See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340685711

URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: THINKING ABOUT INFORMALITY

Article · January 2019

CITATIONS READS

2 1,915

1 author:

Kiran Keswani
Everyday City Lab, Bangalore
8 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kiran Keswani on 17 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Design Ideas
Vol.3, No.2, 2019, pp.113-123

URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: THINKING ABOUT INFORMALITY

Kiran Keswani*

Everyday City Lab, Bangalore, India

Abstract. In the past, urban design teaching and practice have focused on the design of urban spaces as
being the modulation of the physical aspects of the fabric while the complex social processes that
contribute to its making have not been included. More recently, a few practitioners and educationists have
voiced concern about this and suggested instead an alternative path where the design effort is based on
field-intensive mapping exercises to understand the ground reality. With this background, the broader
objective of this paper is to understand how an urban design studio can contribute to a pedagogy for a
people-centric approach to urban design and planning.

Specifically, the paper draws upon lessons learned from a studio that focused on an informal marketplace
in the city of Ahmedabad, India. It finds that understanding the everyday life of an urban space can reveal
underlying patterns and systems that urban designers can incorporate into the planning of public spaces.
The key contribution of this paper is to provide empirical evidence for these patterns and systems
generated through studio exercises in order to show how they can contribute to a design language for
developing sustainable urban spaces.

Keywords: Informality, everyday life, temporality, urban design, pedagogy.

Corresponding Author: Kiran Keswani, Co-founder, Everyday City Lab, Bannerghatta road, Bangalore,
India, Tel.: 91-99169-02049, e-mail: [email protected]

Received: 18 January 2019; Accepted: 06 August 2019; Published: 30 December 2019.

1. Introduction

In the past, urban design education and practice has looked at the design of urban
spaces as an exercise involving a geometric arrangement of unbuilt spaces where the
edges of the urban form determined the space which was seen to have physical
parameters but no social parameters. More recently, a few practitioners and
educationists have voiced concern about this and suggested instead an alternative path
where the design effort could use a people-oriented approach. Loukaitou-Sideris &
Mukhija (2016) propose that students should spend time at the sites of investigation to
observe and understand the ongoing social and economic activities and interact with
users in order to develop a design strategy that has both aesthetic and functional
attributes and relates to the everyday life of people.
It has been found that urban design education has often not employed a critical
mindset that can question given urban conditions nor shown the awareness that urban
space is also politically and economically intense (Akpinar et al, 2016). It has been
suggested that as design educators, we need to step back from proposing global
strategies and instead construct a model that also includes the cultural identity of a place
(Crysler, 1995). The pedagogical approach has conventionally not attempted to inform
design interventions with ethnographic investigations into how urban spaces are
actually used (Kim, 2015). Further, it has been pointed out that there are not enough

113
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS V.3, N.2, 2019

seminars and workshop activities that can bring together students, practicing
professionals, government officials, local experts and faculty (Palazzo, 2011).
There have been alternative approaches to urban design pedagogy that have
included an integration of the physical and nonphysical attributes of place (Arefi &
Triantafillou, 2005); a collaborative process between studio instructors and community
groups that have helped build and sustain community-university partnerships (Hou,
2014); the multiple poles model where urban design teaching draws upon the disciplines
of architecture, planning, engineering, landscape or real estate (Carmona, 2016);
investigating sites and promoting discussions to reveal how urban projects and policies
can be designed for resilience (Akpinar et al., 2016) or engaging with the politics, issues
and human needs of a complex, urban site through a studio+seminar format (Bendiner-
Viani & Maltby, 2010). Furthermore, Cidre (2016) has pointed out that the emergent
pedagogy in urban design may be a design-based reflective learning generated from the
collaborative effort of students, educators, practitioners, communities and policy
makers.
It may be necessary to take into account that the informality is a part of the urban
fabric and our design processes both in the studio and in practice need to respond to it.
In the context of cities of the global south, we may not be able to work anymore on the
assumption that informality in urban space does not exist, that it can be ignored or that it
is possible for us to achieve ‘zero informality’ (Keswani, 2018). This paper attempts to
show how an urban design studio that engaged in extensive fieldwork in an informal
marketplace in Ahmedabad, India reveals patterns and systems that are an integral part
of an urban space, particularly in emerging economies (Fig.1).

