Speaker
Description
Recent scholarship challenges solely human-centric approaches to urban design (Yigitcanlar et al., 2019), suggesting a shift in perspective. Consequently, there is a growing recognition of more-than-human perspectives, asking for better integration of designers' views for urban cohabitation (Metzger 2023; Roudavski 2021), for example in the context of urban placemaking in public spaces (Sheikh et al., 2023). However, in planning education the exploration of non-anthropocentric design and futuring remains in its early stages, and the role of design has not yet been widely explored. In this article, we address this research need and focus in this illustrative case study on the questions of why design is important in the education of planners and what the relevance of design is in addressing current challenges such as climate change.
This research builds on a current studio course offered to students of urban studies and planning within an interdisciplinary graduate degree programme in Finland. The studio is offered to students from several disciplines with the purpose of developing their urban planning skills while integrating methods from the involved disciplines, including design. The studio format has been recognized as a good setting for exploring future challenges as they engage students with real life cases and provide hands-on experiences (Balassiano 2011). The studio theme in autumn 2024 was on rethinking streets for life for humans and other species in light of climate change. The chosen area included both historical neighbourhoods and more recent urban development on reclaimed land. By integrating concepts from interspecies design, the course encouraged a reimagining of streetscapes as multispecies habitats. The agenda combines study area visits, guest speakers representing diverse stakeholders and disciplines. Together they inform experiential and project-based learning.
The studio spans over 13 weeks. In the first part, students explore the study area through site visits, interventions from guest speakers, and data collection using mixed methods. In the second part, students work in interdisciplinary teams to propose specific interventions to the identified urban challenges within the study area. Design thinking and design process were introduced, once the students had identified the challenges they would be addressing. This iterative, and participatory approach enabled students to appreciate the temporal implication of their proposals, and impact at various scales.
Experiences from the course show that design thinking with a more-than-human focus can transform planning education by fostering inclusivity, adaptability, and ecological and ethical awareness. Design thinking encourages iterative problem-solving and collaboration, integrating a variety of perspectives into the design of streetscapes, and redefining public spaces through design as co-inhabited rather than human-engineered. Some of the challenges faced during this learning process is establishing a common language among the members of the student teams as a basis for developing their project. Overcoming this challenge was addressed through the selected teaching and assessment methods. The teachers provide theoretical background by different experts, methodologies, and one-on-one tutoring with each team. The assessment methods include individual reflections on the learning process, peer-learning and peer-feedback, to enhance disciplinary exchange and develop teamworking and project management skills in diverse student teams.
References
Balassiano, K. (2011). Tackling “wicked problems” in planning studio courses. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(4), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11415282
Metzger, J. (2023). The cosmopolitics of urban planning in a more-than-human world. In The Routledge International Handbook of More-than-Human Studies (pp. 348-358). Routledge.
Roudavski, S. (2021). Interspecies design. In: Cambridge Companion to literature and the Anthropocene, 147-162.
Sheikh, H., Foth, M., & Mitchell, P. (2023). More-than-human city-region foresight: multispecies entanglements in regional governance and planning. Regional Studies, 57(4), 642-655.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., Da Costa, E., & Ioppolo, G. (2019). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable cities and society, 45, 348-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.033
| Keywords | more-than-human design; interdisciplinary; design thinking; Helsinki; common language |
|---|
