The design and dynamics of cities as self-organizing systems

Casakin, Hernan & Portugali, Juval

Abstract
Urban design is commonly regarded as an intentional, organized and
controlled process, in contrast with spontaneous self-organized process.
But some design activities, in particular those related to complex
artifacts such as cities, encompass spontaneous and self-organizing
processes. In this research we aim to study the complex relationships
established between the heterogeneous agents acting in the city, and
their respective urban design processes. We do so by analyzing two
forms of design carried out in the city can: (i) professional or top-down
design, typical in the design of small-scale artifacts that enables full
control, and (ii) non-professional or bottom-up design. This is
characteristic in self-organized systems concerned with the design of a
part of a city where no full control of the process is possible. The
complementary role of these design processes contributed to gain a
more pluralistic view on urban dynamics in particular, and on design
evolution in general.

Keywords
Urban design, top-down design, bottom-up design, SIRN, selforganization

Introduction
It is generally said that design activity is a prime example of a
controlled process, in which the end product is a direct consequence of

the design process that lead to it. However, this is only a partial truth. A
main distinction can be established between design artifacts which can
be designed in a controlled and pre-determined way, in opposition to
those that cannot be designed in such manner (Portugali and Casakin,
2002; Portugali, 2005). The former are referred as engineerable design
artifacts, (e.g.; tools, buildings, etc.) of which the designer can
successfully predict its final form and behavior. In general, the designer
is an experienced professional who acts in a top-down manner. The
latter are considered as self-organized design artifacts, of which the city
is the best example. One of the reasons a city cannot be designed a
priori is that it is a large and complex artifact. This does not enable
designers acting in the city to fully control its development, emerging
structure, and final shape (Portugali, 1999). In many cases, the agent is
a non-professional and sometimes unconscious designer, who acts in a
bottom-up way. In this paper we will start a discussion concerned with
complex relationships established between the heterogeneous agents
acting in the city, and their respective top-down and bottom-up design
processes. We will first introduce SIRN theory, and its relationship to
self-organization and design. Then we will discuss the dynamics of
cities as major examples of open, self-organizing systems, and will
focus on design as a self-organization process. Main differences
between Top-down and bottom-up design processes will be analyzed
through a series of examples.

SIRN, self-organization, and design

SIRN (Synergetic Inter-Representation Networks) is a new approach to
cognition that attempts to gain a better understanding on the design,
production, and evolution of artifacts, either small like furniture, or big like
cities. A second purpose of SIRN is to gain an insight in the cognition of
cities and similar artifacts (Haken, 1996; Portugali, 1996; Haken and
Portugali, 1996; Portugali, 2002). SIRN claims that the design and production

of artifacts have a fundamental role in the process of cognition so much so

that in many cognitive processes, artifacts are considered an extension of the
mind, and a component of the cognitive system. This approach adds an
emphasis on humans innate capabilities to produce artifacts.
Four basic propositions of SIRN theory are relevant to the design process,
and to urban design in particular (Portugali, 2002; Portugali and Casakin,
2002): (a) Subjects, designers in our case, have an inborn capacity for
representation according to an external and an internal form. (b) Many
cognitive processes evolve as an interaction between internal and external
representations. (c) The boundaries of the cognitive system often extend
beyond the boundaries of the brain and the body. (d) The cognitive system is
a self-organizing system. Its dynamics is reflected by the synergetic approach
to self-organization. In this study, the last proposition of SIRN will be
developed in relation to urban design.

The dynamics and design of cities and self-organization

The concept of self-organization is a basic property of open and complex
systems that suddenly achieve their order, and are characterized by situations
of non-linearity, non-causality, unsteadiness, confusion, and chaos. Since
these systems exchange information with the environment they are
considered open systems. They are complex in a way that their components
are numerous, and they are interrelated in a nonlinear mode by an intricate net
of feedback loops. Therefore, no causal relations can be established among
self-organizing systems (Portugali 1997, 1999, 2002). The theory of
Synergetics (Haken, 1983) deals with open, complex, and self-organizing
systems, and therefore is considered as a theory of self-organization.
Synergetics was considered in the domains of cognition and brain functioning
(Haken 1979, 1991, 1996, Kelso 1995). It proposes that the mind, cognition,
and the interaction between internal and external representations, are all selforganizing, task-specific and context-dependent systems that spontaneously

