Reflections on the Pedagogy of Place in Planning and Urban Design

Abstract

T he idea behind this article originates from two observations. The first is that expressions and remarks-such as "scamscapes" (Soja 1996), "theming and stage sets" (Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee 1998), "the obsession with design," and "the superficial aesthetics and picturesque aspects of cities" (Inam 2002, 37)-question the current practices in urban design and place making. These critiques call for a "meaningful urban design" 1 that recognizes the importance of "rich experiences, processes and evolution of cities" (Inam 2002). The second observation is that rethinking the pedagogy of place and place making will help us pave the way toward a meaningful urban design.To this end, there are those who emphasize the visual and physical attributes of place, whereas others use broader contexts, categories, and mechanisms in their attempts to understand place. For the latter group, the study of place is grounded in the large political-economic forces that mediate and redefine the physical setting and has less to do with matters related to design and aesthetics. These approaches, in our opinion, complement each other and require the development of appropriate teaching methods.The objective of this article is to explore new ways of engaging planners in discussions about place and to articulate its dynamics for pedagogical purposes. Debates about the pedagogy of place have both conceptual and practical dimensions. At the conceptual level, the problem is how to define place and seek appropriate teaching and learning methods that help achieve a meaningful urban design. At the practical level, the problem is whether studio teaching should continue to emphasize skill building based on the preconceived notions of urban space rather than on the multilayered notion of place. Based on these observations, we propose that planning studios should be expected to raise awareness, increase knowledge, and, to a much lesser extent, encourage generating preconceived design solutions; second, they should focus more on place and place making than on urban spaces.Against the backdrop of the competing arguments and overlapping interpretations of place, this article is organized in three main sections. Following a discussion of the concept of place, the linkages of place to planning, and our proposal of four ontological assumptions, the article focuses on a project that began as part of a ten-week urban design studio for sophomores enrolled in the School of Planning at the University of AbstractThis article revisits the concept of place in planning and urban design and proposes a conceptual framework consisting of four ontological constructs of place as a set of visual attributes, product, process, and meaning. The article discusses the theoretical underpinnings of each concept and explores the advantages of a continuum between these terms to help bridge the gap between policy planning and physical design and to move toward a meaningful urban design. The study also examines the application of the proposed constructs of place to a sophomore-pl...

A Configurational Accessibility Study of Road and Metro Network in Shanghai, China

“…A review of place literature and the related aspects of development form while relevant to this discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Aspect of development forms that embed place ontologies can be categorized as follow: 'place as visual attributes', 'place as product', 'place as process', 'place as values' (Arefi & Triantafillou, 2005). Briefly stated according to these authors Place as visual attribute relates to the configuration of image, townscape, picturesque, visual excitement, contradiction/complexity, iconography, and visual layering.…”

Revisiting the “Model of Place”: A Comparative Study of Placemaking and Sustainability

“…dens, the everyday acts of renovation and maintenance, and making neighbourhoods. However, since design and planning have been assigned to professional placemakers (Figure 1; e.g., landscape architects, urban designers, urban planners, and architects), it seems much of the ability to create meaningful places has been lost (Arefi & Triantafillou, 2005;Inam, 2002;Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995). The prevailing model of recent design strategies for places based on the approach of expertusers is mostly focused on place as a visual end product (Rozentale, Jong, & Kinasts, 2015).…”

“…Planners tend to think about urban problems in physical terms and attempt to address such problems in a rational way. The result is a product with specific elements that are claimed to be the answer to a complex problem (Arefi & Triantafillou, 2005). In this industrialised structure of planning and placemaking, experts deliver the product to the agent who commissioned the work (Rozentale et al, 2015).…”

“…In recent decades the latter, which has been claimed to be a core part of placemaking (Kalandides, 2018;Strydom & Puren, 2013), has gained in popularity. However, despite this rising awareness of place and its value, placemaking appears to fail to create meaningful places (Arefi & Triantafillou, 2005;Inam, 2002). Placemaking projects have been criticized as being a set of visual aesthetics that are replicated everywhere, and that reflect uniformity, standardization, and disconnection from the context (Corkery, 2016;Crommelin, 2016).…”

Building on Young Children's Cultural Histories through Placemaking in the Classroom

“…Building on land development literature (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995;McCann, 2002;Arefi & Triantafillou, 2005), place consists of more than geographic terrain, to include an individual or group's social, cultural, political, and ecological constructions of a physical setting. Perhaps more specifically, place refers to the knowledge, meanings, and actions derived from a person's lived experiences of a physical landscape.…”