On Systems - it is more than a bunch of simple pieces

On Systems - it is more than a bunch of simple pieces

Theory essay,
UCL, the Bartlett school of architecture,
MSc Urban Design, UD 02.05,
Urban Evolution - the Thames Gateway
Fabian Neuhaus 2005-12-0

Introduction
What is a system? Four our purposes we shall think of a system in the most general way as a collection of entities interrelated in a specifi c way to accomplish a particular objective. The members of the collection are usually termed “subsystem.” Clearly, with this defi nition we can include almost anything.
The bicyclist pedalling down a city street is a system with two obvious large subsystems: the person and the bicycle. Smaller subsystems include the wheels, the operators eyes, and his nervous subsystem. This viewpoint indicates that any system we choose to consider must itself be a collection of objectives in a hierarchy. The bicyclist is a member of the city bicycle traffi c of that moment, the bicycle traffi c is a subsystem of the transportation network, and so on trough the grouping levels (in Jack W. Lapatra, Applying the system approach to urban development, page 4).

The nature of systems - things are connected - how they get along
To describe a system we will use two different types of members. First we have the elements, which describe a static thing, or a probably time based conglomeration of things, facts or actions that turns into fi x item. For example an ipod is a physical element or the bicycle traffi c is a temporary conglomeration of used bicycles.
These elements stand in relation to each another. They have something to do with each other. Some elements depend on others - a glass rests on the table, the ipod charges only trough the laptop. Some stand in a neighbourhood - the bin is placed beside the bike, that’s why I can’t pass. And others go along very well and support each other - the door and the door handle.
Whit out talking, interacting these elements stand in relations. Trough their relations they become all part of a system, they belong to my household. But they also describe subsystems - the door and the handle can be read as a system itself. The door can only be opened by using the door handle, the door handle is more useful in relation to the door, than in connection with the ipod. Differentiation trough a subjective view.
The bike and the bin may not really have enough relation to create a functional subsystem as the door and the handle. But in the fact that I can’t pass trough because of their relation they appear to me at that moment as a system. A system that in the combination of its elements makes the way for me impassable. In general, for a larger group of people the bike would be seen as a system itself, or maybe as a subsystem of my sport activities, but not in relation to the bin. The fact that when the bin is placed back in the kitchen the next day and I can pass trough beside my bike, makes the bike and the bin a temporary system. Where as the door and the door handle in a stronger and durable system stay.
The relations intensity between the elements do make a system. Subsystem can be divided from the system by looking at inner system relations.

System borders- a separation trough connections
Relations that connect the elements are then exposed to personal judging. They are objectives of subjective seeing and feeling. The bin has for me something to do with the glass on the table because they both belong to my household. But for my neighbour’s my bin has more to do with his bin, because it is the same model. But I d’ rather see my stuff together and not related to my neighbour’s belongings, he’s not my friend.
Troughs the fact that I make my household a system all elements in my household are elements of my system. They get into relation trough me and my defi nition of my household. By buying a new chair I can expand my system or by throwing something into the bin I can change my system and its subsystems.
- My own little world.
But back to the door and the door handle, most of my friends will also say that they see it as a subsystem of my household. But their friends my only see it as a system in itself or maybe as a subsystem to the apartment (which is not mine, only rented). But I could agree with others, who can be strangers, that the door and the door handle can be seen as a system. We agree about the fact, that these two elements have a really close relationship that separates them from other elements in my household.
Stronger connections can separate two elements from others to create a subsystem. “Borders” in this sense are described trough connections. The inner relations rather than trough an outline.
Borders are whit in this defi nition no longer excluding factors. The lines brake up and are open for overlapping and diffuse drifting from one to another. They are able to integrate movement and fl ow (translated from Roger Diener, Jacques Herzog, Marcel Meili, Pierre De Meuron, Christian Schmid for ETH Studio Basel, Die Schweiz ein Staedtebauliches Portrait - Grenzen, Gemeinden - Eine kurze Geschichte des Territoriums, page 252).

Relations
It could be interesting to have a closer look at relations as a member of the system. As suggested above these relations are responsible for the actual borders of the chosen system. But as we saw in the example above with the bin and the bicycle, these relations are often rated trough a subjective view onto the system. Even my mood or my planed action can affect my creation of the system. If I don’t plan to charge my ipod, the ipod - computer system is not “existing”. The system of the ipod and the speakers is taking over, because I am listening to some music. In this sense time is an aspect of the system.
But there are pre-rated relations where a large number of people would agree that these elements have a qualitative relation and this group would see it as a system in a similar way. For example the door and the door handle. This is kind of a cultural agreement trough a similar background, knowledge and education.