achieve their coherence, due to a complex co-operation and interaction

among their component parts. The design of cities is considered as a prime
example of open, self-organizing systems.
Cities are considered to be very large-scale design artifacts. They are
the collective outcome of a synergetic and self-organizing process
under which thousands of participants act locally in a relatively
independent manner (Portugali, 1999). Although the synergetic actions
carried out during the development of a city seem to be chaotic and
rather un-coordinated, the design output is an ordered and organized
artifact. Despite vast energy being spent in the planning and design of
cities, the general spatial structure emerges spontaneously, that is
through self-organization. Characteristic in self-organizing processes is
that their basic component entities are individuals, each of which is
considered as a self-organizing system. In these processes, participants
are individual agents responsible for both their own specific selforganization process, and the collective self-organization process of the
city. On the other hand, the self-organizing process of the city as a
whole plays a role in the specific self-organization process of each
individual agent.

The urban design process and self-organization

Design is considered to be an exploratory, creative, and problemsolving activity through which a problem is identified, goals and
constraints are defined, and possible solutions explored, till an optimal
solutions is refined (Bentley, 1976; Carmona et al., 2003; Jones, 1980).
Zeisel (1981) also characterized the design process as a cyclical and
iterative process by which solutions are progressively refined and
developed in a trial and error manner. A range of tentative solutions, or
general approaches to a solution are evaluated with respect to the
original problem or initial goals, and then developed and improved

through testing, discovering and eradicating errors or inappropriate

ideas, or definitively abandoned (Lawson, 1980; 1994).
According to the above, design is usually considered as an intentional,
controlled, and externally organized process, in contrast with
spontaneous self-organized process. But design can also be seen as
essentially a self-organizing system. Consider for example the evolving
masterpiece of Brancusi The Kiss (Figure 1), and the sketches
produced by Utzon during the design of the Opera of Sydney. In both
cases a design idea is not the final design but its trigger. The end
product, that is to say the outcome, emerges out of the SIRN interplay
between internal and external representations. Here, the design
processes, in particular those associated with complex artifacts involve
sequential and self-organizing processes.
The pioneering work of Schon (1983) on design as reflection in action
also focused on the interplay between the designers internal and
external representations in the early stages of the design process. Schon
based his approach on a constructionist view of human perception-andthought processes. He perceived design as a reflective conversation
between the designer and the external situation (named the
environment). By identifying relevant aspects from the design problem,
the designer chooses a problem situation, or frames the problem
according to a particular situation, and develops a possible solution
while evaluating and reflecting upon the design outcome (named the
design artifact). These enable the designer to check his/her
understanding of the problem situation, to create a new framing of the
situation, and to verify his/her interpretation of it on the basis of prior
experiences.

Figure 1: The evolution of Brancusis Kiss

Schon's approach embraces processes similar to the paradigmatic case

study of Bartlett scenario of serial reproduction (Figure 2). This
scenario includes all the ingredient of a self-organizing, SIRN system:
emergent internal and external representations, strong fluctuations at the
start of the process, an emerging order parameter in the form of the
schemata of an abstract shape of a face that eventually enslaves the
many parts of the system and brings it to a steady state.

Figure 2: Serial evolution in a typical Bartlett scenario

At the urban scale, the case study of City Games (Figure 3) refers to a
much more complex process of self organization. City Games were
suggested by Portugali (1996) as a tool to illustrate and examine SIRN
and self-organization in the domain of spatial cognition. The game
provides a framework for simulating the way a designer or a group of
designers experience and perceive the city, remember, acquire
knowledge, act, and participate in its modification. During the game,
participants act in accordance with their mental representations, as well
as by considering the existing external situation in the playing ground.
As elaborated recently in Self-Organization and the City (Portugali,
1999) the city is a dual self-organizing system: On the one hand, the
city as a whole is a self-organizing system whose elementary parts are
the many agents operating in it. On the other hand, each of the agents
operating in the city is itself an open, complex and as such selforganizing system. The agents act and interact, with and in the city,
among other things according to their internal representations of it (also
termed cognitive maps). These interactions give rise to the city
dynamics and structure that once emerges feeds back to the agents
cognitive map and so on in a process of circular causality and

