This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 22 March 2015, At: 10:40

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl19

Dialogue 1
a
Michael LlewellynSmith & Amos Rapoport
a
Faculty of Architecture , The University of Sydney
Published online: 04 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Michael LlewellynSmith & Amos Rapoport (1970) Dialogue 1, Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal,
8:4, 128-129, DOI: 10.1080/00049999.1970.9709361

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049999.1970.9709361

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of
the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DIALOGUE 1
In this dialogue, the first of a series of five looking at
various aspects of man-environment relationships,
Michael Llewellyn-Smith, architect and planner, talks
to Amos Rapoport of the Faculty of Architecture,
The University of Sydney, and regular columnist in
The Australian on environmental issues.
M.L-S. Amos, in the course you are developing in
The University of Sydney Faculty of Architecture, it
seems you are concerned with the behavioural pattern
of individual users of buildings. This is essentially an
analytical approach and of necessity concerned with
existing situations. How do you see this as a relevant
"input" in the designer's vocabulary, bearing in mind
that a great many crucial decisions will already have
been taken before the designer is involved in a
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:40 22 March 2015
project?
A.R. There are really two parts to this. Let me deal
with the second part firstthe fact that many de-
cisions are taken before a designer is involved in a
project. This is, of course, the case and is one of the
topics with which the course deals. One of the weak-
128 nesses in designers' thinking has been the belief that
they determine the form of the environment. An
understanding of the degree to which they actually do
this and a knowledge of the various "actors" involved
in the creation of any design should help designers
to be more effective. In dealing with problems once
they are called in, designers need much better know-
ledge of the people for ,^vhom they are designing.
This involves an understanding of how people behave,
how they perceive and understand their environment,
what elements go to make up that environment and
the various mechanisms that mediate the interaction
of man and environment. Designers also need much
better knowledge of the importance attached to the
physical environment (as opposed to the social, psycho-
logical, etc., environments) and to what extent it in
fact affects behaviour.
I would not agree that in the course the stress is on
individual users of buildings. While this is one aspect,
we also try to develop the idea that various groups
of usersspecific cultures and subculturesshare atti-
tudes, values and behavioural patterns, i.e. there exist
regularities. There is also stress on the continuity of
scale, that generalisations can be made which apply
at regional and urban scales as well as at smaller ones.
Generally, then, I see the course as developing a
general, theoretical and conceptual approach to the
man-environment interaction which can be used in
different specific contexts. In this development I
would regard starting with existing situations as essen-
tial. In any other discipline it would be accepted that
existing and persistent patterns reveal meaningful
regularities and there must be good reasons for them.
In design we have tended to stress novelty for its own
sake, and philosophically stress change over constancy.
Through analysis I hope we might be able to define
elements of constancy and of change, as well as the
meaning of existing patterns (in this connection the
proper study of historical evidence becomes an essen-
tial element). Even if things change, they always
change from the existing situation.
M.L-S. With this idea of change in mind, perhaps I
could turn to recent planning theory which has tended
towards a more open-ended, flexible approachfor
Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal October 1970
example, in Buchanan's study of Portsmouth-
Southampton, and the plan for Milton Keynes by
Llewelyn-Davies, Weeks, Forestier-Walker and Bor.
In architectural theory, the provision of "bulk space"
for universities and hospitals, within which the user
can determine his own arrangements of equipment,
seems to be increasing. Another example would be
the "biirolandschaft" office layout where groupings
are again worked out by the user. To what extent do
you see the architect of the future simply providing
an overall framework within which the user has a
great deal of detailed freedom?
A.R. As you know, the problem of "open-endedness"
has interested me for some time and I have in fact
published some work on it. I regard this development
as being most encouraging, particularly if understood
more broadly. Much open-endedness has been under-
stood in terms of manifest functions (to use Brolin
and Zeissel's terminology) rather than latent function.
It has been in terms of activities rather than meanings.
I would argue, on the basis of evidence from both
animal studies an'd studies of humans, that all living
organisms want'to exert a measure of control over
their environment, want to adapt it to themselves
rather than adapt passively to it. It also seems clear
that some of the changes to the environment are
related to personalisationwhich is an important way
of taking possession of space and defining territory.
The implications of this are that we need to study
open-endedness in terms of symbolic meanings,
domains of significance and the like, rather than in
terms purely of activities. For example, the "biiro-
landschaft" concept can be questioned, on the basis of
role theory, and the need for some people who play
multiple roles to have private "backstage" regions.
More generally, this suggests that open-endedness
might vary for. different groups, in different cultures
and so on, ana needs to be studied in more sophis-
ticated waysas does the nature of the frameworks
within which change occurs. There is a danger in
thinking of these in mechanistic terms, for example,
plug-in cities and the like. There is also danger in
having too much open-endedness, with the result that
choice becomes excessive. With these provisos, how-
ever, there is little doubt that these concepts will
become more important. The notion of total design,
with the designer controlling people's lives, cannot last
much longer. I for one think the results of individual
user decisions will produce much richer environments
visually, as well as being much more closely related
to the desires and needs of people.
M.L-S. I would agree that the idea of total design is
dying. It is generally recognised that there is some-
thing missing in the British New Towns, for example
"artificial" towns, to use Christopher Alexander's ter-
minology, as opposed to the "natural" cities of Siena
and Kyoto, which have life-giving characteristics.
Artificially created cities, from a human point of view,
have been entirely unsuccessful. Is this simply the
fault of the designers, and hence with greater aware-
ness something that can be done, can an artificial city
be built with the ordering principles of a natural city?
A.R. "Artificial" cities certainly haven't been entirely
successful but this needs to be qualified. In fact,!one
of your examples, Kyoto, was initially an "artificially"
planned city. In other words, many cities which we
admire and like have had time to mature, develop
and mellow. Since we now have less time and need
to produce many more cities, this technique will no
longer work. By analysing a sufficient sample of

