This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]

On: 05 October 2014, At: 13:04

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

Journal of the American Institute of Planners

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa19

Environmental Adaptability
Kevin Lynch
Published online: 18 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Kevin Lynch (1958) Environmental Adaptability, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 24:1, 16-24, DOI:
10.1080/01944365808978262

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944365808978262

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
 Environmental Adaptability
By Kevin Lynch*
Planners impress each other with the notion that
environments must be designed to be flexible in re-
gard to future change. All of us are to one degree
or another cramped by the survival of obsolete en-
vironmental forms : narrow streets, awkward rooms,
vertical factories, crowded tenements. Elaborate con-
structions have been abandoned because of their in-
ability to accommodate new activity. The structure
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
erected to facilitate life has often become its strait
jacket .
Moreover, we see that the tempo of change is in-
creasing, and fear that what we are planning today
will be tomorrow’s incubus. Structures housing the
activities in most rapid flux (laboratories or hospitals
for example) are in a constant turmoil of destruc-
tion and change. I n our cities we have launched on
a desperate program of razing and rebuilding that
gives promise of being endless. And so each day we
murmur the magic word: “flexibility!”
It proves to be a difficult thing to accomplish, how-
ever. This is not the problem of choosing a form that,
while serving one purpose today, will serve a different,
but definitely known, purpose tomorrow. Preparation
for a known change to come may have its complica-
tions, but can be approached and solved in a straight-
forward manner. The more adequate our predictions
of the future become, the more will our anxiety for
flexibility be transmuted into such tangible problems.
But as long as our environmental patterns outlive
our original guesses, we face the rather harrowing
problem of providing for unspecified future change,
of providing generalized flexibility.
Among biological populations, the ability to adjust
to new situations plays a vital role, both for the indi-
vidual and for the species. The adaptable populations
survive, and the inflexible succumb. This adaptability
is often bought at a hea\y price of constant destruc-
tion and renewal, both of individuals and of parts
within the individual. Now we reverse the inquiry
to discuss, not the adaptability of the organism to his
environment, but that of the environment to the
changing purposes of the organism.
*The author is an Associate Member of AIP. He is Associate
Professor of City Planning at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He is co-director of a Rockefeller research
project on the perceptual form of the city and was consultant
for the New England Medical Center in Boston and the
University Circle institutional district in Cleveland, Ohio.
16
Flexibility in an environment may be taken to mean
several things, and confusion results if they are not
distinguished. There is the flexibility which operates
in the present, giving the individual a maximum of
choice, a great array of potential activities or habitats.
A large house with numerous rooms widens choice -
so does a city with many types of living areas, so does
a department store or a highway network. But they
may not be particularly suited to future change.
Another meaning of flexibility is that it is that
quality that allows the individual to take as active a
part in shaping his own world as may be possible.
This goes beyond choice to allow active participation.
A large piece of blank paper, set before a child, has
this quality; and so for an adult does a small house,
which is within his scope of personal repair or re-
modelling. Such an environment might be called a
pIastic one.
Both of these are important objectives but it is
necessary to keep them distinct from the kind of flexi-
bility discussed here : the generalized adjustability of
an environment or artifact, with minimum effort, to
future changes of use. This might best be called
adaptability. Means that further one kind of flexi-
bility may or may not further another.
The distinction can be illustrated by two examples:
if your objective were wide choice, you would pre-
sent your subject with a roomful of pottery, of all
shapes and styles. If plasticity is the aim, give him
the wet clay to make his own. For adaptability, give
him a simple, average-sized pot, suitable for many
uses. O r leave the clay in the ground, for the disposi-
tion of future generations. If your problem is housing,
build a great variety of dwelling types for the first
objective; put everyone in low isolated dwellings for
the second; but for adaptability put them in tents.
Assuming that adaptability is in many situations a
valid objective, by what means may it be achieved in
a physical setting?
Unspecialized Forms
From an analogy with biology, it might be sus-
pected that highly specialized forms would be rela-
tively inadaptable, while forms of little differentia-
tion and low structure would be the ones from which
future development will most easily pr0ceed.l Thus
‘deBeers, Growth, London 1924, Ch. XIII.

a simple square house of one room would be more
adaptable than the intricate design fitted about the
special habits of a particular client.
But Simpson* points out the fallacy of this notion
even in the course of biological evolution. We are
accustomed to associate unadapted, and therefore ex-
tinct, species with “over-specialized” ones. We await
the forthcoming fall of man and rise of the amoeba.
But “specialization” has, ambiguously, two meanings.
I t may mean narrowly adapted, as of an organism to
a very special and circumscribed environment. Such
an organism might indeed be expected to perish with
relatively small shifts in his situation. But specializa-
tion also means complexity, organization at a more
advanced level. Such complexity implies neither
adaptability nor inadaptability.
