@olli Thanks for continuing the momentum from the October class with your thoughts on finding a sustainable world view. Appreciating that unpredictability in a potential intervention can not be avoided, you raise the question as to when planning becomes overplanning.
On applying SSM and acknowledging multiple worldviews, there’s a slight distinction between the finding a workable (i.e. mostly satisfying) solution as a planner / designer / facilitator, and the common worldview that you cite from writings by @gmetcalf (originally generative dialogue from Bela H. Banathy). In the community approach (last October) in which generative dialogues take place, we tend to think of every participant (including the facilitator) as equal. In this course in February, we step up so that the planner / designer has special expertise or knowledge that the layman would not. The challenge comes when the planner / designer thinks he or she knows best, and thus imposes his or her worldview on the rest.
Your observation on focusing on the process and not just the output is spot on, and we’ll cover that more in coming lectures. The research that you couldn’t quite recall was from Elinor Ostrom on common pool resources. Bringing those ideas into sustainable urban design is a little outside of the original research domain, and a good stretch for you.
We’ll have more discussions about uncertainty towards the end of this course. Your pointer to Richard Florida’s 3 T’s, focusing on tolerance, can lead to a discussion about emergence (especially from variety), which isn’t completely certain. Tolerance could be necessary but not sufficient (as in the point of the story about coproduction, acorns and oak trees).