Rational city: Universal rationality versus multiple rational urban strategies

Ali­na O. Kosti­na
Insti­tute of Phi­los­o­phy, Russ­ian Acad­e­my of Sci­ences

Ratio­nal city: Uni­ver­sal ratio­nal­i­ty ver­sus mul­ti­ple ratio­nal urban strate­gies

Abstract. The issue of either uni­ver­sal or “region­al” nature of ratio­nal­i­ty can poten­tial­ly be giv­en some new insights through the exam­ple of urban stud­ies. Is city a ratio­nal struc­ture? Does it have only one or mul­ti­ple strate­gies of ratio­nal­i­ty? This paper attempts to give a pos­si­ble answer to the scope of these com­plex epis­te­mo­log­i­cal ques­tions. Alter-native sources of ratio­nal city behav­ior are pre­sent­ed in a num­ber of groups of inter­est: city res­i­dents and urban move­ments, local gov­ern­ment, busi­ness, etc. All of them have cer­tain goals and ways of their achieve­ment. Although they dif­fer, we can­not doubt their ratio­nal nature. At the same time, the con­flict­ing man­ner of city inter­ac­tions makes com­ing to terms with each oth­er a tall order. Urban plan­ning as a move­ment and an insti­tu­tion­al medi­a­tor of struc­tur­al and orga­ni­za­tion­al city changes is con­stant­ly in the process of par­a­dig­mat­ic changes: start­ing from utopi­an projects, through ratio­nal com­pre­hen­sive plan­ning to com­mu­nica­tive plan­ning and, final­ly, to a tech­no­crat­ic “oper­a­tional sys­tem” city. All these tran­si­tions encour­age us to ana­lyze thor­ough­ly the issue of urban ratio­nal­i­ty.

Key­words: city, urban plan­ning, ratio­nal­i­ty, urban oper­a­tional sys­tem, smart city, epis­te­mol­o­gy.

DOI: 10.5840/dspl20192335


  1. Bern­stein, P. Cap­i­tal Ideas Evolv­ing. Hobo­ken, New Jer­sey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007. 285 pp.
  2. Hoff­man, M.L. The Urban, Pol­i­tics and Sub­ject For­ma­tion, Inter­na­tion­al Jour­nal of Urban and Region­al Research, 2014, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1576–1588. DOI: 10.1111/1468–2427.12145.
  3. Hold­en, M., Scer­ri, A., Esfa­hani, A.H. Jus­ti­fy­ing Rede­vel­op­ment “Fail­ures” with­in Urban “Suc­cess Sto­ries”: Dis­pute, Com­pro­mise, and a New Test of Urban­i­ty, Inter­na­tion­al Jour­nal of Urban and Region­al Research, 2015, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 451–470. DOI: 10.1111/1468–2427.12182.
  4. Mar­vin, S., Luque-Ayala, A. Urban Oper­at­ing Sys­tems: Dia­gram­ming the City, Inter­na­tion­al Jour­nal of Urban and Region­al Research, 2017, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 84–103. DOI: 10.1111/1468–2427.12479.
  5. Mid­dle­ton, J. The Social­i­ties of Every­day Urban Walk­ing and the “Right to the City”, Urban Stud­ies, 2016, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 296–315. DOI: 10.1177/0042098016649325.
  6. Ozdemir, E., Eray­din, A. Frag­men­ta­tion in Urban Move­ments: The Role of Urban Plan­ning Process­es, Inter­na­tion­al Jour­nal of Urban and Region­al Research, 2017, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 727–748. DOI: 10.1111/1468–2427.12516.
  7. Theuril­lat, T., Vera-Buchel, N., Crevoisi­er, O. Com­men­tary: From Cap­i­tal Land­ing to Urban Anchor­ing: The Nego­ti­at­ed City, Urban Stud­ies, 2016, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 1509–1518. DOI: 10.1177/0042098016630482.
  8. Zukin, S., DiMag­gio, P.(eds.), Struc­tures of Cap­i­tal: The Social Orga­ni­za­tion of the Econ­o­my. New York: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1990. 461 pp.

Comments are closed.