I was showing an architect some of my sketches and drawings and he told me that I may be better suited by getting a M.U.D. vs. March. He says it will give me a better opportunity to do more rendering and drawing and less "technical stuff."
Is it generally true that the field of urban design has less to do with design programs and involves more sketches and renderings?
An education in architecture with a focus on urban design issues may make you more well-rounded. I'd be afraid that an MUD may prepare you to be more planner than an architect with a holistic understanding of design issues at multiple scales.
Don't be seduced by promise of less 'technical stuff'. The technical stuff, in urban design as well as individual building design, is an integral part of what we do. Sketches and renderings by someone with no foundation in technical issues are just pretty pictures. E.g., Zaha may do zippy paintings, but she also has the vision, authority, and experience to pull off the built project.
Urban design, depending on the program will be a bottom up approach to designing for geographic areas. There are programs that are policy driven and closer to planning, but there are also programs where architectural techincal skills will be drawn upon. Do your research before you decide on a school. If you don't want a policy program look at Columbia, there program is quite unique.
Generally you need an m.arch to get an mud/maud/etc.
The GSD is famous for its physical planning program, which means you engage in some design not just policy. But if you really want to design, get your m.arch first! Upenn has a certificate program in urban design that you can do in addition to your m.arch.
so called 'technical stuff', is a necessary part of any architectural design. don't be fooled with the promise of less technical whatever. there are a lot of architectural visionaries out there and because of their lack of architectural technical knowledge, they are playing chess at yum yum donuts. architecture is just a hobby without the technical knowledge. 'techinical stuffing' is a 'cope out' word for bad decorators.
apologies to smoke for my unclear comment above. i didn't mean to equate urban design with planning (though it reads that way), i merely thought that pursuit of a degree in urban design without a background in architecture would leave aquaman somewhere in limboland between two different scopes of consideration, possibly with no real grasp of either. if, as some have indicated here, you can't pursue an m.u.d. without a b.arch or m.arch anyway, problem solved.
If I'm understanding you correctly, the answer is no, you can't get into an MUD program w/o the professional degree in architecture. you can get into an MCP program, many of which have an urban design subarea or an ud certificate...which means you can take some course work and get that certificate thingie.
As far as urban design not involving "technical stuff"...this is FAR from the truth... An urban designer has to grapple with issues that mix and match from the fields of landscape, architecture, planning, civil engineering and real estate development to name a few. You'll need working knowledge of climates, hydrology, soils, traffic & transport specs, infrastructure, special pavements and increasingly you are better served with as much knowledge as you can get about new materials, various telecomm technologies and clean-up of polluted sites. You can be well prepared if you can quickly calculate in your head the approximate market value of thousands of apartments you're proposing...and this is not easy at all...
I agree with Javier completely but would also add that to be an effective urban designer, you must learn to collaborate. Because urban designers must work with landscape architects, architects, planners, civil engineers, real estate developers, lawyers, politicians, and others, an urban designer must be able to communicate and cooporate with all of them. Urban design, perhaps more so than architecture, is a multi-disciplinary process.
And Smoke, the distinction between urban planning and design is troubling. However, more and more urban planners are studying urban design, which suggests a reason to be optomistic about the future of the profession and the built environment.
no. the opposite. architecture is a way of looking at things that USED to encompass all of the built environment.
specializaiton in urban design, planning, interiors, structural engineering, etc. are all products of architecture as a discipline having squandered its realm of influence and failed to take responsibility, allowing certain skills to evolve as separate roles.
that, and specialization in all fields came as a symptom of modernism as a philosophy. just as bad modern design and planning gave us overly functionalist buildings and single-use zoning, the profession was splintered into supposedly more expert specialties. the effect is a loss of big-picture, holistic design thinking.
mm ... my current department (UCLA) is obsessed with fieldwork, statistical analysis, policy, and community advocacy. yes, there are urban planning programs that tend towards design-intensiveness. this one is not one of those. my concentration is the most "urban design"-like, and i have had to look outside my department to really engage physical planning issues.
although i am not a fan of new urbanism, i do have to admit that it is provocative in that it does comprise the deployment of urban design principles.