Subsystems
“This viewpoint indicates that any system we choose to consider must itself be a collection of objectives in a hierarchy” (in Jack W. Lapatra, Applying the system approach to urban development, page 4 - mentioned in the introduction). The mentioned hierarchy is maybe not the right word to describe the relation between a system and its member, which can also be seen as a system. According to Christopher Alexander’s essay “a city is not a tree” to implement a real hierarchy, like the one in the army, is probably simplifying the system to a tree.
The tree - thought so neat and beautiful a mental device, though it offers such a simple and clear way of diving a complex entity into units - does not describe correctly the actual structure of natural occurring cities, and does not describe the structure of the cities we need (in Christopher Alexander, A City is not a tree, page 54) - and so does the system. Systems and so called subsystem can therefore easily stand beside each other may even have special relations.
As mentioned by Christopher Alexander (in Christopher Alexander, A City is not a tree, page 55) we tend to simplify impressions in our mind to get hold of too many inputs. With our cultural background we are used to order most of the impressions in a strict hierarchy order. We simplify the inputs to a tree or further back to the question of good and bad. Trough growing up in the same culture environment, going to a similar school, we all practice for many years how to bring things into a strict hierarchy - basically we learn how to turn anything into a tree.

Working within a network - understanding the function - complexity
Complex systems are diffi cult to understand. Sometimes they appear as black boxes. This means that in the box is a unknown mechanism. I can give an input to the box, and get an output. But I am unable to fi gure out the way it functions. I can’t propose any outcome beside the fact that I will get a reaction even if noting happens.
The city can be seen as a highly complex system. Because it is more than its elements together. It includes highly active relations and activities and is able to organization itself. This means it is an open system that can adapt by itself to changing needs or new inputs. It can on its own easily integrate new elements or creating or changing relations.
As we saw before there is the possibility to see part of the system members as an other system or “subsystem”. This can be seen also as different zooms. My ipod goes with my computer. They both belong to my household. My household is in the city. But even the city can be seen as a member of a city network or a state, on and on till we reach the universe where we don’t know whether it is expanding stable or shrinking?

Conclusion - what does it tell me - myself trapped in the web
This is what makes the system theory that much interesting. Very soon you get into a kind of a self-similar circle. And it is spinning around. Was the chicken fi rst or the egg?
Up to now all examples were shown whit out me as an system member. I acted as a kind of hidden observer. But in fact my person, my body but also my actions, are members of my household system or the city system. In this way I can see myself observing the system. It is me sitting in the black box trying to act and react with my surrounding.
It is not me solving out a problem, I can see myself realizing a problem. Or even more, I can refl ect on seeing myself realizing the problem.
It is not longer me working towards the solution of the problem, it is me acting in relation to my surrounding. The “problem” is no longer a “problem with one special solution” it becomes a question with any possible reactions to it. My part is it to fi gure out how I can act whit in these reaction.
The big difference is the understanding of it by including myself into the solution (or taking especially myself out).
For the human mind, the tree is the easiest vehicle for complex thoughts. But the city is not, cannot, and must not be a tree. The city is a receptacle for life. If the receptacle servers the overlap of the strands of life whit in it, because it is a tree, it will be like a bowl full of razor blades on edge (in Christopher Alexander, A City is not a tree, page 55).



Bibliography

Jack W. Lapatra, Applying the system approach to urban development, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1973

Oliver Coutard, Richard E. Hanley, Rae Zimmerman, Sustaining urban networks - the social diffusion of large technical systems, Routledge, Oxon - New York, 2005

Michael Batty, Papers in Planning Research - 11 - On System Theory and Analysis in Urban Planning, University of Wales, Cardiff, 1980

Christopher Alexander, A City is not a tree, essay, 1965

Roger diener, Jaques Herzog, Marcel Meili, Pierr De Meuron, Christian Schmied for ETH Studio Basel, Die Schweiz ein Staedtebauliches Portraet - Grenzen, Gemeinden - Eine kurze Geschichte des Territoriums, Birkhaeuser, Basel, Berlin, Boston, 2005

Wikipedia online, http://de.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org, for system theory, system theory of the evolution, social systems, (accessed 2005-12-07)

General system theory, http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/generalsystemstheory.htm, (accessed 2005-12-07)

Christoph Alexander online, http://www.uni-weimar.de/~donath/calexander98/ca98-html.htm, (accessed 2005-12-06)

Vilem Flusser online, http://www.hyperkommunikation.ch/personen/fl usser.htm, (accessed 2005-12-07)

Hyperbibliothek online, Crashkurs, Systemtheorie, http://www.hyperkommunikation.ch/bibliothek/crashkurse/crashkurs_systemtheorie/ckst_einleitung.htm, (accessed 2005-12-07)