The paper argues if it is possible to map a city plan through a latticed networking in order to connect each existing activity in the city to one another. It should be argued that this will enhance the sense of community in the city while improving the communal ways of living but still preserving the individual subjectivity of each inhabitant of the city. In order to understand this argument, the paper should give a brief history on the forms of urban planning for example starting from the ancient civilizations’s central planning, then looking at other ways of city structuring, then move on the the tree-formed structure than to semi-lattice structure. When tree and semi-lattice is explained, a large part of the essay should be devoted to Christopher Alexander’s Theory of the Semi-Lattice.
This should be explained well with examples of cities but also should be critically analyzed and the structure models should not be taken for granted. Felix Didcot’s critiques of Alexander’s theories should be mentioned in this part. While looking at these different structures, it should also be mentioned how these plannings also symbolize or apply a system of force or governance on specific cities. Finally, the paper should talk about the importance of publicness over private domestic spaces in order to introduce an alternative argument for these urban structures.
And this alternative way is to apply a pure lattice network on a city to enhance the idea of a community, where unlike the totalitarian communist way of thinking, the individuals of the community still have their subjective experience within the city. This should be backed up by supportive examples of social housing or city planning. Additionally, Formulaic architecture should be mentioned when talking about forming a city through framing of empty (public spaces) rather than with the embellishment of built/ private spaces. And utopian metabolist architecture can be mentioned while talking about reaching the ultimate community while planning a city