That complex and very specialized organism, man,
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
has so far proved himself to be the most adaptable
creature going. A complicated modern house is much
more adaptable, both as to climate and as to internal
function, than the simple sod shanty. Thus it is not
the complexity or the degree of differentiation that
matters, but rather whether the environment is spe-
cialized in the sense of “narrowly adapted.”
The latter explains why a simple house may be
more flexible than an intricate one: not because of
its sinqdicity relative to the other’s intricacy, but be-
cause the intricate one also happened to be built to
serve the very particular whims of a special client. I n
this sense, city environments may be more inflexible
if designed for special purposes. Blumenfeld3 cites the
long-term usefulness of the neutral Roman gridiron,
versus the short life and painful destruction of
Vauban’s carefully designed defensive polygons. In
the same way, our narrowly specialized cloverleaf in-
terchanges may have a short life and an ignoble end.
‘‘Multipurpose’’ spaces, large clear span areas with
movable partitions, are often cited for their flexibility.
The Peckham Center in London based its whole
philosophy of construction on this point. But although
such unspecialized, “non-directed” forms may be of
great value in maximizing present choice, they are
not necessarily more adaptable. Once occupied and
in use, with partitions established, they may be as
resistant to change as any other. Their only advantage
lies, not in the lack of structure, but in the fact that
by wide spans major structure is concentrated a t cer-
tain few points. Changes in other zones are therefore
less vital. This is a separate question, and will be
treated below.
Most often, when a designer says to himself that he
is being “flexible,” in reality he is only being vague.
By failing to define structure or allocation, he is sim-
zSimpson, Gaylord, T h e Major Features of Evolution, 1953,
p. 298.
‘Blumenfeld, Hans, “Form and Function in Urban Com-
munities,” lournal of American Society of Architectural His-
torians, Jan.-April 1943, p. 17.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTABILITY
ply shifting the responsibility for decision to other in-
dividuals, or to the play of circumstance. This may
enhance immediate choice for first users, but not
future flexibility. As often as not, the failure to de-
cide opens the door to the multitude of small de-
cisions, to a scattered exploitation of resource, that
leads to inflexibility rather than the reverse. An
environment of low differentiation, such as an area
where uses are highly mixed, is often more resistant
to change than otherwise. A shift at any one point
necessarily brings ruin upon the adjacent uses, which
may have no interest in the change. Modification be-
comes an all-or-nothing proposition. Chaos, or lack
of structure, is not flexible per se.
The first suggestion, then, has not been very help-
ful. I t warns against forms which are too narrowly
specialized, but fails to indicate how to distinguish
“too narrow” from “sufficiently broad.” To shun
“narrow specialization” may result in losing the more
highly organized forms which often liberate and give
power. Complexity of organization does not necessari-
ly entail inflexibility: perhaps even the reverse, if the
complexity has a purpose. A complexity like an arte-
rial highway network may release new potentialities
of function that markedly enhance the adaptability
of the whole.
Zoning and Concentration of Structure
The Peckham Center, and many other structures,
point to another way of achieving adaptability, how-
ever: concentration of structure and the zoning of
fixed and fluid regions. I t has a biological analogy in
the way in which certain cells of the human body,
having specialized functions of support or communi-
cation or chemical action, are relatively fixed in form,
while to others are relegated the job of growth and
change.
This trick may be carried off in a building by
concentrating structural support at a few widely-
separated points, leaving wide spans where future
changes will not affect the fabric of the building. Or,
similarly, the relatively rigid and complex utility ap-
paratus may be concentrated in “cores,” such that
other partitions may in the future be rearranged with-
out disturbing them.
I n direct analogy to these building devices, a city
plan might concentrate its major structure (major
highways, transit lines, utility mains) in a sharply
differentiated network zone, such that other changes
need not disrupt this common structure, and struc-
tural changes will have minimum effect on adjacent
uses.
I n a city or a large site plan, advantage might be
taken of the fact that certain features of the environ-
ment are inherently soon likely to become obsolete,
and others not. Where both narrowly specialized and
also unspecialized units are needed, and these two
types are kept apart, then the necessary remodelling
17
 JOURNAL OF T H E AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS
in the specialized zones can occur without disturbance
to the unspecialized units. Or the unspecialized spaces
may be housed in tall or otherwise rigid but efficient
structures, while the “temporary” specialized uses are
put in low buildings, easy to change. This might
refer to the housing of offices relative to laboratories,
for example.
Other uses may be classified as more or less likely to
change, whether specialized or not. From experience,
for example, residential requirements seem to change
less rapidly and radically than production require-
ments. Separation of these two allows production
changes to be made with minimum total disruption.