Many MArch programs include urban planning/design studios. The urban planning department at Yale was folded into the architecture department some time ago (the 70s I think). I know Yale and SCI-Arc are particularly good incorporating urban design and planning issues into the curriculum. Maryland also (but I dislike the program's New Urbanist leanings)
Surgical2x4, I think Columbia's planning program is alot like UCLA's (policy issues, staistical analysis, etc). I think the GSD has the only physical planning program.
Im working on a bachelor in architecture and "urbanism"?
(yeah.. I guess that would be the best translation for it)
Note that it always comes together in the school I attend.
Its still not clear to me what you guys mean by the difference between
urban design and urban planning.
Does that mean I still dont know what Im gonna be when I grow up? lol
Very confused....
What we now call "urban design" was called "city planning" a hundred years ago, and practiced by architects and landscape architects. No planning schools yet existed. "City Beautiful" is the best-known style of this approach.
The rise of the social sciences (economics, sociology, public administration) in the 1920s promised more ways to solve urban problems that purely physical design had been able to manage. The "normative" approach of architecture (where some things/forms are inherently "good") came to be marginalized among those working on cities. Better were new, (supposedly) objective scientific methods of research, problem-setting and -solving. Design gradually became the neglected stepchild of mainstream planning education and practice.
In the 1950s, a few leaders sought to marry the two approaches in a new paradigm called "urban design." Sert at Harvard and Kahn at Penn developed this tack, bringing instruction in policy and economics into the studio. Unfortunately, the professional territories and cultures of architecture and planning were by now quite different, and well-entrenched... meaning that the UD model would never quite catch on. Degrees are still offered, though most (not all, but most) are architecture-based with insufficient attention paid to urban processes.
Recently, UD as an method drawing from both fields is practiced, but mostly (not exclusively, but mostly) by individuals and small groups and firms outside of well-drawn disciplinary boundaries.
Several interesting articles can be found in the Harvard Design Magazine's special issue on urban planning. While HDM is usually pretty irrelevant, this issue is quite good. A few of the articles can be found on the web:
I'm wondering what y'all mean by "technical stuff". My understanding is that urban-scale design and physical planning endeavors are, by nature, "technical".. they imply an understanding of the interrelationships between urban and landscape systems and built forms, which presumably means one needs more than a cursory understanding of all three areas. A California comprehensive plan, for example, includes elements that focus in great depth on landscape planning issues (grading, drainage, sensory elements, etc), architectural issues (aesthetic and formal codes, figure-ground dimensioning, massing, building typologies, street furniture/median design, etc) and physical planning (infrastructural systems/load analysis, street/traffic planning, master site-planning, zoning/PUDs, etc). And all of this needs to be done in a way that takes into account socio-demographic, cultural, political and policy-based factors... I would also argue that more than a basic knowledge of how ecologies and ecological systems work is also desirable. ...and all of this means work by teams of professionals, all of whom are at least functionally literate in each others' areas of specialization (architecture, planning, landscape architecture).
As somebody already pointed out, American physical urban planning comes out of 19th century landscape architecture/regional planning, and, at core, my suspicion is that the skills required by professionals in the two areas should, ideally, be quite similar (even if they may not admit it).
If, on the other hand, by "technical" you mean building systems/BT issues, stress/load analysis, design computation theory, then I would imagine that the average urban designer or planner may need less of such expertise. I guess it depends on what you consider to be "technical".
- asw
Jun 14, 05 6:03 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Urban Design
I was showing an architect some of my sketches and drawings and he told me that I may be better suited by getting a M.U.D. vs. March. He says it will give me a better opportunity to do more rendering and drawing and less "technical stuff."
Is it generally true that the field of urban design has less to do with design programs and involves more sketches and renderings?
yes
no
could you guys elaborate a bit
An education in architecture with a focus on urban design issues may make you more well-rounded. I'd be afraid that an MUD may prepare you to be more planner than an architect with a holistic understanding of design issues at multiple scales.
