Teaching Resilience: Aspects of a univeresity urban design curriculum for 21st century cities

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Urban design as a postgraduate university degree emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to the urbanistic shortcomings of town planning. A primarily architect-led response to post WWII reconstruction in Europe and urban renewal projects of the 1950s-60s, urban design education has received renewed priority in recent years. The global importance of the city as the focus of sustainable planning and design was announced in the 1987 United Nations’ report Our Common Future. In intervening years, efforts at policy formulation and implementation have progressed as national initiatives but such efforts in university education have lagged. With epistemic transformations such as climate change science and a surge in urban migration, the re-examination of urban design curricula is timely as universities seek to develop programs that address city sustainability. What general direction should a contemporary urban design curriculum take to address the scale and complexity of intertwined urban forces and values: should curricula be focused on practice or more research-led and future-policy biased? Should the design studio remain the core of curricula, and if so, which kinds of studio problems are most relevant today? Should the focus be on normative institutions and traditional urban scale problems or more focused on future infrastructures and regulatory controls at multiple scales? Alongside courses in history of city form, visualisation, public policy, and urban economics, what other topics should be included and which collaborative/interdisciplinary models might be adopted? To begin to answer these questions, this paper undertakes a comparative survey of four approaches to a contemporary urban design curriculum. Focusing on key aspects, program structure, and future challenges in the university education of architects and urban designers, the paper contributes to scholarship on the practice and theory of city design education and aligns with core Conference themes of sustainability and resilience in cities.
LanguageEnglish
Pages187-197
Number of pages11
JournalArchitecture Media Politics Society
Volume13
Publication statusPublished - 29 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Curricula
Teaching
Education
Studios
Sustainable development
Lead
Planning
Climate change
Visualization
History
Economics

Cite this

@article{b4529f0a26ed44e98a8e894355d9de7c,
title = "Teaching Resilience: Aspects of a univeresity urban design curriculum for 21st century cities",
abstract = "Urban design as a postgraduate university degree emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to the urbanistic shortcomings of town planning. A primarily architect-led response to post WWII reconstruction in Europe and urban renewal projects of the 1950s-60s, urban design education has received renewed priority in recent years. The global importance of the city as the focus of sustainable planning and design was announced in the 1987 United Nations’ report Our Common Future. In intervening years, efforts at policy formulation and implementation have progressed as national initiatives but such efforts in university education have lagged. With epistemic transformations such as climate change science and a surge in urban migration, the re-examination of urban design curricula is timely as universities seek to develop programs that address city sustainability. What general direction should a contemporary urban design curriculum take to address the scale and complexity of intertwined urban forces and values: should curricula be focused on practice or more research-led and future-policy biased? Should the design studio remain the core of curricula, and if so, which kinds of studio problems are most relevant today? Should the focus be on normative institutions and traditional urban scale problems or more focused on future infrastructures and regulatory controls at multiple scales? Alongside courses in history of city form, visualisation, public policy, and urban economics, what other topics should be included and which collaborative/interdisciplinary models might be adopted? To begin to answer these questions, this paper undertakes a comparative survey of four approaches to a contemporary urban design curriculum. Focusing on key aspects, program structure, and future challenges in the university education of architects and urban designers, the paper contributes to scholarship on the practice and theory of city design education and aligns with core Conference themes of sustainability and resilience in cities.",
keywords = "urban design, curriculum, Architecture Education",
author = "Michael JASPER",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "29",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "187--197",
journal = "Architecture Media Politics Society",
issn = "2398-9467",
publisher = "UCL Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Teaching Resilience

T2 - Architecture Media Politics Society

AU - JASPER, Michael

PY - 2019/1/29

Y1 - 2019/1/29

N2 - Urban design as a postgraduate university degree emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to the urbanistic shortcomings of town planning. A primarily architect-led response to post WWII reconstruction in Europe and urban renewal projects of the 1950s-60s, urban design education has received renewed priority in recent years. The global importance of the city as the focus of sustainable planning and design was announced in the 1987 United Nations’ report Our Common Future. In intervening years, efforts at policy formulation and implementation have progressed as national initiatives but such efforts in university education have lagged. With epistemic transformations such as climate change science and a surge in urban migration, the re-examination of urban design curricula is timely as universities seek to develop programs that address city sustainability. What general direction should a contemporary urban design curriculum take to address the scale and complexity of intertwined urban forces and values: should curricula be focused on practice or more research-led and future-policy biased? Should the design studio remain the core of curricula, and if so, which kinds of studio problems are most relevant today? Should the focus be on normative institutions and traditional urban scale problems or more focused on future infrastructures and regulatory controls at multiple scales? Alongside courses in history of city form, visualisation, public policy, and urban economics, what other topics should be included and which collaborative/interdisciplinary models might be adopted? To begin to answer these questions, this paper undertakes a comparative survey of four approaches to a contemporary urban design curriculum. Focusing on key aspects, program structure, and future challenges in the university education of architects and urban designers, the paper contributes to scholarship on the practice and theory of city design education and aligns with core Conference themes of sustainability and resilience in cities.

AB - Urban design as a postgraduate university degree emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to the urbanistic shortcomings of town planning. A primarily architect-led response to post WWII reconstruction in Europe and urban renewal projects of the 1950s-60s, urban design education has received renewed priority in recent years. The global importance of the city as the focus of sustainable planning and design was announced in the 1987 United Nations’ report Our Common Future. In intervening years, efforts at policy formulation and implementation have progressed as national initiatives but such efforts in university education have lagged. With epistemic transformations such as climate change science and a surge in urban migration, the re-examination of urban design curricula is timely as universities seek to develop programs that address city sustainability. What general direction should a contemporary urban design curriculum take to address the scale and complexity of intertwined urban forces and values: should curricula be focused on practice or more research-led and future-policy biased? Should the design studio remain the core of curricula, and if so, which kinds of studio problems are most relevant today? Should the focus be on normative institutions and traditional urban scale problems or more focused on future infrastructures and regulatory controls at multiple scales? Alongside courses in history of city form, visualisation, public policy, and urban economics, what other topics should be included and which collaborative/interdisciplinary models might be adopted? To begin to answer these questions, this paper undertakes a comparative survey of four approaches to a contemporary urban design curriculum. Focusing on key aspects, program structure, and future challenges in the university education of architects and urban designers, the paper contributes to scholarship on the practice and theory of city design education and aligns with core Conference themes of sustainability and resilience in cities.

KW - urban design

KW - curriculum

KW - Architecture Education

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 187

EP - 197

JO - Architecture Media Politics Society

JF - Architecture Media Politics Society

SN - 2398-9467

ER -