reproduction. The city in this respect is similar to language. As in

language each of the parts is a self-organizing system and the local
interaction between the parts gives rise to a highly (self) organized
global structure. Unlike language, however, the city is full of planning,
design and attempts to control the city. In fact, each agent operating in
the city is a planner/designer at a certain scale (Portugali, 1999, Chap.
11). However, due to the size and complexity of the city, any of the vast
number of planners/designers operating in it cannot fully control its
final form, structure and evolution.

Figure 3: Four snapshots showing design evolution in a typical City

Game.

Ways of urban design: professional (top-down) design vs. non

professional (bottom-up) design
Urban environments are constantly and inevitably changing. From the
first design drawing to the final demolition, environments and buildings
are shaped and reshaped by continuous change (Carmona et al, 2003).
All kind of urban actions, and design processes are contributors to the
dynamics and change of the city. And what are the different urban
design processes acting in the city? Portugali (2005) established a
distinction between top-down, and bottom-up design processes. The
first design approach is concerned with engineering process, normally
characterized by a fully controlled process, with external organization.
Top-down design approach is generally instrumented by professionals
city planners, architects, landscape architects, engineers, etc, who are
hired for their urban design expertise. Their influence on design
decisions is considered to be self-conscious' urban design
(consequential of the decisions and actions carried out by those who see
themselves as urban designers) (Carmona et al, 2003; Knox and
Ozolins, 2000; Lang, 1994).
The second design approach, on the other hand, refers to design as a
basic human capability. Bottom-up process is characterized by
phenomena of non-linearity, chaos, bifurcation and self-organization. It
triggers a complex and unpredictable dynamics whose effect anyone
can either fully predict or control. It is usually carried out by nonprofessionals who make urban design decisions without noticing that
this is what they are doing. These can be politicians who set or
implement the central government strategy, investors and urban
regeneration agencies, providers of infrastructure (e.g. electricity, gas
and telecommunication companies), which invest in the hidden
infrastructure and in maintaining the public realm, as well as
community groups, which involve themselves in the development
process, householders and occupiers, who maintain and personalize

their property. Their influence is seen as unself-conscious' urban

design (resulting in what individuals who do not considered themselves
as urban designers create and do) (Carmona et al, 2003).
Two major aspects are of interest to the present study. One has to do
with similarities, differences, and relationships between bottom-up and
top-down urban design (Faludi, 1973). This is concerned to the process
of specialization and division of labor through which general human
capabilities become professions. The other aspect deals with the way
top-down and bottom-up take part in the overall process of urban
dynamics. This is related to the natural features of the city as an open,
complex and self-organizing system. A point to be further discussed in
this study is that despite attempts to control city dynamics through
professional design, the non-linearity inherent in the behavior of selforganizing systems, there is always a chance that bottom-up processes
will be as effective as, or even more effective than top-down processes
in designing the city. It can be said that in the city there is a continuum
of agents acting in it, either in a top-down or bottom-up manner. As it
will be discussed in the next section, this does not automatically imply a
distinction in terms of the quality of the outcome. Barnett (1982)
claimed that although city form is usually unintentional, it is not
accidental and as such has nothing to do with its design quality. Its
result is to a certain extent the consequence of decisions made by
individual with non-related purposes, whose interrelationships and side
effects cannot be entirely considered or predetermined. Examples of the
two design processes are illustrated in the next section.

Examples of professional (top-down) and. non-professional

(bottom-up) design
It was shown that a classification can be established between
professionals, who are best characterized by top-down processes, and
non-professionals, concerned with bottom-up design processes. As it

was previously claimed, no one of the many agents acting in a city can
fully determine its final form and structure. Every designer is a
necessary participant of a big and complex city-design process. In order
gain an additional understanding, examples of both urban design
paradigms are illustrated and analyzed next.

