VIEWPOINT

Design in the town planning curriculum

John Hendry Department of Architecture and Planning, The Queen's University of Belfast,

Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland

Design is re-emerging as one of the range of skills required by town planners. In drawing up a curriculum for planning education it is necessary to investigate the role of creativity within the general framework of

rational thought contributed by the social sciences.

Keywords: design education, town planning

One area which appears to have received no previous attention in the pages of Design Studies is that of town planning, even though most planning courses will at the very least claim to acquaint their students with the principles of urban design. The reasons for this lack of coverage are not difficult to detect. Firstly, since the Industrial City plans of Garnier and the more pragmatic New Town layouts of Unwin, there has been no consis- tent line of development in the theory of urban design in Western Europe. Radical experiments in urban form, for example at Cumbernauld, stand largely discredited both socially and visually whilst other initiatives, such as Milton Keynes, are increasingly allowed to reflect the operation of those market forces which operate in favour of the more affluent strata of our society. Meanwhile, in our existing towns and cities, conservationists fight against a tide of commercial development served by an architectural profession in which seemingly anything goes. In Britain this conflict takes place in the context of a planning system which minimizes the importance of visual design ~ and a profession whose membership in- cludes only a tiny minority of properly trained designers.

This leads directly to the second reason for the absence of town planning from the pages of Design Studies. Although the profession lays claim to preside over mat- ters of urban design, it does not and never has included a

formal education in design within its syllabus. Town planning education arose as an extension of architectural education and was based on the works of prominent architect-planners such as Abercrombie and Holford. The first phase of major expansion in education was fuelled by the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act and took place at a post-graduate level within the university system. A large proportion of the entrants were the graduates of related schools of architecture, many of whom were allowed to ' top up' their architectural train- ing in one year as opposed to entrants from other disciplines who were required to devote two years to their planning studies. The attitudes which were developed at this time towards the teaching of design to this latter group still coloured the approach of many schools in the 1980s and were set out in a paper entitled 'Design skills' at an 'International Seminar on the Future of Postgradu- ate Planning' in 1984:

To return briefly to the issue of training development control officers I feel it should be possible in most courses to include a lecture series where the value judgements implicit in aesthetic criteria can be discussed . . . the bulk of submissions will probably be routine and well within the competence level of an officer so trained, z

By the 1980s, however, planning had lost its appeal to

114 0142-694X/91/02114-04 © 1991 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd DESIGN STUDIES

architecture graduates and the entrants to postgraduate courses were almost entirely drawn from the social sciences rather than from architecture, with the result that this minimal instruction at a theoretical level had become virtually the sole design input in the planning curriculum.

One of the reasons for the change in the composition of planning students was that a number of radical changes had combined to alter the face of both planning practice and planning theory. These were based primarily on the shift towards geography as a major contributory disci- pline and the acknowledgement that planning needed to address the numerous social and economic issues which lay behind the problems of increasing urbanization. This shift in emphasis was facilitated by the emergence of numerous new planning schools, housed mainly in the polytechnic sector and staffed by social scientists with no direct links to architecture or any background of design education. The search for a new theoretical basis to support this change in direction swiftly led to the adoption of elements of systems theory and later of management theory, leading to the supremacy in the 1970s of a rationalisffproblem-solving approach to plan- ning based on the application of quasi-scientific method- ologies drawn from the social sciences. These were not seen as complementing the skills of the designer, but as being in direct conflict with the very essence of design. 'It should not be the purpose of the designer to draw pretty pictures of the future, the purpose of the planner should be to solve problems in the present'. 3

Unfortunately, whatever degree of legitimacy became established for the rationalist movement of the 1970s it has failed to prove itself adequate in the face of new challenges in the subsequent decade. Whilst rationalist theories catered for the control of development under socialist policies, planning education in the 1990s is striving to equip its graduates with the new range of skills they require as facilitators of development within a free market economy. In a recent article, Batty comments, 'Planners are not being trained any longer in design, nor in operating a rational decision/problem-solving process. Planning students are being taught whatever is the flavour of the month but at a level so superficial that they often have no sense of history and of the ephemeral nature of their skills'. 4

Indeed, one might argue that the very skill which is needed in this situation is that of creativity which is the natural foundation of any design education. However, this does not mean that it is necessary to overthrow the rational model in favour of a new 'flavour of the month' . There is much to be said for Stewart's assessment of the robustness of such a model. 'It is in effect appealed to by rational men in practical s i t u a t i o n s . . , who attempt to show that they are making rational decisions in a rational way'. 5 He goes on to suggest that we use the rational model to justify our decisions, but that it is impossible to make decisions by the application of the rational model alone. The error which has largely been made in planning education is in seeing those who advocate a design approach and those who advocate a rational approach as

two separate and irreconcilable factions. Just as most designers employ rational, analytical elements within their overall design process, members of the rationalist school need to admit to the role of design within the rational model. It is here that the debate needs to be centred, for by its very nature a rationalist approach is too often seen to deny the possible value of non-rational elements.