Figure 1. The informal street market at Jamalpur, Ahmedabad – the primary site of investigation

It further suggests that these patterns that reflect the ground reality can contribute
to urban design strategies that can make urban spaces into more humane and sustainable
environments.

114
 K. KESWANI: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: THINKING ABOUT INFORMALITY

Alexander (1979) has pointed out that for a temporal ordering of an urban space,
it is necessary that it be adaptive to human needs. In that sense, the marketplace
environment was found to be a highly, adaptive spatial environment that could mould
itself according to societal and economic changes. Additionally, it was also a public
space that tied in with major lines of movement having established itself over time at
the crossroads of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic networks of the city. Here, it may
be also possible to discern one of the principles outlined in the Oregon experiment, the
principle of organic order which is believed to emerge when there is perfect balance
between the needs of the individual parts of an environment and the needs of the whole
(Alexander, 1975). The paper attempts to extract the tacit, culture-defined and informal
responses to the multiple factors that govern the space to eventually work towards such
an organic order.
In the informal marketplace, the study finds evidence of a ‘living geometry’ that is
loose, complex and interconnective (Salingaros et al., 2006:12). It maps the spatial
configurations that result from the temporal usage of the street space by the informal
vendors. The patterns of interaction between the stakeholders are documented through
both visual and interview data. There is a conscious attempt to generate maps as
representations of the social process. Through these maps, the studio has tried to
decipher and document some of the rules of the organized complexity that is a part of
urban informality and an intrinsic part of the marketplace in the Indian context.
Urban planning scholars have suggested that informal urbanism can be a catalyst
for urban theorising if we work across categories and disciplines (Acuto et al., 2019).
For the purpose of the studio and this paper, informality has been defined as the use of
urban space for purposes it was not officially designated for – such as a sidewalk space
for vending rather than walking or road space for walking rather than for the movement
of cars. The studio used the understanding of informal markets as structures and
systems of people i.e. spatial organization, unspoken rules, territories and temporalities.
Scholars suggest that it may be useful to work towards a collaborative approach to
urban design (Salingaros, 2018). This paper attempts to develop one possible way to do
this through understanding users’ everyday negotiations with the existing conditions of
an urban space.

2. Structure of the studio

It has been emphasized that the structure of knowledge needed for the education
of an urban designer must have both theoretical and empirical components (Lukovich,
2017). In moving towards the goal of responding to informality, the studio adopted the
spatial ethnographic approach of mapping the everyday as a starting point. It was
supported by a theory cum fieldwork course where the attempt was to learn:
(1) how to ‘read’ the everyday, and
(2) how to ‘represent’ the everyday through sketches and maps.
This course consisted of lecture-presentations that drew upon on-going research by the
Studio faculty on understanding the ‘informal’ and the ‘everyday’ in urban spaces.

115
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS V.3, N.2, 2019

Figure 2. Exploratory site - Secondhand books market under the Fernandes bridge
(Students: Aryan Iyer & Meet Kakadia)

One finds that there has been an increase in design-build studios today that are research-
driven, that emphasise the values cultivated via community engagement and service
(Hinson, 2007). Salama (2012) has emphasised the need for experiential learning where
participants may be in close contact with the environment, exploring culture, diversity
and people behaviour. Further, there have been research studios that have explored the
city, setting out to see the ordinary in a new way and to learn from it (Varnelis, 2007).
In this paper, the focus is on understanding the research studio and how it can contribute
to the urban design field.
The ‘Informal marketplace’ studio had two parts to it. In the first part (4 weeks),
the students looked at ‘Exploratory sites’ (Fig.2) that included:
1. The making/selling of Ganesha idols1 at Hollywood basti, Gulbai Tekra
2. The secondhand books market under the Fernandes bridge, Gandhi road
3. The street bazaar from Teen darwaja to Pankornaka

Throughout the semester, the students had journals which included field notes
from the two parts of the studio. The journal entry included here shows a student’s
understanding of the temporal changes within the flower vending space of the Jamalpur
market (Fig.3).
In the second part (12 weeks), the studio looked at the informal conditions
outside and along the Jamalpur APMC market2. In particular, the students focused on:

1
These clay idols are hand-made by local artisans for the annual 10-day Ganesha festival that celebrates
the birth of Lord Ganesha as the God of new beginnings and the remover of obstacles.
2
This is the wholesale fruit and vegetable market of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
(APMC) which is a marketing board established by the State governments in India.

