Introduction

Deconstruction, in its broadest sense, challenges the certainty of rational logic, the basis of the western intellectual tradition since the Enlightenment. By implication therefore, it challenges the normative conventions that have been applied to planning and urban design, for it postulates that reason is essentially dishonest, in that there can be no absolute certainty. In particular, words and symbols used to express inward thought have no absolute meaning. Reason is seen as a tyranny that suppresses uncertainty (Connor, 1991). Deconstruction is a quintessential post-modern perspective, but not the only one. (Milroy, 1991).

The implication, mentioned above, arrises because planning/urban design is generally grounded in a materialist perspective, that is, it assumes that there is a real world, mostly made up of material things that are the foundation for society. (The validity of that generalisation is a debate for another day.) The normative planner/urban designer applies logic to the 'management' of those things to achieve certain objectives. A deconstructive procedure, on the other hand, claims to be less concerned with specific objects, more open to uncertainty and the mythical, revelling in the discontinuity and complexity of contemporary contexts.

Some urban designers have taken this insight as a point of departure. They respond by bringing a sense of uncertainty to their projects, downplaying the physical manifestation, to the point of uncertainty and discontinuity. In particular, they allow each observer to discern / construct meanings, peeling away meanings 'in' a 'text'. Meaning is continuously deferred and there is never just one meaning. Indeed, as each layer is removed, yet more uncertainty is revealed.

This insight, which continues to be employed in some prominent work, can be seen as both a challenge and a liberation and can perhaps best be illustrated by reference to an example. Using an example is arguably a more direct and clearer approach to deconstruction in urban design, in that much of the written theory and commentary is excruciatingly dense and mercurial. For example, there may be some analogy with the philosophy developed by Derrida, who speaks of a developing 'deconstructive procedure', but that analogy is not essential. In any event, there can not be a strict definition of 'deconstruction' as such, its not a strict theory or principle, as conventionally understood. But there are projects that explore deconstructive procedure, and the deconstruction insight is espoused by particular architect/planners.

In this paper we describe an urban design experiment, conducted by the authors, that focuses on the development potential of a particular site, and at the same time is designed to examine the dialogue between a typical urban design instrument and a deconstructive procedure. The objective is to simply see what emerges in terms of the narrative of the site in question.