ABSTRACT
Whilst the notion of masterplanning that emerged in the early 1950s1 might seem at odds with the idea of designing for change, it is still a concept that defines urban design as a discipline and is important to society.
Some of the best, most successful and adaptable areas in our cities were masterplanned, but so were some of the largest urban failures on the ground. Historically, in fact, cities predominantly have been a combination of self-organised and masterplanned parts.2 Many pre-modern urban tissues that were masterplanned have hosted in time the highest diversity of uses and people, and shown the most amazing ability to adapt at different scales while remaining beautifully natural, with a strong human feel. Many of these, such as the centre of Bologna or Turin in Italy, started off with the most geometrically rigid design one can imagine: as military camps. With all due exceptions, modern masterplans often failed in achieving the same, going through fast, reiterated cycles of demolition and reconstruction rather slower, longer cycles of gradual change and improvement. And, yet, masterplans in urban history have generally been enablers, rather than inhibitors, of adaptation. Hence, the answer to the question ‘can cities be at the same time planned and emergent?’3 has a straightforward answer: how could they not? The point is about learning what we shall do from masterplans that worked, and from those that did not, what we shall not.