Don't be seduced by promise of less 'technical stuff'. The technical stuff, in urban design as well as individual building design, is an integral part of what we do. Sketches and renderings by someone with no foundation in technical issues are just pretty pictures. E.g., Zaha may do zippy paintings, but she also has the vision, authority, and experience to pull off the built project.
As a person who is currently in planning school, I can safely say that urban planning has nothing to do with urban design.
What is the difference?
Urban design, depending on the program will be a bottom up approach to designing for geographic areas. There are programs that are policy driven and closer to planning, but there are also programs where architectural techincal skills will be drawn upon. Do your research before you decide on a school. If you don't want a policy program look at Columbia, there program is quite unique.
Generally you need an m.arch to get an mud/maud/etc.
The GSD is famous for its physical planning program, which means you engage in some design not just policy. But if you really want to design, get your m.arch first! Upenn has a certificate program in urban design that you can do in addition to your m.arch.
do you generally need a march before being able to be admitted into a mud/maud/ et. or could i get in to a program with a 5 year proffesional degree?
You can get into MUD/MAUD program with BArch degree.
what would you recommend the march or becoming more well-rounded and going into the mud/maud?.. or something else
so called 'technical stuff', is a necessary part of any architectural design. don't be fooled with the promise of less technical whatever. there are a lot of architectural visionaries out there and because of their lack of architectural technical knowledge, they are playing chess at yum yum donuts. architecture is just a hobby without the technical knowledge. 'techinical stuffing' is a 'cope out' word for bad decorators.
and if you think frank gehry cannot put together a set of kitchen addition drawings and wall sections, you are in for a surprise.
thanks a bunch!
apologies to smoke for my unclear comment above. i didn't mean to equate urban design with planning (though it reads that way), i merely thought that pursuit of a degree in urban design without a background in architecture would leave aquaman somewhere in limboland between two different scopes of consideration, possibly with no real grasp of either. if, as some have indicated here, you can't pursue an m.u.d. without a b.arch or m.arch anyway, problem solved.
a little interview with M. Sorkin in which he talks about urban design, urban planning, and architecture. It seems related to this conversation...
No prob ... the fact that urban planning is kinda separated from urban design is a bad thing, in my opinion.
Good interview
If I'm understanding you correctly, the answer is no, you can't get into an MUD program w/o the professional degree in architecture. you can get into an MCP program, many of which have an urban design subarea or an ud certificate...which means you can take some course work and get that certificate thingie.
As far as urban design not involving "technical stuff"...this is FAR from the truth... An urban designer has to grapple with issues that mix and match from the fields of landscape, architecture, planning, civil engineering and real estate development to name a few. You'll need working knowledge of climates, hydrology, soils, traffic & transport specs, infrastructure, special pavements and increasingly you are better served with as much knowledge as you can get about new materials, various telecomm technologies and clean-up of polluted sites. You can be well prepared if you can quickly calculate in your head the approximate market value of thousands of apartments you're proposing...and this is not easy at all...
I agree with Javier completely but would also add that to be an effective urban designer, you must learn to collaborate. Because urban designers must work with landscape architects, architects, planners, civil engineers, real estate developers, lawyers, politicians, and others, an urban designer must be able to communicate and cooporate with all of them. Urban design, perhaps more so than architecture, is a multi-disciplinary process.
And Smoke, the distinction between urban planning and design is troubling. However, more and more urban planners are studying urban design, which suggests a reason to be optomistic about the future of the profession and the built environment.
So would you say then that architecture is more of a specialization in comparision to urban design?
the answer to that question is no, in my view.
no. the opposite. architecture is a way of looking at things that USED to encompass all of the built environment.
specializaiton in urban design, planning, interiors, structural engineering, etc. are all products of architecture as a discipline having squandered its realm of influence and failed to take responsibility, allowing certain skills to evolve as separate roles.
that, and specialization in all fields came as a symptom of modernism as a philosophy. just as bad modern design and planning gave us overly functionalist buildings and single-use zoning, the profession was splintered into supposedly more expert specialties. the effect is a loss of big-picture, holistic design thinking.
off soap box, now.
mm ... my current department (UCLA) is obsessed with fieldwork, statistical analysis, policy, and community advocacy. yes, there are urban planning programs that tend towards design-intensiveness. this one is not one of those. my concentration is the most "urban design"-like, and i have had to look outside my department to really engage physical planning issues.
although i am not a fan of new urbanism, i do have to admit that it is provocative in that it does comprise the deployment of urban design principles.
so yes, mm, there is cause to be optimistic.
