The Form/Process Division in Urban Theories: Ontological Foundations and Epistemological Outcomes

Abstract

Numerous architectural and urban theories were formulated during the late modern and postmodern periods. These theories aim to question the existing design concept and propose alternative approaches. Although they are similar in terms of criticism, their roots are fundamentally different. First, the city is seen as a formal and holistic structure with an internal logic, like a static work of art. The city, in the second, is a state of being whose essence shifts, as the usage patterns shift. What is essential to cities is only the processes themselves.
This paper attempts to show that 1960’s urban theories are separated into two perspectives, which emphasize form or process, and this split is not new. It is a continuation of an ongoing concept that can be traced back to antiquity, with the division between creationism and evolutionism. Within the scope of this paper, Alan Colquhoun’s statement, that urban theories are based on two models, form and process, as well as Kojin Karatani’s classification of making and becoming, which is comparable to Colquhoun’s binary system, were examined. Karatani addresses the formalism of Christopher Alexander in the category of making and Jane Jacobs’ criticism of “previously designed cities” in the category of becoming. On the other hand, Colquhoun discusses urban theories concerning the distinction between form and process; the formal model is represented by Colin Rowe, Kevin Lynch, and Aldo Rossi, and the process model is represented by Christopher Alexander. The use of binary oppositions by Karatani and Colquhoun, to characterize the city, can be traced back to the creationist and evolutionist world views used by ancient philosophers to explain the universe. The foundation of Platonic making is ideas; formalism also sees constants, absolute norms beneath individual types, and places a priority on form over design. Similar to becoming, the concept of process covers the evolution of cities and the transformations that occur as a result of the interactions with the community.
The distinction between creationism-evolutionism and the concepts of making-becoming, which dates back to ancient Greece, continues to this day and it is possible to comprehend urban theories through these paradigms. The traces of the historical continuity of the creational and making paradigms can be seen in formalist urban theories, which are focused on archetypal searches. Process-based theories, on the other hand, show signs of the evolutionary and becoming categories because they emphasize a system that continuously evolves and takes into account the architectural object and social interaction. This duality is fundamentally based on an ontological distinction. Based on primary causes, creationists believe that being is singular and indivisible. Evolutionists deny the concept of a pre-determined being and regard the becoming itself as a being. As a result of these binary oppositions, arising from fundamental ontological distinctions, the knowledge structures established by urban theories also differ. In this paper, the epistemological foundations of these models, including their subject-object relationships and temporal characteristics, were then examined using the texts of Rossi, Lynch, Rowe, Jacobs, and Alexander, which initially appeared to be in separate categories.