successful and unsuccessful cities, by defining our
criteria for "success" and generally taking a more
analytical approach we might have a much clearer
idea of our goals. Similarly analytical approaches to
the processes which, over time, have turned artificial
cities into natural ones might also be highly enlighten-
ing. On the other hand the "open-ended" approach
may prove helpful. The notion of designing guiding
infrastructures and allowing many individual decisions
to shape the environment within these may avoid
many problems of the artificial cities, which have been
due as much to overdesign as to the wrong kinds of
infrastructure. Ed Bacon and David Crane have both
argued persuasively about the importance of infra-
structures in cities. Man-environment studies are en-
gaged precisely in trying to identify the desirable
forms of such structuresthe nature of the spatial
organisation to be aimed for, as well as the nature of
the individual decisions one could expect. One could
well ask whether we tend to prefer natural cities be-
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 10:40 22 March 2015
cause they show evidence of individual changes and
that this may also explain why artificial cities tend to
improve over time.
Another problem of artificial cities has been the
abstraction of the plans. They have tended to be
dominated by planning and design theories and
neglected the value-systems of the inhabitants, which
affect quality. There has been a stress on simplicity
rather than complexity, a stress on vision rather than
the whole range of senses and a stress on people as
observers rather than active participants. Density has
been treated as an abstract concept rather than some-
thing which is perceived and which is linked to social
and psychological interactionwanted and unwanted.
Planning goals may be achieved by maximising choices
and options rather than restricting them as the new
towns have done. With our existing knowledge we
could do much better immediately. With constant
feedback, future designs could be improved fairly
rapidly. *
M.L-S. This whole question of feedback and learning
from others is an important one. Australian cities
are sprawling and polluted. There are signs that
pressure is growing, particularly from economists, to
emphasise the quality of life. Future life styles will
be determined by decisions taken in the next few
years. It would be possible to learn from the mistakes
of America, Britain and Japan. Do you think the
decision-makers are going to learn and make the right
decisions?
A.R. It does seem amazingly difficult for people to
learn from the mistakes of others. For some reason
we are repeating the mistakes of fhe U.S.A. and
Britain. Why this should be so seems a useful topic
of research for social and behavioural scientists, par-
ticularly since man is supposed to be distinguished by
this very ability to learn vicariously. Whether decision-
makers can be persuaded to make the right decisions
and how they can be persuadedseems a problem
for the political scientists. The growth of public
pressure is certainly one way. A growth in the exper-
tise and predictive power of designers is another. In
view of the inability to learn by others' mistakes and
the lack of sophistication among most decision-makers
one can hardly be optimistic about the future of the
Australian environment.
M.L-S. Perhaps this growth in expertise could come
from group solutions to design problems. The value
of multi-disciplinary interaction is being recognised at
university and, to a lesser extent, at the professional
Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal October 1970
level. I think the traditional roles of the architect and
planner are being questioned. Are we likely to see
the emergence of a new creature, the urban environ-
mental designer, who will co-ordinate a whole range of
specialist expertise?
A.R. I agree that group work will be increasingly
used and interdisciplinary work will become the norm.
I also believe that the number of disciplines involved
will increase. In fact, the course we are developing
stresses this fact and introduces the students to a
large number of new fields which might be involved
in design. In questioning the role of the architect and
planner, however, I would not necessarily agree with
your suggestion regarding the "urban environmental
designer". Rather we may see the development of
environmental designers who operate at different
levels. One group may work on establishing norms
and criteria, i.e. environmental programming. They
may be followed by people dealing with implementa-
tion, both technical and politico-legal. Thus the
changes I foresee will mean that designers will not be
defined by the scale at which, they work (interior
designerarchitecturban designerurban planner
regional planner) but rather by the field of specialisa-
tion cutting across different scales.
M.L-S. The role of the designer, at whatever scale,
interests me very much. In a sense, architecture could 129
be considered as simply playing a minor role as a
background for our daily activities, since we often
have different experiences in the same surroundings;
or it could be instrumental in determining our actual
experiences, and the relationship is in fact a very com-
plex one. Should the designer really be attempting to'
provide a functional-practical physical environment
which also reinforces our social rules?
A.R. The role of the physical .environment is a major
topic which needs clarification. As you know, de-
signers have tended to take a position of environ-
mental determinism, believing that they could shape
people's lives through design. As a reaction, some
social scientists have taken the opposite viewthat
the physical environment is of little importance. The
truth seems to lie somewhere in between and varies
for different cultures. Accepting that the physical en-
vironment plays some role, the mechanism by which
it does so is, as you suggest, a complex one. R. G.
Barker's concept of the environment as a "behaviour
setting" is a useful one. This setting can either help
or hinder behaviouror can be neutral. It also sug-
gests to people how they should behave. It is, in other
words, a form of non-verbal communication, a code.
The designer encodes messages; the user decodes them
if he understands the symbols used. These approaches
suggest that the distinction between "functional-
practical" and other aspects of the environment is not
very useful. The evidence is that the main deter-
minants of the environment are socio-cultural, psycho-
logical and symbolic, and what is defined as "func-
tional" is highly variableit depends on how things
are perceived. We operate and behave in the perceived
environment. Designers there should try to under-
stand how people perceive and know the environ-
ment and how they interact with it. Only by under-
standing this will they be able to design an environ-
ment which maximises choices and options and is
helpful rather than otherwise.
M.L-S. The question of the perceived environment,
but particularly in terms of the motorist, is one I shall
be looking at next. Thank you, Amos.