Non-professional/ Bottom-up Design:

Due to its complexity, this kind of design process was further classified
in two different sub-classes. While the first is concerned with bottomup processes that lead to permanent design outcomes, the second
embraces temporary design outcomes. Examples of the former are:
(i) The enclosure of balconies to gain extra room to the dwelling is a
case in point in the cityscape of Tel Aviv. People used to spend long
hours sitting in their balconies, particularly in summertime. One day,
probably at the end 1950s, a dweller of Tel Aviv decided to enlarge
his/her apartment by closing the balcony and making it 'half-room'.
Thereafter, a process of innovation diffusion started to develop, and as a
result the large number of balconies in the country as a whole was
closed. Then, designers began to build new dwellings with closed
balconies. The spontaneous design process initiated by a single nonprofessional individual resulted in a large impact in the image of many
cities in Israel.
(ii) Street patterns survive a long time, but buildings, and in particular
land uses, are less durable. However, while innovations and lifestyle
changes take place, in many cities particular buildings last for a long
time. Although uses within these buildings often changed, their
exterior appearance and form remain untouched. Such buildings have
qualities of external robustness. A case in consideration can be those
buildings that keep their external facade, and structure, but modify their
interior design. For example the vast number of industrial buildings
located in the periphery of New York City that were transformed into

lofts (e.g., Kwartler, 1988). Their interior space and function have been
modified, and converted by their own occupiers into luxury open-space
dwellings (Figure 4). This phenomenon not only affected the building
itself, but also had a direct influence on the image, and on the dynamics
of the city.

Figure 4: Interior space of an industrial building transformed into a loft

dwelling

(iii) The pedestrianisation of Copenhagen (1962-1996), is another

example of incremental change in the image of the city, as a
consequence of a cultural change experienced by its residents through
time. A shift from car-culture to pedestrian-culture, derived into a
significantly growth of car-free streets and square in the city center.
One of the reasons for this to happen was the intensification of a new
urban culture, characterized by a new informal public life that

developed during the last forty years. An important contributor of this

phenomenon was the incremental development of a caf culture, which
was almost unknown when the first streets were pedestrianised (Figure
5). The relationship of public space and public life was so dynamic and
reciprocal that the result was new uses and that lead to the design of
new forms of urban space.
The above example clearly reflects the New Theory of Urban Design,
Alexander et al. (1987) which tried to theorize and systematize
processes of urban development with a focus on incremental change.
They claimed that the organic quality of older cities cannot exist in
those being built today. A process that creates wholeness in urban
development, and not merely the form was demanded. Alexander et al.
said that in any process of growth that achieves organic development,
the whole grows piecemeal, and sequentially.

Figure 5: A pedestrian street in Copenhagen

The whole is unpredictable, so that it is not clear how it will develop.

However, rather than being fragmented, the whole and its parts are
coherent and truly whole. Following with this line, researchers like
Lowenthal (1981), and Rossi (1982) argued against over-abrupt
change in the physical environment, and in favor of basing the future
in the past. Lynch (1972), for example, argued that change should be
moderated and controlled so as to prevent violent dislocation and
preserve a maximum of continuity with the past. Such processes
reproduce the historic development of older towns and cities that have
grown slowly and organically.

The second sub-class of bottom-up processes embraces temporary

design outcomes. Most of non-professional/bottom-up and temporary
urban design activities are carried out in the so called public realm.
This includes all the spaces accessible to and used by the public, such as
streets, parks, external public spaces, public squares, parking lots, etc.
The public realm offers a frame for performing temporary and varying
activities, which provisionally transform or has an impact in the image
of the city. Examples of these are illustrated as follows:

(i) The informal appropriation of the public realm can be characterized

by the existence of a variety of temporary activities, which involve
diverse meanings, effects, and different physical uses of the public
space. A case in consideration can be the spontaneous organization of
the public realm as a forum for political action. The public space offers
an opportunity for political display, canvassing activities, as well as for
the interaction between improvised speakers and passing through
spectators. These activities are not always allowed in quasi-public
space.
(ii) Another example is the use of the public space by street artists, who
paint pictures, draw portraits, craft sculptures, build art furniture, etc.