116
 K. KESWANI: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: THINKING ABOUT INFORMALITY

a. Understanding the informal and the everyday in the marketplace (ANALYSIS) in

the context of Jamalpur.
b. Developing Urban design strategies and guidelines in response to informality
(DESIGN)

Figure 3. Journal entry from Mapping the Everyday course (Student: Shubhangi Saxena)

In the ANALYSIS component, an in-depth study of the informal vending activities was
carried out using the concept of territoriality where the students looked at how
boundaries were negotiated both spatially and socially and what measures were adopted
to resolve conflicts between the different stakeholders (Fig.4). In the DESIGN
component, the attempt was to draw upon the concepts of temporality and resilience.
This led to the preparation of urban design plans that showed temporal usage of the
space through the day. These temporal plans suggested that the space is designed so as
to be used in multiple ways at different times and is therefore resilient in nature thereby
reducing congestion as well as contestations in space.

117
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS V.3, N.2, 2019

Figure 4. The functionality of the urban space (Students: Shourya Dubey, Aryan Iyer & Atal Chadha)

3. Design approach for informality

It has been largely pointed out by urban design scholars and practitioners that
dealing with informality falls within the regulatory and policy realms and there is no
important role that urban design can play. However, Loukaitou-Sideris & Mukhija
(2016) suggest that it is possible for design to respond to spatial informality. As a first
step, they suggest that the concept of ‘informality’ be included in the vocabulary of
urban designers and that the field expand its scope to include the ordinary spaces of
everyday life. Further, they suggest that a supportive public infrastructure be considered
to accommodate informality; that underutilized spaces in the city be identified for
hosting informal activities; that creative effort be made to blur boundaries between the
formal and the informal and finally, that temporal thinking be used as a design strategy.
The studio that this paper derives from was similarly based on the assumption that
it is possible for urban designers to address and respond to the needs and circumstances
of the multiple actors of informality if an alternative design approach could be
developed.
Towards this end, the studio attempted a 3-pronged approach for developing
design strategies:
 Designing a system through understanding garbage disposal and collection and its
place in the social and physical environment of the marketplace.
 Influencing the functionality of the urban space through physical and systemic
changes (Fig.5).
 Modulating the spatial experience through a design intervention.

118
 K. KESWANI: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: THINKING ABOUT INFORMALITY

Figure 5. The design process for a better ‘spatial experience’ (Students: Hetvee Panchal, Harsh Gupta &
Dharankumar Korduvar)

In designing a system, all groups were asked to focus on the system of garbage –
the existing conditions and the proposed structure. It was necessary to understand the
‘systems’ in the marketplace – how things worked. For instance, how a light supplier
who came in the morning, while the streets were still dark, to give battery-operated
lights to the flower vendors worked – where he stopped along the length of the market,
at what time he arrived, how the operations of renting out the lights worked, where was
the auto-rickshaw or 3-wheeler vehicle with the battery pack parked during the time that
the lights were used, etc. Or, for example, how the vendor or service provider selling
water pouches to the vegetable vendors operated – where did he stand, was he a moving
vendor on a bicycle and so on.
Through understanding ‘garbage as a system’, the studio exercises were meant to
show linkages between livelihood networks and spatial networks. For example, to
understand the interdependencies between the private contractor who picked up the
garbage from the collection points and the multiple vendor groups or between the
garbage picker and the market inspector. There were modes of operation here that had
developed organically and stabilized over time to become ‘systems’. In the studio, it
was important to study the sequence of operations that made up the system so that in
part or whole, they could be eliminated or strengthened. The early fieldwork had
revealed that while on the outside the marketplace could be made functionally and
physically more efficient, on the inside, it needed to work without the disruption of the
multitude of systems and the livelihoods that supported them.

