Conclusions: Work in Progress

The simulacrum of city intimated by this example prompts some uncertainty, as well as some propositions, that can be only briefly raised here. But clearly the willingness to examine such possibilities may be the point of departure: urban design practice in the context of deconstruction, prompting a rethink of retrograde development control. That historicist development control commonly results in kitsch historicist urban / architectural design, is arguably evident in Battery Point, and elsewhere. This in not simply a matter of style; there is a set of deceptions being perpetrated, perhaps the most important being that the past is inmutably ever present and somehow a model for the future, the classic historicist position.

The deconstructive procedure asks that other possibilities are contemplated. Fabric may be opened up, morphology changed, meanings developed, stories told, transience accepted, environment redefined. The perspective is therefore challenging narrowly conceived urban design prescripts. Conceptually, the authors' Battery Point deconstruction experiment, in this initial phase, suggests that that perspective does have some measure of legitimacy, but is in stark contrast to the explicit and implicit urban design instruments found in the planning controls.

In a general sense there is need for a dialogue between urban design principles and the concerns of deconstruction in architecture. While it is not our aim here to define what this may mean for planning generally, Table 1 gives some indicators of the ambit of the dialogue by drawing on the example included above. It must be said that this table is not an attempt to define either perspective and indeed other matters may usefully be deliberated upon; it's simply a device to highlight the dialogue.

The table does suggest that there are points of contrasting outlook that, at least, raise questions relevant to a rethink of urban design and development control in particular.

The Battery Point example intimates, but is not yet explicit about, the second element of the thesis, facilitation of development through a deconstructive process; further work is being developed that examines this question, although it is not likely there is definitive evidence.

Objectives addressed by current urban design instruments for Battery Point.

(City of Hobart, 1979.)

A deconstructive procedure: the Battery Point experiment

Fixed and static forms: built volumes, cadastral boundaries and streets.	Form mercurial, transparent, changing , virtual, inverted (envelopes spaces ).
Contextual fit to urban character, retrograde, frequently historicist result.	A continuing forward looking narrative; tension and contrast, disruption;
Complementary scale of buildings and streets.	Dominant horizontal and / or vertical scale, but indeterminate form.
Retention of heritage fabric.	Added layers of history superimposed, disjuncture, fabric opened.
Streetscape retention.	Randomness and chaos valued, venues rather than streets.
Places for people: streets and open space.	Spaces unbounded, open, transparent.
Consistent street morphology, for both private and public realm.	Cadastral boundaries broken, changed, transience.
Adaptability of building use , but restricted change of use.	Building use not an issue.
Cultural resources valued; natural resources ignored.	Project redefines & reveals culture and natural processes.

Table 1. Dialogue about objectives in planning, between Urban Design and Deconstruction: an exploration through the Battery Point project..