The street is converted into a public workshop, an atelier, an art gallery,

or why not, into an artistic bazaar. In many cases the integration
between art activities and the physical environment is so powerful that
not only transforms the dynamics of the urban space, but its image as
well.
(iii) The garage-sale has become a traditional activity in many cities of
the United States. Instead of discarding artifacts, goods, etc. that has
became older, or that are not needed any more, neighbors spontaneously
organize informal and temporary street markets in order to sell them to
the public (Figure 6 and 7). Although the spontaneous actions seem to
be chaotic and un-coordinated, the result is a well organized and
structured outcome, full of self-organization.

Figure 6: A street transformed into a temporary garage sale

Figure 7: A temporary street market

Professional/ Top-down Design

Top-down design processes are usually carried out by professionals,
and their design outcomes tend to endure through time. Examples of
these can be:

(i) The design of zigzag balconies can be considered as an example of a

design paradigm in reaction to bottom-up processes involved in the
enclosure of open balconies. This kind of engineering or mechanical
top-down design, carried out by professional designers, enhanced the
effect of natural light coming into the interior of the dwelling,
contributed to improve the relationships between internal and external
spaces, and preserved the integrity and aesthetic quality of the faade,
which cannot be altered by its occupiers.
(ii) The Ibn Gvirol Boulevard in Tel Aviv city illustrates the case of a
successful design process, characterized by a controlled and well
organized intervention of urban designers. The outcome was a

consolidated and high quality image of an important area of the city.

The design of the boulevard, which connects the north entrance of the
city to a large business area, was defined by a series of repetitive
arcades along both sides of the street. Due to its powerful urban design
image, the arcaded boulevard has become one of the most important
landmarks of the city. In the present, any designer (professional or nonprofessional) who acts in this area of the city must necessarily consider
the arcade design as a fundamental constraint.
(iii) An example of an unsuccessful top-down design process is the case
of Dizengoff compound, also in Tel Aviv. In 1996, the local
government decided to improve the design quality of this depressed
area, which once was a core commercial sector of the city. Vast amount
of money and considerable design effort was invested to recuperate the
deteriorated Dizengoff compound. Despite these, a remarkable gap
remained between the design decisions implemented by the government
through professional designers, and the desires, and needs of the local
residents. The resulting outcome was a design disaster with no major
impact in the dynamics of the city. Today, the compound still remains a
depressed area of the city. It is argued that urban design should embrace
the properties of dynamic systems, and as such it always need to be
open-ended and evolve ad-hoc. It was therefore immature to believe
that any design proposal, intervention or action that miss considered the
public interest may lead to a successful result.
(iv) Londons motorway represents an additional case of unsuccessful
or negative top-down process. In 1961, as traffic grew and congestion
got worse, the administration of the Greater London Council decided to
start a major traffic survey and a design plan for London. In conjunction
with the local authorities of the conurbation, it commissioned an
eminent engineer, and a prestigious architect to prepare a highway plan.
The plan proposed an ambitious series of new boulevards, and a major
route linked to it. However, after thirteen years during which huge

efforts, and considerable resources were invested, the design project

was finally aborted. This was in part due to the communitys negative
reaction, who found their homes or neighborhoods threaten by the
project. Today, the motorway as such does not exist, except for small
fragments of it. These fragments come to an end in an arbitrary manner
at junctions that lead nowhere (Hall, 1981). Once again there was a gap
between the people, and the vision of a few designers, which ignored or
remain sightless to what make up Londoners quality of life. A
preliminary conclusion from these last examples is that instead of acting
blindly, professional urban designers must include users (or potential
non-professional designers) as necessary participants of the process, so
as to define common goals, interests, and possibly coordinate efforts
with them.