A city may be zoned, not only on the basis of likeli-
hood to change, but as to ease of change. Separating
permanent from temporary structures, or lightly- from
heavily-built areas, we allow future change with mini-
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
mum effort. Uses in the “permanent” zones may
have a higher ability to survive because of the adapta-
bility of the ‘(temporary” zones - an adaptability
that would not exist were these same light structures
intermixed with the heavy ones. As another example,
if houses are clustered tightly along roads, and their
usual attendant open space concentrated in a block
interior, then the use and even ownership of the in-
terior land is easily modified.
Thus where a city or an institution needs both en-
vironmental features which allow easy change and
growth, coupled with efficiency and permanency for
major activities, it may be useful to set up semi-
derelict experimental areas, where new activities can
be born and try themselves out, before demanding
addition to the permanent plant.
These devices would seem to work even where the
“likely-to-change” or the “easy-to-change” cannot
now be distinguished from its future opposite. Assume
that there is no basis for judging if use area A in a
city will in the future be any easier, or more likely,
to change than use area B. Nevertheless, the separa-
tion of A and B will ensure that changes in either one
will leave the other unperturbed.
Thus a coarse grain (i.e., a texture in which rela-
tively large “pure” use-areas are separated out) has
an adaptability advantage, but only as long as the
changes occur within the use classes set down. Should
it happen, for example, that the future tendency is to
carry on functions A and B in the same structure,
then their separation will prove most inflexible. Simi-
larly, if the grain has been made extremely coarse,
and the distinct use areas very large with small
boundaries relative to their areas, then the system is
inflexible if one use should tend to increase at the
expense of the other. For if uses A should tend to
grow, while uses B contract, the transition is much
easier if they are interspersed, than if they can shift
only at their peripheries.
We conclude, then, by saying that in general adapt-
ability in an environment seems to be enhanced where
18
195811
major structure is concentrated, and where functional
areas are separated in a rather coarse grain, par-
ticularly where the likely to change or easy to change
features can be distinguished. But where the cate-
gories of functional areas may shift, or there may be
expansion of many units of one type at the expense
of many units of another type, then a very coarse
grain may be an inflexible feature.
Additive Structure
There is another type of structure which seems to
have value for this purpose: the additive one. While
the previous solution might be characterized as a fixed
general framework, within which minor features are
changeable, here, on the contrary, the details are
fixed, while the total pattern is unspecified. Such are
the bricks that can make infinite house shapes, the
cage construction of a skyscraper, a child’s set of
blocks, or Japanese floor mats. The basic unit is
rigidly standardized, inflexible. The flexibility lies in
the myriad ways in which the constellation of units
may be patterned, and in the interchangeability of
parts. The total pattern is not highly organized, but
is rather additive in nature: growth of units at the
periphery does not change the structure at the center.
The additive system is probably more advantageous
in enhancing present choice in a period of mass pro-
duction, than in favoring future flexibility. It does
simplify the process of adding new structure, since
joints are guaranteed to fit. On the other hand, as a
physical form becomes very large, the necessary dif-
ferentiation between center and periphery, between
major structure and connective tissue, becomes diffi-
cult to accomplish. The parts repeat themselves every-
where, inside and out; while exterior additions go
smoothly, internal stresses build up. Thus large
gridiron cities must tear out their central areas to put
in new, more intensive structure, or must superimpose
radials on the gridiron ground.
If we look more closely, we may distinguish two
different kinds of additive structure: modules and
lattices. The former refers to standardized parts of
one or more sizes, which may be linked together in
a set way, but can in sum form very irregular total
patterns. A set of dominoes can be used this way, or
a varied collection of wall panels. The lattice, on the
other hand, is a repeating plane or solid regular grid
of dimensions, within which parts must fit.
The modular system has a particular advantage in
its interchangeability of parts, allowing pattern re-
arrangement with minimum effort. This is not true of
the street gridiron, since streets are not picked up and
moved about, but is true of any system whose parts
are not only modular, but movable as well. A child’s
Mechano set, or a community of standardized trailers,
have these qualities. I n this case, however, the design
of the inflexible module is the key. If the standard
trailer continues to meet future demands, one has a

highly adaptable system. But if change is required
within the module itself, if the trailer becomes obso-
lete, then the system is a dead loss.
T o succeed in this case, therefore, the module used
must be a highly generalized one, neutral in quality,
or performing a very simple function which is highly
likely to persist. Most of the complex units typically
standardized in designs, such as total houses, or cen-
tral utility cores, or neighborhoods, are very unlikely
to survive without substantial change. O n the other
hand, such a very simple unit as an electric plug can
continue to meet different demands for decades.
I n a city, the lattice is exemplified in the gridiron
pattern of streets, first used either for magical reasons,
or for its ease in layout and allocation of land. The
gridiron has other advantages (and disadvantages),
but its value for adaptability lies in the ease with which
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
new additions can be made, and, to some extent, in
the interchangeability of locations, such that if one
street corner is suitable for a drug store, then all
corners are potentially so. This lattice is often applied
as far as the lot, but rarely beyond it. Structures are
not usually built to any common grid.
