Speaker
Description
Planning education has evolved significantly over the last century, shaped by societal needs, technological advances, and pedagogical innovations (Frank, 2006). Its origins were rooted in addressing the challenges of industrialization, with early programs focusing heavily on spatial planning and physical design, drawing influence from architecture and engineering. Institutions such as the Liverpool School of Civic Design and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) spearheaded this movement, striving to professionalize the field and align it with urban governance frameworks (Vale, 2006). By the mid-20th century, planning education expanded its scope to include the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of urbanism, with public participation becoming a core component of planning processes (Frank et al., 2018).
Entering the 21st century, planning education must grapple with increasingly visible implications of climate change and socio-economic inequalities (Sami et al., 2022). The rising frequency of extreme weather events, territorial fragility, urban displacement, food insecurity, and homelessness highlight the inadequacy of traditional approaches to urban planning. These interconnected issues stem from systems prioritizing economic growth over sustainable, equity-driven solutions. As a result, there is an urgent need to rethink entrenched "business as usual" planning practices and educational approaches, fostering new ways of imagining urban futures.
Globally, institutions are adapting to equip future planners with the skills to address these challenges. MIT has integrated interdisciplinary models emphasizing climate resilience, data science, and social justice (Vale, 2006), while ETH Zurich leverages innovative curricula blending urban informatics with sustainable infrastructure (Frank et al., 2018). Similarly, planning programs in the Global South have adopted experiential learning methods to bridge the gap between theory and practice, emphasizing community engagement and participatory governance (Denoon-Stevens et al., 2022).
Despite these advancements, planning education in Turkey remains largely unchanged, reflecting an adherence to traditional methodologies. Rapid growth in the number of planning departments has led to an oversupply of graduates, compounded by inadequate integration of modern technological skills into the curriculum (Özkazanç & Korkmaz, 2019). Students often feel ill-prepared to address the dynamic demands of urban planning, including climate adaptation and social equity. Studio work, a cornerstone of the curriculum, continues to focus predominantly on static spatial plans, sidelining interdisciplinary and real-world problem-solving frameworks (Büyükcivelek, 2020).
Efforts to reform Turkish planning education must prioritize aligning curricula with international best practices. This includes revising accreditation standards to emphasize sustainability and ethical responsibility, introducing courses on transformative skills, and fostering partnerships with global institutions. Planning studios should evolve to incorporate participatory approaches, collaborative projects, and emerging technologies like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and digital modeling tools (Sami et al., 2022). These innovations can equip students with the skills necessary to address the socio-environmental complexities of urbanization.
This study proposes a transformative approach to planning education, focusing on integrating sustainability, equity, and adaptability into pedagogical practices. It highlights the importance of fostering new imaginaries of urban living that challenge conventional paradigms while emphasizing the unique socio-political contexts of different regions. By modernizing planning education, programs can better prepare students to tackle pressing urban issues and contribute to creating resilient, equitable, and sustainable cities. The study calls for a global dialogue to exchange best practices and foster collaborative solutions, ensuring planning education remains responsive to the challenges of a rapidly evolving world.
References
Büyükcivelek, A.B., 2020. Quality problem of spatial plans. Planlama, 30(2), pp.148-153. DOI: 10.14744/planlama.2020.07269.
Denoon-Stevens, S.P., Andres, L., Jones, P., Melgaço, L., Massey, R. and Nel, V., 2022. Theory versus practice in planning education: The view from South Africa. Planning Practice & Research, 37(4), pp.509-525. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2020.1735158.
Frank, A.I., 2006. Three decades of thought on planning education. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(1), pp.15-67. DOI: 10.1177/0885412206288904.
Frank, A.I., Silver, C., 2018. Urban Planning Education: Beginnings, Global Movement and Future Prospects. Springer.
Özkazanç, S. and Korkmaz, C., 2019. Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Disiplininde Eğitim, İş Bulma ve Mesleki Öz Yeterliliğe İlişkin Kaygı ve Beklentiler. Mimarlık Bilimleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi (MBUD), 4(2), pp.122-139. DOI: 10.30785/mbud.582936.
Sami, N., Lall, R., Anand, G. and Anand, S., 2022. Rethinking planning education for urban equality: Higher education as a site for change. Environment & Urbanization, 34(2), pp.413-429. DOI: 10.1177/09562478221113623.
Vale, L.J., 2006. Educating planners at MIT: Eight decades of changing cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(4), pp.473-484. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X06288015.
| Keywords | Planning education; Turkey; urban resilience; transformative pedagogy ; sustainable cities |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