Discussion and Conclusions

In this study we tried to gain a further insight on the different design
agents, and design processes acting in the city. SIRN (Synergetic InterRepresentation Networks) was presented as a theory that attempts to
describe these processes in order to gain an understanding on the
cognition, dynamics, and design of cities. By considering the SIRN
theory as a main framework, we attempted to enhance our
understanding about the design and evolution of cities as selforganizing systems, as opposed to controlled-system designs. In this
research the dynamics of self-organized cities was conceptualized
through top-down design in opposition to bottom-up design processes.
The former is typical to design processes achieved by professionals
such as urban designers, landscape designers, or architects, who have a
major concern with the design of small scale objects e.g., a bridge.
The latter is characteristic of design as an innate human aptitude, and is
carried out by non-professionals who have a concern with large scale
objects, e.g.; a part of a city. Besides urban design, SIRN theory enables

to understand design evolution in other design fields. For example, the

engineering design domain demands full professional control both in
the design process, and in the construction of the design artifact. The
design of a bridge requires to clearly know how the outcome will look
like, even before the artifact is constructed. In this case design evolution
takes place during the different stages of the design process, but cannot
occur after the design of the artifact is materialized since almost nothing
can be changed from it. Design evolution in the engineering domain can
only happen when new materials or new technologies are applied in the
design of new prototypes. An illustrative example can be the
technological developments in telecommunications field, which
evolved from the traditional telephone, to wireless, and mobile phones.
In contrast to this, in the architectural domain design evolution is not
only possible during the design process, but also after the architectural
artifact is constructed. For example, a dwelling can be modified by its
occupiers, or a factory can be transformed into a loft. Design evolution
in architectural design is nicely described by Aldo Rossi (1986) in his
book The Architecture of the City. The idea of architectural
typology is viewed as perpetuating permanencies able to evolve and
adapt to design modifications performed through time. According to
Rossi, socially significant buildings are able to endure since they
managed to maintain their external form while modifying their internal
design to fit new programmatic requirements, and new uses. In this case
design evolves through SIRN interplays, and sequential self-organizing
processes.
Conceiving cities as complex self-organizing systems can raise some
questions regarding the need for urban design and control. If the design
and dynamics of cities cannot be controlled or predicted, it can be
argued that urban design becomes redundant. However, the concepts
developed in this paper showed the contrary. It was seen that although
in some cases all the acting forces, being professional or non-

professional, may have competing interests, all of them are considered

as indispensable participants of the whole design process. For example,
cases in which non-linear and uncontrolled design processes carried out
by non-professional agents had a huge impact in the dynamics of city
form have been illustrated. In contrast, examples in which linear and
controlled design process resulted in large urban disasters, with no
effect in city dynamics were also showed. It is claimed that problems
and challenges posed by the city are so complex that urban design turns
to be a shared rather than an individual responsibility. Professional
designers need to learn how to develop participatory design that may
endow users a more protagonist role in their endeavors. Nonprofessional designers, on the other hand, should become more aware
and conscious of the task they have in the urban process. The
complementary role of top-down and bottom-up design processes can
contribute to gain a more pluralistic view on urban dynamics. This may
derive into more successful or assertive design acts. The evolving
interactions between linear and non-linear design processes need to be
considered as a major foundation for fostering design ideas and
initiatives at different levels of participation. This will demand a better
coordination, and a stronger cooperation between professional and nonprofessional designers. Viewing design evolution as a complex selforganized system improved our understanding on its dynamics, and in
particular in new ways of urban design.
References
Alexander, C., Neis, H. Anninou, A. and King, I. (1987) A new theory
of urban design. Oxford University Press, New York.
Barnett, J. (1982) An introduction to urban design. Harper and Row,
New York.
Bentley, I. (1976) What is urban design?: towards a definition. Urban
Design Forum, 1.

