Complex and area

The problem of modern urban development is not that it doesn’t function anymore but that it continues to function. At a certain extent the problem lies in a fact that it sill functions. Thus problem of development occupied my mind in a search for understanding upcoming reality. I might say that present work was started from the desire to understand future development of today’s conditions but ended mostly in attempt to interpret the very concept of conditions. Since the process of definition and evaluation of the state of modern megapolis, regional territory, rural environment made clear that the very definitions of this foundamental concepts are under heavy mutation. It made clear for me necessity to re-invent platforms out of which I can build a picture of a future. In attempt to project the future development of a city I came to conclusion that one must revise the definition, constitution of a city, region, state. My work aims to evaluate conditions of these entities in order to capture new possible mutations and formations that occur in urban environment. City always stood at the center of out civilization as a territory of progress, accumulation of cultural, economical resources. City is a place of novelty. Organization of a city is organization of a progress. To understand development means to understand organizational tendencies. Hence my desire to look upon a city as upon a complex system. Organization of urban territory can’t be taken without consideration of its historical phase. Throughout its long history city assumed different models of interraction withinregional environment an later on global scale. But present work is not about history of a city. My interest in a city comes from desire to understand conditions of new urban formations. I postulate that city ceases to exist as urban “complex” but becomes an urban territory. This transformation is due to shift in mayor systems of our society. I posit that systemic shift changes condition and revives organizational models akin to medieval “complexes”. The methodology which I follow in my investigation is based on a universal organizational science of Alexander Bogdanov - “techtology”. The objects of my analysis are major systems that define the platfrom in which human activity takes place, that is to say - “complex” and “area”. I use term “area”as an environment of large scale with dispersed matters of production and “complex” as a place of concentration of matters of production. Later on I will describe systemic difference between these two entities and postulate the scenario of their interrelations. Each historic phase has its own relations of these two entities. I regard development of a “complex” as history of early monastery, city, partly industrial clusters and I consider “area” as a regiona, state. The dialogue between these two systems constitutes the trajectory of the development. In a search for means of development, that is to say powers that lie in foundation of of process I come to notion of capabilities devloped by Viktor Krasishikov and Saskia Sassen. This concept I use as a tool to understand the transition from one phase to another. Understanding of transition requires particular use of a notion of “process” and role of capabilties in shaping it. The problem of transition from one point to another, from old to new is crucial for the problem of the development. Problem becomes a platform where demand for new formation arises. By means of techtology (systemic science) I come to necessity of the revision of a modern urban formation as a “complex” and its towards a system akin to a territory, place of scattered poorly connected capabilities. I naturally come to necessity of comparison of certain historic phases due to their organizational similarities. Out of this similarities the model of new “complex” arises. I posit that modern systemic shift provokes formation of neomedieval status and revival of “complexes” which organizational model assumes character of a monastery and independent city state of Hign Middle Ages in today’s urban environment. Sprawl of growing megalopolis turning urban environment into “global village” assuming desorganized often agressive character. Such “area” provokes formation of internal closed sub/counter-systems on a basis of informal political power of private corporations able to procreate perimeter of a “true city”. I consider growing megalopolis as a territory of constant defragmentation where economic inequality finds spatial expressions in uniform territories of concentrated poverty with poorly maintained infrastructure general degradation of living standarts and “islands” of privatized land “fenced”by means of property selection and often also physically. Revival of the model of monastery of Early Midde Ages and city of High MIddle Ages is embodied in headquaters of private corporations. I use latin word “Sedis” in order to underline that such “complex” tends “to sit”, “to take place” in a city. I consider such system as predatory formations that in a condition of overlapping jurisdictions of modern status, weak central state, striking inequality exersizes in consumption of resources of surrounding built environment in a manner how city-state of middle ages was consuming and incorporating the elements of feudal region. What makes medieval system and not baroque or industrial or any other later phase so akin to organization of modern megalopolis is a condition of “plus/minus” division on two worlds - urban and rural. I posit that “Sedis” (HQ of corporations) and urban territories “converted” by private power established a “field” (domain) of a so caled “better world” where expressions of progress takes place. Domain of “Sedis” becomes a territory of specific culture standing in opposition of degraded environment of “outdated” rest. What I seek to capture in my work is how capabilities of growing city starting from the very beginnig of early medieval enforced city formation and subsequently disrutpted it realizing transition from a status of a“complex” formation to “area” formation. Hence my counterposition of “complex” and “area” through the dramas of centuries to the point when one entity assumes characteristics of another. And basic reason for this transformation is simple notion of the growth. Throughout history of city, industry, region, state and so on there were multiple occasions when two systems (“complex” and “area”) met each other in attempt for fusion and transgression. But simple obstacle occurs - physcial incapabilities. Cities was to small to operate as area, hence fall of city-state of Reneissance and “area” had no technologies to operate as a city, hence creation of a capital - sophisticated compromise between “complex” and “area”. But gradual growth played its role. We are entering the epoch when city obtains size of a region and certain process like decentralization in a manner of middle ages with weak central states are inevitable. Hence my inquiries into problem of growth. Last chapter potrays conditions of rising megalopolis as a condition for neomedieval “complex” to arise in urban region. For this specific purpose I come closer to architecture of monastery and city of High Middle Ages. I define their organizational model and specific mechanisms of formation of medieval realtions. These mechanisms being applied in the last chapter into conditions of modern urban environment outline abstract model of “Sedis”- new “complex” of urban “area”.