An important distinction is involved here between creative and logical thought, although men of exclusively logical interests may deny any distinction. There is they say, only one kind of thinking; there is reasoning or reflective thought, problem solving. 6

THE D E S I G N C O N F L I C T

Despite the bureaucratic framework within which plan- ning operates, despite the influence of the social sciences, and despite the decline of designers entering the profes- sion, planning practice still concerns itself to a consider- able extent with retaining and improving the appearance of the environment. Hence, its presentation as a rational operation applied to achieve functional efficiency in new development is continuously undermined by those aspects of practice which are based upon creativity and intuition.

We continue to teach the rational model to new entrants to the planning field. When asked what our 'theory' is, we are inclined to talk about the four (five, six, or seven)steps in the rational model; but when we practice our profession, we operate from some amalgam of experience, intuition, techni- que, context and personality. 7

It is Yewlett who highlights the key issue which lies behind this apparent conflict. Accepting the stages of the rational model to include 'the formulation of goals and the definition of objectives; consideration of alternative ways of achieving these objectives; evaluation of these alternatives against the defined objectives', he concludes:

The role of rational criticism remains a strong one at the stage of selecting between alternatives. However, to select alternatives we must first have some alternatives. (Yewelett's emphasis) . . . The generation of alternatives requires the input of creative abilities and, if the alternatives are to be consistent with the rest of the problem, design skills. 8

When, with this insight, one looks at the basis of the rationalist approach to planning, one readily finds sup- port for the integration of creative thought within the overall model. Popper, widely quoted by rationalists as an early advocate of scientific method in the social sciences, makes several telling references to the role of creative thought. 'Every discovery contains an "irration- al" element or a "creative intuition" ,,9 and 'In this way w e . . . may proceed from bad solutions to better ones - provided always that we have the creative ability to produce new guesses, and more guesses. '~° It is after this creative leap has been accomplished that Popper recom- mends a return to a strict scientific approach. 'Whenever

Vol 12 No 2 April 1991 115

we propose a solution to a problem, we ought to try as hard as possible to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Others will supply criticism for us if we fail to supply it ourselves. '~

There is a surprising similarity between this inter- pretation of scientific method and the account of the creative process which is provided by Stein. 'As the creative process proceeds, care and judgement play more significant roles, and evaluation and criticism of the work make their appearance. '~2 In fact, Stein points explicitly to the ground which is shared by design and a scientific approach to problem solving:

It has been said that two mathematicians can solve the same problem and come up with the same solution but that one is the more creative mathematician who can come up with the elegant solution. And it is this elegance of solution, coher- ence of feeling, form of painting, parsimony of explanation of an experimental finding, that is another outstanding point of similarity in the creative process of the arts and the sciences. 13

AN INTEGRATED CURRICULUM

Ornstein also recognizes 'the existence of two major modes of consciousness: one is analytic and the other holistic', 14 and states, 'My opinion . . . is that in most ordinary activities we simply alternate between these two modes, selecting the appropriate one and inhibiting the other. 'is However, an education which concentrates on analysis and problem solving without an equal emphasis on the promotion of creative thought will not enable the planner to switch back and forth with confidence. Else- where it has been pointed out that planners of a purely rational and analytical turn of mind, when confronted with the need to generate alternative solutions would be unable to make the necessary creative leap, calling instead for 'more research', 'more co-ordination with other participants' or 'more clear-cut guidance on policy'. 16 In practice, such an education is likely to lead to mundane solutions, the choice being between merely satisfactory alternatives rather than between 'elegant' ones in a process which has been termed a 'satisficing' approach.

The 'satisficing' derivative offers an immediate solution, but also the danger of complacency - selecting the first available satisfactory solution may preclude improvements . . . . Im- provements may come about if we find a better alternative, but, for the moment, we are satisfied with what we have and turn our minds to other things. ~7

The challenge to be faced in drawing up a curriculum for planning education would seem to hinge upon the need to cater for the conflicting demands of imparting to students both design and analytical skills. Holistic, synthetic, intuitive approaches cannot be accommodated within the teaching of rational scientific method. The thought process of the latter is linear or cyclic, whereas the design method requires that the mind should be encouraged to branch out to encompass a multitude of

alternatives which may be shown to be irrational only through a process of verification. Nor is it likely that students will accept those non-rational aspects of design method once they have been schooled in strictly rational scientific method. Hence, it would appear desirable to include a basic training in design in the preparatory year of any course of planning education.