Carmona, M. Heath, T., Oc, T., and Tiesdell, S. ( 2003) Public places urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Architectural Press,
Oxford.
Faludi, A. (1973) A reader in planning theory. Urban andRegional
Planning Series, 5.
Haken, H. (1979) Pattern formation and pattern recognition - an
attempt at a synthesis. In Pattern Formation by Dynamical Systems
and Pattern Recognition, H. Haken (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, pp. 2-13.
Haken, H. (1991) Synergetic computers and cognition. Springer,
Heidelberg.
Haken, H. (1996) Principles of brain functioning. Springer,
Heidelberg.
Haken, H. and Portugali, J. (1996) "Synergetics, inter-Representation
networks and cognitive maps". In The Construction of Cognitive Maps,
J. Portugali (Ed.) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 45-67.
Hall, P. (1981) Great planning disasters. Butler and Tanner, London.
Jones, C. (1980) Design methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Kelso, S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: the self-organization of brain
and behavior. MIT press, Cambridge Mass.
Knox, P. and Ozolins, P. (2000) The built environment. In Design
Professionals and the Built Environment: an Introduction, P. Knox, and
P. Ozolins (Eds.). Wiley, London, pp. 3-10.
Kwartler, M. (1998) Regulating the good you cant think of. Urban
Design International 3 (1), pp.13-21.
Lang, J. (1994) Urban design: the American experience. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Lawson, B. (1980) How designers think. The Architectural Press,
London.
Lawson, B. (1994) Design in mind. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd,
London.
Lowenthal, D. (1981) Introduction, from Lowenthal, D. and Binney, M.
Our past before us why do we save it. Temple Smith, pp.9-16.

Lynch, K. (1972) What time is this place? MIT Press, Cambridge,

Mass.
Portugali, J. (1996) Inter-representation networks and cognitive maps.
In The Construction of Cognitive Maps, J. Portugali (Ed.) Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.11-43.
Portugali, J. (1997). Self-organizing cities. Futures, 29, pp. 353380.
Portugali, J. (1999) Self-organization and the city. Springer,
Heidelberg.
Portugali, J. (2002) The seven basic propositions of SIRN
(Synergetics, Inter-Representation Networks) Nonlinear Phenomena in
Complex Systems, 5, pp.428-444.
Portugali, J. (2005) The scope of complex artificial environments. In
Complex Artificial Environments, J. Portugali (Ed.) Heidelberg:
Springer (Forthcoming).
Portugali, J., and Casakin, H. (2002). SIRN (Synergetic Inter-Representation
Networks):
an approach to design. In Common Ground Proceedings of The Design
Research Society International. D. Durling and J. Shackleton (Eds.)
Staffordshire University Press, Stoke on Trent, pp. 884-902.
Rossi, A. (1982) The architecture of the city, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass
Schon, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think
in action, Basic Books, New York.
Zeisel, J. (1981) Inquiry by design: tools for environment-behavior
research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bibliographical notes
Dr. Hernan Casakin D.Sc, M.Sc is a Lecturer in the Department of
Architecture, College of Judea and Samaria, Ariel, Israel, and a
Research Fellow in the ESLab (Environmental Simulation Laboratory),
Department of Geography and the Human Environment at the Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. Professional experience includes
appointments as Research Fellow, Graduiertenkolleg
Kognitionswissenschaft, FB Informatik (Department of Cognitive

Sciences and Informatic), Hamburg University, Germany. Current

research: design processes and design methods; design and spatial
cognition; spatial cognition and cognitive maps; design and education;
visual analysis of architectural design; and contemporary history of
architecture. Current research includes: urban design and selforganizing systems, cognitive maps and the urban image, wayfinding in
closed- environments, metaphors and analogies in design.
The College of Judea and Samaria,
Department of Architecture, P.O. Box 3, 44837 - Ariel, ISRAEL
ESLab (Environmental Simulation Lab).
Department of Geography, and the Human Environment.
Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, ISRAEL
Email: casakin@bezeqint.net

Juval Portugali, Professor of Geography, Department of Geography and

the Human Environment Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel,
Tel:+973(3)640-8661; Fax:+972(3)640-6243; Head of the ESLab
(Environmental Simulation Laboratory) the Porter School of
Environmental Studies. Head of the Environment and Society Graduate
Program Ph.D at the Department of Geography, The London School of
Economics and Political Sciences. Specialization: Cognitive
Geography, theories of self-organization with respect to cognitive maps,
urbanism, agent-based modeling, socio-spatial change, spatial and
regional archaeology. Current research: Inter-representation networks
and the construction of cognitive maps. The city as a self-organizing
system. 2D and 3D urban simulation models.
ESLab (Environmental Simulation Lab).
Department of Geography, and the Human Environment.
Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, ISRAEL
Email: juval @post.tau.ac.il.