ABSTRACT
Most recent innovative experiences in city planning for people focus on some quite specific urban practice models. Many of these experiences consist of rehabilitation or redesign of public spaces, according to safety standards, accessibility and functional criteria, very often legitimized in community or collaborative approaches. Some others consist of narrow sectoral solutions to apparently clear problems – transport, for example – and the outcomes are very specific designs or regulations. Some others are housing solutions, including innovative architectural projects and new public, cooperative or community services and facilities to improve everyday domestic life. With no intent to criticize what we consider undoubtedly important steps on the path to overcome a simple functionalist vision of city life, we must point out what we perceive as some kind of failure in standard planning practices. This happens when planning goes beyond these narrow domestic or sectoral scales, visions and approaches. The issue here is what to take into consideration when facing complex problems instead of narrow specific demands.