Many MArch programs include urban planning/design studios. The urban planning department at Yale was folded into the architecture department some time ago (the 70s I think). I know Yale and SCI-Arc are particularly good incorporating urban design and planning issues into the curriculum. Maryland also (but I dislike the program's New Urbanist leanings)
Surgical2x4, I think Columbia's planning program is alot like UCLA's (policy issues, staistical analysis, etc). I think the GSD has the only physical planning program.
Im working on a bachelor in architecture and "urbanism"?
(yeah.. I guess that would be the best translation for it)
Note that it always comes together in the school I attend.
Its still not clear to me what you guys mean by the difference between
urban design and urban planning.
Does that mean I still dont know what Im gonna be when I grow up? lol
Very confused....
What we now call "urban design" was called "city planning" a hundred years ago, and practiced by architects and landscape architects. No planning schools yet existed. "City Beautiful" is the best-known style of this approach.
The rise of the social sciences (economics, sociology, public administration) in the 1920s promised more ways to solve urban problems that purely physical design had been able to manage. The "normative" approach of architecture (where some things/forms are inherently "good") came to be marginalized among those working on cities. Better were new, (supposedly) objective scientific methods of research, problem-setting and -solving. Design gradually became the neglected stepchild of mainstream planning education and practice.
In the 1950s, a few leaders sought to marry the two approaches in a new paradigm called "urban design." Sert at Harvard and Kahn at Penn developed this tack, bringing instruction in policy and economics into the studio. Unfortunately, the professional territories and cultures of architecture and planning were by now quite different, and well-entrenched... meaning that the UD model would never quite catch on. Degrees are still offered, though most (not all, but most) are architecture-based with insufficient attention paid to urban processes.
Recently, UD as an method drawing from both fields is practiced, but mostly (not exclusively, but mostly) by individuals and small groups and firms outside of well-drawn disciplinary boundaries.
Several interesting articles can be found in the Harvard Design Magazine's special issue on urban planning. While HDM is usually pretty irrelevant, this issue is quite good. A few of the articles can be found on the web:
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/current/index.html
In particular, you may wish to read the article by Jerold Kaden, a professor at the GSD, about planning ciriculum at GSD.
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/current/22_Kayden.html
worth checking out.
I'm wondering what y'all mean by "technical stuff". My understanding is that urban-scale design and physical planning endeavors are, by nature, "technical".. they imply an understanding of the interrelationships between urban and landscape systems and built forms, which presumably means one needs more than a cursory understanding of all three areas. A California comprehensive plan, for example, includes elements that focus in great depth on landscape planning issues (grading, drainage, sensory elements, etc), architectural issues (aesthetic and formal codes, figure-ground dimensioning, massing, building typologies, street furniture/median design, etc) and physical planning (infrastructural systems/load analysis, street/traffic planning, master site-planning, zoning/PUDs, etc). And all of this needs to be done in a way that takes into account socio-demographic, cultural, political and policy-based factors... I would also argue that more than a basic knowledge of how ecologies and ecological systems work is also desirable. ...and all of this means work by teams of professionals, all of whom are at least functionally literate in each others' areas of specialization (architecture, planning, landscape architecture).
As somebody already pointed out, American physical urban planning comes out of 19th century landscape architecture/regional planning, and, at core, my suspicion is that the skills required by professionals in the two areas should, ideally, be quite similar (even if they may not admit it).
If, on the other hand, by "technical" you mean building systems/BT issues, stress/load analysis, design computation theory, then I would imagine that the average urban designer or planner may need less of such expertise. I guess it depends on what you consider to be "technical".
- asw
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.