A lattice, a system of dimensions, is more likely
than a module to have survival value, but even here
it must not be too specialized, too “complete,” or too
inconsistent with other customary dimensions. The
simple Roman gridiron has survived two milleniums
in European cities; the American gridiron might do
the same. But a hexagonal or triangular grid, al-
though equally simple mathematically, may prove to
be too inconsistent with customary building methods,
if used at the local street scale.
I t is proper to hesitate, therefore, before proposals
to institute elaborate modular structures whose units
are in themselves rigid, complex and specialized.
Modular parts at the urban scale are likely to be large
and complicated. But there is a possibility, worth
exploration at least, that adaptability might be gained
if an urban area were built to fit some very gen-
,eralized, rather coarse, three dimensional lattice. This
would facilitate both additions and also the inter-
change of movable parts. The principal problems,
however, will be: first, how to keep the lattice suf-
ficiently neutral; and second, how to allow for the
specialization and concentration of structure that in-
evitably accompanies a large form.
Variety
Simpson4 shows how the distribution of genetic
variations in a population may affect its survival
chances. A group whose variability is small may be
best adapted to present conditions, but be wiped out
by an environmental shift. Another group whose
variability is very wide may be so poorly adapted to
present conditions as to succumb immediately. The
‘Op. cit., p. 72.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTABILITY
optimum condition for present and future survival is
a distribution which peaks very closely about the
characteristics ideally suited to present demands, but
with a small percentage of individuals who vary wide-
ly from the norm. These individuals are sacrificed
when conditions are stable, but are the potential fore-
bearers of a new adjusted population, should there
be an external change.
By analogy, one might conclude that a certain
amount of variation in an environment would en-
hance its future adaptability. There is a flaw in the
analogy, however. Environmental features do not
breed and multiply of themselves, and thus the mi-
nority, who can save the biological group, cannot
perform the same function in an environmental sys-
tem. If single-family houses are the preferred en-
vironment today, but there is a sudden shift to apart-
ment living tomorrow, then a small percentage of
apartments in the original system will do no more in
the future than satisfy an equally small percentage of
future inhabitants. And since this future satisfaction
is paid for by an equal present dissatisfaction, and
since there must be many present variations which
will never pay off when the unknown future change
arrives, then the solution becomes a very wasteful one.
A high level of environmental variety is undoubted-
ly an important means of maximizing present choice,
but has no value for adaptability. However, the
grain of distribution of such variation as may be
needed for other reasons, may have a bearing on
adaptability, as discussed above. A coarse grain gives
flexibility where future changes occur within the cate-
gories differentiated, and fails to do so if changes
occur across the categories. Presumably, therefore, a
fine grain of variations has adaptability where it is
expected that the principal changes to occur will be
in the shifting of categories, or in their relative growth
(at the scale of small individual units within the
category).
Over-Capacity
T o put extra capacity into the initial design is
almost infallible for our purpose. Again and again,
in past experience, it has been proved that the roomy
Victorian house (with many “wasteful” spaces), or
the large lot, or the low density development, are al-
ways the kinds of features which are easiest to remodel
for new circumstances. Extra space or over-capacity
leaves room for future growth and change. An over-
designed sewer can take an increase in the birth rate,
a wasteful bridge will support the new monster ve-
hicle. There is a future advantage, in this sense, in
waste and inefficiency.
Furthermore, where the extra capacity is in the
form of low intensity of development, then modifica-
tions can be made to one unit without serious det-
riment to other units. An owner can more easily
remodel his house, and with less harm to his neigh-
19
 JOURNAL O F T H E AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS
bors, if it is on a large lot rather than a small one.
A laboratory housed in a single-story building is much
easier to rebuild to a new shape than if it were a
cell in a tall building. At low density, the interrela-
tions, the connective structure, is much looser and
more widely spread.
Unfortunately, these advantages of adaptability
must usually be paid for by present loss. Over-capacity
usually means the waste of scarce resources, or at least
a denial of present use. More concrete or steel is
consumed, or costly land may be required. Equally as
important as the increased first cost, are the enlarged
operating costs incurred by extra capacity. There may
be more rooms to dust, more miles to travel to work
(as in Canberra), more square feet of siding to paint.
Thus a balance must continually be struck be-
tween increased present costs, and decreased future
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
adaptability. This is a conflict that a designer fre-
quently mediates, as he decides on his “factor of
safety,” or ponders how to give a shopping center
room to grow in, without surrounding it with large
tracts of unused land.
The solution is most successful where two conditions
occur. First, that the unused capacity be of low or
zero first cost in its unused state: as is true of un-
developed raw land, mineral resources left in the
ground, water supplies, extensive forests, etc. Second,
where forms can be used that minimize or wipe out
any increase in operating costs due to the unused
resource. I n the case of linear or open network de-
velopments, for example, open space off the highway,
or interior block land, can be preserved without in-
creasing the maintenance charges on streets or utili-
ties, since the length of street per developed dwelling
remains approximately the same as in a denser settle-
ment. Similarly, a shopping center likely to grow
might be connected to other uses by rays of developed
street, but with internal wedges left for expansion.
