Space planning is confronted with new problems along with the rescaling of business logics. The scale of planning remains quite steady, so how can it deal with the vast widening of networks and its spatial consequences? CRIA tries to address this question.
As a matter of fact, networks tend to widen scales but they especially contribute to create an original topological space that scales in their traditional meaning cannot fully convey. Network could thus only create territories if a de-territorialization occurs, which leads to new challenges for planning.
The notion of scale has been fruitfully developed lastly, but CRIA also tries to deepen these interrogations by testing other notions such as flows, borders, places, poles, centers, urban, rural (and their intermediate categories such as suburban or periurban), and more particularly the notion of proximity.
This notion is more traditional for geographers but quite intuitive for planners, and should thus be re-questioned. If networks take part in making the territory, how does it affect the notion of proximity? What are the consequences for planning’s practices and techniques? How does proximity interact with networks on the one hand and with political territories on the other hand? Trying to enlighten these relations should allow us to understand how territory is built along with networks.
Economic actors used to be in the center of these interrogations, but today it’s enriched with new methods allowing integrate individual practices of inhabitants. In this perspective, mobility and immobility in (and outside) transportation networks are particularly analyzed.