Ozawa and Seltzer (1999) through an extensive survey, attempted to produce a list of skills and competencies a planning graduate should possess, which Alexander (2005) consequently refined into skill-based categories. Both these studies identify ‘Synthesis, Creativity and Design’ to be a major skill set within a planner’s competence. Keeping in mind that a spatial planner’s ultimate object is creating or shaping physical form or spaces, what sort of ‘Design’ does this refer to? Is it the ‘Design’ that I emphasised on my previous post? I do not think so. Then, what sort of ‘Design’ it is?
It is my view that I should elaborate on what sort of ‘Design’ that I intend discuss about. As most of you have already agreed upon or would agree, design fore mostly is a problem solving exercise. Reading into Christopher Alexander’s work on Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964) design as a problem solving activity, can be broadly understood have three constituents or components. Based on this premise Munasinghe (2007) conceptualises a design activity or ‘an act of design’ can be witnessed in the presence of,
A cognitive act that deals with identifying and envisaging patterns on a given problem or situation
A process of both problem solving and realizing form with regard to these patterns
A product (physical or functional) with which its designer’s thinking can be traced.
Alexander (1964) also extends his argument by stating
“ ...before we can ourselves turn a problem into form, because we are self-conscious, we need to make explicit maps of the problem structure…”
Hence, a designer in order to achieve physical clarity in a form, must achieve some form of programmatic clarity in his or hers mind and actions. From a spatial planners’ point of view, it is then critical that they have higher capacities in visualising and envisaging the particular ‘physical form’ that they intend to create of shape. Their task in achieving such ‘form’ in this sense, doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘sitting on a drawing board’ composing plans, sections or visuals, although it is an important part of the process, for which they can seek assistance from allied experts. The above mentioned ‘product’ from a planner’s point of view can be a policy decision, a regulation, a charter, a contract, (urban) design guidelines, an assessment and the list goes on… Yet, it is the responsibility of a planners to have clarity of thought especially their spatial thinking ability, on the particular ‘design product’ they intend to achieve. In the absence of such clarity in mind, planner’s identity as a ‘designer of space’ would inevitably extinct, leaving behind a bureaucrat whose task is restricted to the mere application of technical knowledge. Emerging specialities of city designing—the so-called ‘qualified designers’, certainly making this difficult for spatial planners.
If it is clarity of thought or skills of visualisation and envisaging what spatial planners are seeking, there is a wealth of knowledge that they can utilise. Numerous ‘thinking models’ or ‘methods of structured thinking’—Strategic Thinking, Systems Thinking, Design Thinking etc. are already proved effective in uncovering and enhancing cognitive capacities of professionals. It may necessarily mean that spatial planning graduates and students should adapt ‘Design’ thinking at an early stage of their careers within their multi-disciplinary concerns of space, in becoming expert ‘Designers’ of space.
According to Tonkinwise (2011) however, such thinking expertise cannot exist in isolation of being a designer—what Cross (2004) states as ‘designerly ways of being’. Within his explanation, it is quite clear that such state of being is something that has to be manifested within a person, through conscious and deliberate being. It requires both structured way of thinking and acting accordingly. It then inevitably becomes a way of life; a part of who that person is; and his or hers actions then, becomes a part of what that person is. It may be then the need of the day for Spatial Planners and planning students to develop such understanding and act accordingly.
*My own original article on linkedin (B. Kanishka Guluwita)
References:
Alexander, C. 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of form, USA, Eighth printing.
Alexander, E. R. 2005. What Do Planners Need to Know? Identifying Needed Competencies, Methods, and Skills. Journal of Architectural & Planning Research, 22, 91-106.
Anselin, L., nasar, J. L. & talen, E. 2011. Where Do Planners Belong? Assessing the Relationship between Planning and Design in American Universities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31, 196-207.
Cross, N. 2001. Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17, 49-55.
Lawson, B. 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Elsevier/Architectural.
Levin, P. 1966. The design process in planning. Town Planning Review, 37, 5.
Munasinghe, J. 2007. Rethinking Design‘ in Sri Lankan Urban‘ Context: The Case of Baseline Road, Colombo. Emerging South Asian Urban Design Practices and Paradigms. Katholeque Universiteit de Leuven, Belgium: Asia-Link Project.
Owen, C. 2007. Design Thinking: Notes on its Nature and Use. Design Research Quarterly, 2, 16-27.
Ozawa, C. P. & seltzer, E. P. 1999. Taking Our Bearings: Mapping a Relationship Among Planning Practice, Theory, and Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 257-266.
Razzouk, R. & Shute, V. 2012. What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research, 82, 330-348.
Tonkinwise, C. 2011. A taste for practices: Un-repressing style in design thinking. Design Studies, 32, 533-545.