Unfortunately, however, there is an increased charge
even in these solutions: individuals must travel farther
in carrying out present interactions. These forms,
incidentally, are additional examples of the zoning
technique, where the open, or flexible, land is segre-
gated from connective structure and more permanent
development.
I n its role of diluting the disturbance due to change,
low density can presumably enhance adaptability in-
definitely. But its capacity to permit change by allow-
ing room for growth must inevitably disappear. I n
time the capacious structure fills up and is no longer
capacious. The Victorian house converted to small
apartments has now lost its adaptability; the medieval
new town, once open and flexible, chokes within its
walls over the centuries, and becomes a narrow prison.
Not only does open space gradually silt up, but
there is often a further problem of preserving extra
capacity until new development is desired. Thus, if
large city open spaces are reserved in rapidly urbaniz-
20
1958/ 1
ing regions, there is a powerful tendency for them to
fill up with squatter settlements, impairing future
flexibility. Unused forest lands, of no present use or
concern, may be set fire or left to burn; unused space
makes homes for rats. This is the problem of pre-
serving resources for future generations; the issue of
how much present effort can be diverted to such
preservation. Sometimes administrative means alone
can be used to achieve it; sometimes substantial eco-
nomic value must be applied. Occasionally, there are
physical arrangements which help, such as the ringing
of open space with development such that a concerted
effort is needed to begin to use such open space; or
the spacing of houses so that it would be difficult to
sandwich new houses between them; or the isolation
of reservations from the customary routes of would-
be trespassers.
Any wise designer leaves some extra capacity in his
design, for the sake of future stress and change. He
leaves as much as he can, but must strike a balance
with present cost. Where unused capacity is expensive,
either in first or running cost, a society can hardly be
expected to allow very generously for the future. But
where it can afford it, it may count on the fact that
low density is adaptable per se. And where the extra
capacity may be of little first or running cost, or
where it can be made so by zoning techniques, then
that society will be well advised to put aside what it
can.
Growth Forms
We seek the ability to grow and change without
jarring disruption, or the loss of continuity and basic
structure. Biological organisms have this ability to a
high degree. Are there any particular shapes which
permit growth without loss of structure?
The form that accomplishes this to some degree is
one which keeps an open axis for each major type
of activity. A large mass of development, in which
many activities are imbedded, will almost certainly
see a future choking out of the growth of some of
these activities, unless they have the good luck to be
immediately next to other activities which are con-
tracting at the required rate. But if, for example, this
same large mass is so organized that each major ac-
tivity occupies a wedge from center to periphery, then
the growth of one is not blocked by the presence of
the other. Alternatively, the mass may be strung out
so that each activity has a place along the chain, and
can grow sidewise without running over other uses.
The same end is accomplished if, in zoning the
intensive from the extensive uses, the pattern is ar-
ranged so that each use most liable to grow has in at
least one direction a substantial low intensity buffer
zone between it and the next important activity. This
preserves an internal axis of growth, ensuring that no
element, which may grow in the future, will in the
future be boxed in.

This form generalizes as a series of intensive strips
of foci, each devoted to one major activity (or divided
chain- or wedge-fashion into several) with each strip
or focus separated from the next by a transition zone
of less intensive, more mobile use. If more than one
growth axis is directed into the same transition zone,
then advantage can be taken of the probability that
all intensive uses will not expand as much as is theo-
retically possible, and the “vacuum” areas can be
scaled down to accommodate only the probable total
growth of all sectors combined.
Any environment whose differentiation is accom-
plished, not by division into sharply-defined boxes,
but by the establishment of intensive foci, or axes,
from which the differentiated use grades out into a
less-differentiated, less intensive transition zone, is also
an environment which is likely to be adaptable. At
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
the same time, it can preserve its basic structure by
the fixity of its major axes and foci, from which
growth and change pulse in and out. I n our existing
city centers, we often find semi-derelict transition
zones which are performing just this function of pre-
venting intolerable conflicts between major uses.
Where major activities are close neighbors, new de-
velopment can often only be achieved by a convulsive
process of abandonment and re-establishment in a
new location. I n a mammalian example of boundary
organization, the bone-defined brain case, growth is
only achieved by the exhausting process of bone dis-
solution on the inner surface of the skull, and bone
deposition on the outside.
Often, however, it is the very intensive center which
most requires renewal, and yet it is the point where
maintenance of structure is most vital. One way this
can be accomplished is exemplified by the historic
shifts in our downtown centers, which gradually move
in a consistent direction. The central focus can be
planned to roll along, with new development occur-
ring on one side, and obsolete structure steadily being
abandoned on the other. There can be a continuous
consumption of physical facilities, a persistent replace-
ment, and yet the whole maintains its proper form,
the desired internal interrelations. Like the candle
flame, like the living organism, the form endures while
the material flows by.
