The cities of the modern world are developing at different speeds appropriate to their historical and cultural context. In the global South it seems as if the change is occurring within two halves, one being the formal city and the other in the informal sectors. Each “half” develops its own personality as a correspondence to the problems and desires of the individuals that inhabit its boundaries. However, this separation into “halves” is a quality of change in the urban fabric that can be seen in the history of the evolution of many other global cities.
New York City beginning as a port for incoming and outgoing goods in the new world split itself into sections of specific areas of trade. The city was not created from one master plan like Brasilia or St Petersburg but sprung up as different patches reflecting the many trades of its inhabitants. This is group behavior is almost like an instinct made for the purpose of survival but in this case not personal but rather the survival of business. As Johnson suggests, “Like minded businesses cluster together because there are financial incentives to do so.” [1] This instinct to gather then becomes like an ant colony where one individual does not have much power or attention in regards to his trade but as a whole a unique personality is created that brings publicity and in turn interest into what is being sold. Looking at it in the developing city context, a lonely shanty house does not have much power and has to face repugnance by the rest of society. However, as a whole it can become a living organism whose personality can withstand the criticisms of the inhabitants of the formal sector. More importantly, it gives a voice to those who alone cannot create change within their own “half”.
There are specific factors that trigger change within a city. Whether it be political, economic, cultural, or geographic a catalyst needs to exist in order for the change to come about. Like in chemistry where the “special ability of catalysts to intervene in the dynamics of other processes, called enzymes allow the control of more chemical reactions.”[2] In the evolution of city the catalyst is the person who understands the “halves” created within the urban fabric but perhaps feels that she/he does not belong in any of them. Furthermore, it can be that he/she sees the city in a different manner than others and for this reason wants to bring change in how the processes of each “halves” carry themselves. I believe that as architects we can work to serve as catalysts because our profession allows for the creation of order through form and function. We have the opportunity to re arrange things in a way that we see fit and allow for the better connection between the interactions of each disciplinary group within society. In a sense, an architect makes formal the process of entrainment in order to gain power above the rest and actually carry out the change desired. As Johnson describes, “the transition from nonsynchronized to synchronized oscillations can be understood as a bifurcation in which a set of separate limit cycles transforms themselves into a single attractor.” [2]

Change within a city will never stop, it might slow down like the change in cities from roman times to medieval but it continues to fluctuate almost like the law of conservation of energy. The architect can then serve as a mediator between transitions because he/she look at all the “halves” inside a city and decide what’s best. Architects can help create these moments of transition or “bifurcation” within separate areas of society to create unification within the patchwork of the informal and formal city.

1. Steve Johnson, Emergence : the connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software (
New York : Scribner, c2001.) 129-167

2. Manuel DeLanda, Nonorganic Life, 101-129

//