks are shared, and how the sharing of these risks can go on to create new
solidarity that then empowers the commons, are questions that have yet to be broached.
And further issues/questions…

22. THANK YOU!
References:
Churchman, C.W. (1979).The Systems Approach and its Enemies. NY: Basic Books.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London:Verso.
Ignatieff, M. (2017).The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kip, M., Bieniok, M., Dellenbaugh, M., Muller, A.K. & Schwegmann, M. (2015). Seizing the (Every)day:
Welcome to the Urban Commons! In M. Dellenbaugh, M. Kip, M. Bieniok, A.K. Muller & M. Schwegmann
(eds.), Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market. Basel: Birkhauser, pp. 9-25.
Logstrup, K.E. (2007). Beyond the Ethical Demand. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Ostrom, E. (2006). Governing the Commons:The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Stavrides, S. (2016). Common Space:The City as Commons. UK: Zed Books.
Courtesy of the diagrams/images in this presentation: Ong Cheng Siang, Grace Koh Kah Sin, Hung Yu
Shan,Yuan Yi Jia, Kenny Chen Han Teng