If it were not desirable that a rolling center move
too far from its original location, it might be arranged
to roll on a circular track, eventually returning on its
traces. I n theory, too, an activity zone might be ar-
ranged in a ring shape, which could renew itself by
perpetual outward movement, like the growth of
certain molds. The ring shape would be retained, but
the increasing length of the circumference might in
the end prove disfunctional.
Other growth forms may be thought of. Essentially
they are the more detailed patterns by which one tries
to achieve adaptability, once a certain amount of low
intensity has been provided, and once this has been
differentiated by zoning.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTABILITY
Temporary Structures
Future flexibility has often been sought after by the
use of temporary facilities. If the structures have short
life, they are not long obsolete. Not only when time
or capital is short, but also when uncertain of the
future, the temporary solution is attractive: to live in
a tent, to erect a “portable” schoolroom, to amortize
rapidly. This is the organic answer to adaptability,
par excellence. The internal parts of organisms are
continuously being torn down and rebuilt to meet
changing stress. Life is willing to pay a tremendous
energy price to achieve this flexibility.
I n the case of temporary facilities, which are desired
for adaptability, the price incurred can be found by
comparing yearly costs with the more permanent solu-
tion. Given equal present quality, then the yearly
costs are related:
yearly cost of facility ( 1) - bx
-.L
2 + i (a+ 1) where
yearly cost of facility (2) ay 2+i(b+l)’
facility (1) costs x and lasts a years, facility (2) costs
y and lasts b years, and the annual interest rate is i.
bx
Where the interest rate is zero, this reduces to -, the
ay
cross ratio of years and costs. As the interest rate rises,
the temporary solution becomes more and more favor-
able, and may remain so even if its original cost per
year of service is markedly higher than that of the
bx
more permanent facility. Where - = 1, or nearly so,
aY
the temporary solution is always cheapest in cost per
year.
Disregarding social costs, which will be referred to
at the end of this paper, the choice of the relative life
rests principally upon yearly costs, although there may
also be additional side effects on the economy, where
temporary facilities insure a steady flow of production.
I n the poorest economies, temporary solutions may be
the only possible ones, due to the difficulty of col-
lecting any surplus. This is particularly true in poor
economies undergoing change : witness the shacks
surrounding the growing cities of underdeveloped
areas.
Yet where small surpluses are possible and where
conditions are more stable, temporary solutions may
not be used, despite high interest rates. Since annual
capital surpluses are small, facilities are created by
slow increments, and thus they must have long life.
The room-by-room construction of a peasant house,
built to last for centuries, is a case in point. The set-
backs caused by great city fires, and the relative
cheapness of rentals in older structures are two other
examples of our tendency to live, at least as far as our
urban environment goes, upon capital accumulated
in times long past. I t may be that only a relatively
wealthy system, with substantial mobile capital, can
afford to consider the possible economies of temporary
solutions, to speculate about disposable cities and
Kleenex neighborhoods.
21
 JOURNAL O F T H E AMERICAN INSTITUTE O F PLANNERS
There may be hidden economic costs in temporary
facilities, of course. The rapid exhaustion of material
or energy resources involved in production for quick
disposal may not appear as a cost on today’s budget,
but be a heavy liability in future ledgers.
There are difficult administrative problems involved
in the use of temporary structures, primarily that of
ensuring that the use is indeed temporary and not
prolonged. I t has never been necessary to police the
use of soiled Kleenex (except among small children)
but larger facilities have a tendency to be used beyond
their time, perpetuating substandard conditions and
consuming heavy maintenance charges. The last
LG
temporary” house thrown up in London after the
Great Fire of 1666 was demolished in 1936. A policy
of using short-life elements must be accompanied by
some means of regulating their demise. The mam-
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
malian body has an elaborate apparatus of special-
ized cells which see to the dissolution of unneeded
structure.
Not only is it necessary to prevent prolonged use,
if adaptability is to be achieved, but it is likewise
necessary to arrange that all adjacent parts are re-
placeable at the same time. A house whose frame is
temporary, but heating system permanent, is impos-
sible to manage. Similarly, if in a city only scattered
elements are removable at any one time, the resulting
adaptability is only marginal.
deBee1-9 mentions that some Polyzoa regenerate
themselves by periodic dissolution of their structure,
by return of the organism to an undifferentiated slime,
or “brown body.” We may find that we can keep our
environments “youthful” by a similar process of sys-
tematic destruction and dedifferentiation. But only if
the process is somehow controlled, and somehow zoned
to furnish continuous areas for new growth. Future
implications of heavy resource use must also be care-
fully studied, as must the social and psychological
costs (which will be mentioned below).