In a previous issue of Design Studies, Cross et al TM made reference to Ryle's distinction between 'knowing that' and 'knowing how', and concluded that 'knowing how, ie the inexplicit, manipulative nonverbal acts of skill, lies at the core of design'. This implies that instruction in the theories of design, the 'lecture series where the value judgements implicit in aesthetic criteria can be discussed' to which reference was made earlier in this paper, cannot in itself constitute an adequate training. Design skills can only be acquired by participating repeatedly in the design process.

One approach to the curriculum which is open to those planning schools which have maintained close links with schools of architecture is to adopt joint modules of design instruction in the first year of studies. The intensive nature of design training at this stage of a course in architecture is of particular interest in this context, as it allows advantage to be taken of the process which has been termed 'overlearning'.

A subject matter is said to be 'overlearned' rather than 'merely learned' when practice has been carried out beyond the point necessary for perfect performance or accurate recall. Overlearning bestows advantages because the result- ing actions are more 'automatic'.19

Thus a year based upon intensive design activity will provide students with skills to which they will instinc- tively revert whenever the occasion arises. Obviously this will apply in urban design exercises, related primarily to visual aspects of the environment, which may be in- cluded in subsequent years of the course to provide for the reinforcement and further development of techni- ques. However, it is accepted that the majority of the instruction provided in the latter years of the planning course may need to be based upon the application of rational, scientific method. The significant point is that the prior possession of design skills from an early stage will enable students to alternate between holistic and analytical modes at appropriate points so that creative elements may with advantage be incorporated into the operation of the rational model.

This is not intended as a recipe for all courses to follow. Many will not have the required links with schools of architecture and, in any case, creativity can be taught in contexts other than that of visual design. The basic point, as far as curriculum design is concerned, is that it is essential that planning education should recog- nize the interdependence of the two modes of thought and make due allowance for the development of those professional skills related to the right-hand brain. In those cases where it is decided that these aspects should be taught through the medium of visual design, this decision may be defended on three grounds. The first is

116 DESIGN STUDIES

that there is evidence that the built environment is meaningful to people in a way that can modify their behaviour, the second is that aesthetic expression is inherent in every man-made thing, and the third - and most important to the future wellbeing of the profession - is that there is an expectation in the mind of the public that all planning will relate to definitions of environmen- tal quality which are based on more than mere functional efficiency.

REFERENCES

1 See for example, HMSO, Circular 22/80

Chandler, E W 'Design skills; financial and management skills; inter-disciplinary links' International Seminar on the Future of Postgraduate Education in Planning University of Liverpool (27-29 September 1984)

Fauldi, A and M a s t o p , J M 'The "IOR" school: the development of a planning methodology' Environment and Planning B Vol 9 (1982) p 245

Batty, M 'How planning education can survive the future' Journal of the Education for Planning Association Vol 10 (April 1990) p 66

Stewart, J 'Guidelines to policy derivation' in Leach, S and Stewart, J (eds) Approaches to public policy Allen and Unwin, London (1982) p 25

6 Rugg, H 'Imagination' Harper and Row, New York (1986) p 20

Hemmens, G C 'New directions in planning theory' Jour- nal of American Planning Association Vol 46 (July 1980) p 259

Yewlett, C J L 'Rationality in planmaking: a professional perspective' in Breheny, M and Hooper, A (eds) Rationality in planning: critical essays on the role of rationality in urban and regional planning Pion Ltd., London (1985) pp 217 and 225

9 Popper, K R Objective knowledge; an evolutionary approach Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972)

10 Popper, K R The logic of scientific discovery Hutchinson, London (1959) p 260

11 Popper, K R Objective knowledge; an evolutionary approach Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972) p 16

12 Stein, M Stimulating creativity (Vol 1) New York Academic Press (1974) p 29

13 Stein, M Stimulating creativity (Vol 1) Academic Press, New York, (1974) p 18

14 Ornstein, R E The psychology of consciousness Jonathan Cape, London (1975) p 10

15 Ornstein, R E The psychology of consciousness Jonathan Cape, London, (1975), p 62

16 Friend, J F and Jessop, W N Local government and strategic choice London, Tavistock (1969) p 95

17 Simon, H A Models of thought Yale University Press, New Haven (1979) p 3

18 Cross , N et al 'Design method and scientific method' Design Studies Vol 2 No 4 (October 1981) p 200

19 McKellar, P "Imagination and thinking' Cohen and West, London (1957) p 120

Vol 12 No 2 April 1991 117