Framing the values of teaching urban design in planning education

Authors

Downloads

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt/107

Keywords:

urban design, planning education, spatial thinking, design studio

Abstract

This article explores the pedagogical value of urban design within planning education, framing it as a distinct mode of inquiry that strengthens spatial, analytical, ethical, and collaborative competencies. Drawing on a review of the literature and insights from teaching practice, it identifies six core contributions: (i) experiencing space through studio-based learning, (ii) enhancing spatial reasoning, (iii) fostering critical reflection, (iv) learning through co-production, (v) engaging with public needs and institutional structures, and (vi) developing sensitivity to both local contexts and global challenges. These values demonstrate how urban design supports students in analysing, interpreting, and (re)shaping the built environment. Rather than occupying a peripheral or elective role, urban design serves as a foundational element in planning education, one that reintegrates design as a form of knowledge production.

Published

2025-08-04

Issue

OnlineFirst

Section

Research article

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Ender Peker

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biography

Ender Peker, Middle East Technical University, British Institute at Ankara, Türkiye

Ender Peker is Associate Professor of Urban Design and Planning at Middle East Technical University and an Honorary Research Fellow at the British Institute at Ankara, Türkiye. Ender is an urbanist specializing in climate-responsive urban design. His research focuses on climate-responsive urbanism, thermal comfort and the built environment, the governance of climate action, and water management. From 2012 to 2015, Ender served on the Coordination Team of AESOP Young Academics, where he was a founding editorial member of plaNext in 2014 and remained actively involved with the journal until 2022.

References

Black, P., Martin M., Phillips R., & Sonbli T. (2024). Applied urban design: A contextually responsive approach. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003024163-3

Blazy, R., & Łysień, M. (2021). Teaching spatial planning using elements of design thinking as an example of heuristic in urban planning. Sustainability, 13(8), 4225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084225

Brandão, P., & Remesar, A. (2010). Interdisciplinarity—urban design practice, a research and teaching matrix. On the w@terfront, 16, 3–33. https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/waterfront/article/view/18710

Breed, C., & Mehrtens, H. (2021). Using “live” public sector projects in design teaching to transform urban green infrastructure in South Africa. Land, 11(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010045

Butina Watson, G. (2016). An international perspective on urban design education. Journal of Urban Design, 21(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1220134

Carmona, M. (2014). The place-shaping continuum: A theory of urban design process. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 2–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854695

Chiaradia, A. J., Sieh, L., & Plimmer, F. (2017). Values in urban design: A design studio teaching approach. Design Studies, 49, 66–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.10.002

Cihanger Ribeiro, D. (2022). Teaching basic design online during the Covid-19 pandemic: An evaluation of the conventional and innovative pedagogies. Megaron, 17(4), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2022.70457

Cuthbert, A. (2001). Going global: Reflexivity and contextualism in urban design education. Journal of Urban Design, 6(3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800120105805

Elshater, A. (2014). Prosperity of thought versus retreat of application: A comprehensive approach in urban design teaching. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 8(3), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i3.302

Forsyth, A., Lu, H., & McGirr, P. (1999). Inside the service learning studio in urban design. Landscape Journal, 18(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.2.166

Gu, K. (2018). Exploring urban morphology as urban design pedagogy. In: V. Oliveira (Ed.), Teaching Urban Morphology (pp. 145–157). The Urban Book Series. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76126-8_9

Gu, K. (2020). The teaching of urban design: A morphological approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(4), 472-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x18775480

Inam, A. (2002). Meaningful urban design: Teleological/catalytic/relevant. Journal of Urban Design, 7(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800220129222

Kropf, K. (2018). Interdisciplinarity and design: Tools for teaching urban morphology. In: V. Oliveira (Ed.), Teaching Urban Morphology (pp. 297–315). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76126-8_17

Lak, A., & Aghamolaei, R. (2022). Evidence-based urban design studio: An action research approach. Educational Action Research, 30(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1773889

Madanipour, A. (1997). Ambiguities of urban design. Town Planning Review, 68(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.68.3.2365658h658v0157

Mahmud, S. N. D., & Arifin, N. R. (2021). Systemic design thinking in urban farming I-STEM teaching and learning module. In 2021 2nd SEA-STEM International Conference (SEA-STEM) (pp. 34–37). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/sea-stem53614.2021.9668036

Mancini, F., & Glusac, T. (2020). Experiential and integrated learning environments–Teaching urban design studio at Curtin University. In HEAd'20 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1045–1053). https://doi.org/10.4995/head20.2020.11192

Momirski, L. A. (2019). Urban design workshops in the education curriculum: Advantages and disadvantages. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 471, No. 10, p. 102048). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/471/10/102048

Nisha, B. (2019). The pedagogic value of learning design with virtual reality. Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1661356

Radović, D. (2004). Towards culturally responsive and responsible teaching of urban design. Urban Design International, 9(3), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000124

Sargın, G. A., & Savaş, A. (2012). Dialectical urbanism: Tactical instruments in urban design education. Cities, 29(6), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.003

Savage, S. (2005). Urban design education: Learning for life in practice. Urban Design International, 10, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000130

Senbel, M. (2012). Experiential learning and the co-creation of design artifacts: A hybrid urban design studio for planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(4), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x12455065

Sepe, M. (2020). Shaping the future: Perspectives in research on, and the teaching of, urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 25(1), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1706308

van den Toorn, M., & Have, R. (2010). Visual thinking and the teaching of precedent analysis in landscape architecture and urban design. In INTED2010 Proceedings (pp. 5128–5138). https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:2ab19342-4018-4707-a29b-673123981bb2

Wu, B. (2016). Discussion on the urban design course teaching reform in landscape architecture program. In ICSSTE 2016 (pp. 1011–1014). https://doi.org/10.2991/icsste-16.2016.183

Yavuz Özgür, I., & Çalışkan, O. (2025). Urban design pedagogies: An international perspective. Urban Design International, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-025-00271-w