Communication Substitutes
Environmental adaptability may be achieved by
quite another means, which does not cause permanent
shifts in the visible pattern. This refers to the survival
ability of systems possessing highly developed com-
munication networks. If internal communication is
good, then resources can quickly be mobilized and
shifted to meet emergencies. More important, per-
haps, a good communication system allows changes
in patterns of interaction without corresponding
changes in physical setting. A man may shift his place
of work without shifting his residence; a factory may
use new techniques in dispersed satellite plants, and
still keep them keyed into an undisturbed main plant;
new social groups or recreational habits may form
with a minimum of necessary remodelling; retail dis-
‘Og. cit., p. 34.
22
1958/ 1
tribution may be revolutionized by closed-circuit tele-
vision, and cause no ripple on the architectural scene.
Although it may seem that complexity, interde-
pendence and high communication are signs of a
fragile organism, while a simple, independent one is
tough and adaptable, yet in fact the reverse is usually
true. The groups of wide range and survival value
are the interrelated, communicating ones. The iso-
lated peasant village perishes in a famine; the de-
pendent modern farmer survives. The most persistent
of human settlements have been the large and com-
plex ones, not the little hamlets. Despite all our fore-
bodings over these “unnatural” groupings, once ar-
rived at a certain size they seem able to survive
repeated shocks. This adaptability that comes from
high communication and interrelation is undoubtedly
the basic factor behind the power and viability of our
metropolitan areas.
The communication system will be most useful for
our purpose if it is a neutral one, i.e., favors and inter-
connects most localities relatively equally. Then vari-
ous interaction patterns can be set up without dis-
tortion by the communication arrangement, and can
shift as easily. One future location is theoretically as
good as another. This would seem to indicate some
kind of a regular grid system, and to argue against
highly concentrated, fixed communication systems. I t
also implies a rather finely-netted circulation pattern,
so that all locations are interconnected.
This may conflict with other aims, of course. Effi-
ciency is likely to call for concentrated systems, such
as rail lines. Therefore we may have to be contented
with the reservation of future ways in a regular grid,
while allowing efficient concentration of facilities
within that grid. Or a transport system might be
sought out which can alternately concentrate and
break up, according to need, such as the “piggy-back”
combination of rail and truck.
There is some conflict even within our own set
objective. If a fine net, fine grain communication
system aids the interchangeability of location, yet
where it occupies physical space it also works against
the technique of concentrating structure, and to that
extent causes inflexibility. Undoubtedly a balance
must be struck here, probably a differentiation of the
communication facilities themselves, such that some
are fine capillaries, easily moved, leading through a
hierarchical grid to the fixed, concentrated major
structural lines.
Therefore this constitutes still another means of
gaining adaptability : the construction of a high-level,
neutral and perhaps finely-netted circulation and
communication system, so that interaction changes
may be accommodated without the agony of environ-
mental ones.
Application
T o pull together this discussion by an example,

assume that we are about to design a large shopping
center, and that adaptability to future unknown
change will be an important objective. We would not
be likely to turn to a vague “flexible” or “multi-
purpose’’ undifferentiated space, even if it would
otherwise work. Nor would we strive to develop
variety of facilities for their own sake.
But we would certainly keep the intensity as low
as we could, without hampering present function. We
would build extra capacities into the various struc-
tures, within our means. We would employ structures
with as short a life as was economically feasible, if we
had developed a way of controlling and timing their
scrapping, and did not fear any future drain on
resources.
Furthermore, we would attempt in the layout to
zone temporary and low density facilities in concen-
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
trated areas, and to separate other likely-to- (or
easy-to-) change uses from their opposites. We would
concentrate major structure (here the mains of com-
munication and utilities) in sharply-defined bands, as
widely separated as possible. We would see that all
major activities had axes of growth into relatively
“passive” regions, arranging these major areas like
beads on a string, or as centers of activity grading out
into a less differentiated matrix. Our plan might be
such as to encourage a “rolling” growth of the center,
and we would recommend that future re-adaptation
of the center be in the hands of a continuing body
who understood these same principles. We would
certainly insist that we have as good a communication
system as possible : highly developed, rather neutral,
and, in its minor features, of fine grain. We might
even, with due caution, look into the possible advan-
tages of a three-dimensional modular system for all
structures, but of a rather coarse and neutral charac-
ter. We would avoid (if we could identify them)
highly specialized features which are narrowly adapted
to present processes, but would not necessarily shy at
complicated, precise, or developed forms.
Qualifications
The reader must remember that we are discussing
simply the physical means of attaining adaptability.
There may be many other ways of gaining this end:
administrative techniques in particular. Of such na-
ture are flexible rules governing new development;
or systems of carrying on scrapping and renewal as
a smooth, perpetual process; or the institution of
agencies which periodically check the present and
future adjustment of structure to function, and recom-
mend changes to meet this constantly shifting situa-
tion. These are important means, but we have here
arbitrarily limited ourselves to the adaptability of
physical environment, per se. In some cases, physical
features are so important as to be the key to future
adaptability; in most cases, they are at least one of
the several important considerations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTABILITY
It should also be made clear that adaptability is
not the same as growth or development, but simply
is a permissive quality which allows growth or devel-
opment. The dangers of biological analogy are always
waiting in the wings : the physical environment (at
least in its urban aspect) does not grow of itself. We
have no particular interest in the growth or change
of the environment for its own sake. I n fact quite
the reverse, since every change exacts some price.
We are only interested that, when it is desirable that
life patterns should change, they can do so with mini-
mum effort, and, were it possible, with no environ-
mental change whatsoever.
If it is our objective to promote the growth or
change of people and their activities, then we may
not want environmental adaptability. Biological de-
velopment probably requires both some framework,
some direction within which growth can proceed, and
also some challenge to which response can be made.
An adaptable environment is simply a highly permis-
sive one, and this may be far from optimum for the
stimulation of individual growth.
I t should also have been noticed, throughout the
previous discussion, how often it was necessary to
qualify the conclusions with “if economically feasible,”
or “as far as present function will allow.” There
seems to be a continuous conflict between future
adaptability and present efficiency. Low intensity,
over-capacity, highly temporary structure, intense
concentration of structure, modular standardization,
separation of centers, avoidance of specialization: all
are likely to exact a price in terms of immediate func-
tion of first cost. Present efficiency seems to prefer a
high degree of structure, close fitting, fixity, specializa-
tion in the sense of narrow adaptation to the im-
mediate situation. When it comes to an all-out show-
down, present efficiency will always take the pot, but
usually the problem is one of striking a reasonable
balance, with many unknowns and much looseness of
fit. I n our rapidly changing world, adaptability can
usually justify a reasonable increase of present cost.
Very often there are adaptability features which cost
little or nothing in the immediate situation. And new,
more complex forms may at once improve both
efficiency and adaptability.
In all this preceding discussion human implications
of a highly adaptable environment have been con-
sistently dodged. Here again there is a significant
conflict, and this perhaps the most serious one of all.
A loose, shifting, temporary world may be ideal for
meeting major changes in man’s circumstances, and
for allowing his development without hindrance. But,
not only may it not be most suitable for the active
promotion of development, and not only may it be
relatively inefficient for present function, it may
simply not be a very happy place for human existence.
We have psychological requirements for some con-
tinuity and stability in our world, for structure, co-
23
 JOURNAL OF T H E AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS
herence and imageability. Without them, the organ-
ism breaks down. If they are weak, there is stress,
dissatisfaction, uncertainty ; and growth may be hin-
dered. (If they are too pervasive, of course, we may
have opposite effects of growth cessation, atrophy or
boredom.) Adaptable forms are likely to be am-
biguous, unclear, shifting, discontinuous. Thus there
is likely to be a conflict of basic objectives.
Within the limits of this analysis, we can do little
more than to point out the conflict, which is indeed
the basic problem of any system, and particularly of
any human society: how to provide continuity and
clarity of form and of aspiration, without hindering
the flexible adjustment of function to the constantly-
changing situation. Undoubtedly there are ways to
approach this ideal in the physical environment, and
they are worthy of careful analysis. Zoning, the con-
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 13:04 05 October 2014
centration of fixed structure, the provision of stable
intense centers, the maintenance of form despite a
rolling progression, communications which obviate
the need to shift locations: all these can potentially
provide emotional and perceptual continuity in the
midst of flux.
Visual symbols are very useful in this regard, since
they can denote continuity and similarity of general
aspirations, without referring to precise meanings, or
impeding new functions. An historic center, or a
24
195811
space preserved throughout long vicissitudes, may act
as symbols on a city scale. If it proves advantageous
to rebuild a man’s house every few years, then siting
by a great stone or tree may symbolize its continuity
of location and function with past generations.
The problem of adaptability, therefore, turns out
to be more complicated than at first look, both as to
just what the objective is, how it can be attained, and
how it relates to other human ends. This study has
discussed it primarily as an end in itself, and entirely
in relation to the physical means of attaining it.
Certainly, in any real situation, adaptability must be
considered only in context with many other objectives.
Nevertheless, it appears that adaptability to future
change unspecified is a significant goal in city plan-
ning, and that there are some physical means of
attaining it. These are primarily those of zoning and
concentration of structure; avoidance of narrow adap-
tation; low intensity and over-capacity; use of growth
forms; and a good, neutral, well-distributed communi-
cation system. I n addition, it may sometimes be
useful to employ a lattice structure, or facilities of
short life. Systematic investigation of these means
when used at the city scale, and a thinking through
of their relation to other human objectives, would
prove useful.