119
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS V.3, N.2, 2019

The functionality of the urban space outputs were based on extensive visual
observations and an interviewing process. There were classroom discussions on which
parts of the street or marketplace could be perceived as spaces for ‘transition’ or for
‘pause’? The students explored if there was a need to create pause points in the
Jamalpur market. Or, instead, was there a need to subtract some pauses or activity
generators in order to reduce the traffic congestion? Could the morning flower auction
be considered a place-making phenomena that had resulted organically? How could one
learn from this to create a ‘pause’ elsewhere as part of the design intervention?
While the first two components of the studio focused on systems and
functionality, the third component attempted to focus on design interventions using built
form, the built edge and through modulating the spatial experience (Fig.6). The students
were asked to explore how the final design solution could reflect not just the physical
elements of the urban space but in a way that could incorporate the social dynamics
between the users.

Figure 6. Modulating the spatial experience through a design intervention (Students: Shourya Dubey,
Aryan Iyer & Atal Chadha)

It was required that the plan reflect the temporality in the marketplace. This meant
having a series of plans for different times of the day or year and not just one plan as the
design output. In the Indian context, shade was seen as an essential urban design
element. Each design intervention was to be based on an understanding from the site
about how users were relying on shade, how much of it they used, at what times of the

120
 K. KESWANI: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: THINKING ABOUT INFORMALITY

day and ways in which it was generated – through trees, umbrellas or the shadows of
nearby buildings.
While the design strategies were specific to each zone within the site, each group
also proposed urban design guidelines that were more generic in nature and could be
applied to marketplaces elsewhere in the city. The key learning outcome of the studio
was that the process of designing for informality needed to be different from the
conventional methods and could only emerge from a deeper understanding of ground
reality.

4. Discussion

The interim and final output from the studio confirmed our underlying assumption
that the pedagogical approach for urban design needs to be reviewed if we are to create
inclusive cities. Glasser (2000) suggests that in order to prevent a mindless, unplanned
growth of cities and the destruction of communities, the focus and agenda of
architecture programs needs to be reassessed and emphasises the need for a studio
environment that works towards educating thoughtful and socially responsible
practitioners. All throughout history, we have had the creation of cities that depend
upon services and food growth in the countryside. The city however because of its high
density acquires new complex characteristics. It works well according to a special set of
rules of urbanity which can be understood by studying successful cities (Salingaros,
2017).

5. Conclusion

The studio was based on the premise that people often use street space for
purposes that they are not designated for, thereby generating informality. However,
informality in urban space can also occur as a result of the preconceived or
misconceived understanding of planners and administrators on how street space is being
used. In that sense, the urban design pedagogy suggested in this paper supports urban
design guidelines that could reduce informality that occurs from such a misconception.
Overall, this paper makes four key contributions. First, it emphasises the need for
urban design studios to ‘read’ the everyday and to ‘represent’ it through maps. Second,
it suggests that studios undertake intensive fieldwork that combines participant
observation and detailed interviews with multiple stakeholders to understand the
organized complexity of the urban space. Third, it points out that an urban design studio
responding to informality offers the possibility to explore territoriality and temporality,
which are both useful concepts to develop urban spaces as adaptive systems. Finally, it
proposes that urban designers expand their scope of work to include creative responses
to ‘designing a system’ i.e. the modes of operation of different stakeholder groups in the
given space.

Acknowledgements
This paper shares insights from teaching a studio in the Bachelors in Urban
Design (BUD) program from Aug-Nov 2017 at CEPT University, Ahmedabad. The
studio outcomes discussed here are the joint effort of the Studio faculty, Kiran Keswani;
the Academic associate, Bulbul Vyas and the 12 students, namely, Aryan Iyer, Atal
Chadha, Dharan Korduvar, Harsh Gupta, Hetvee Panchal, Prabhu Prabhanjan, Shivani

121
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS V.3, N.2, 2019

Agrawal, Shourya Dubey, Shubhangi Saxena, Khevana Makhanwahla, Meet Kakadia

and Vedika Pillai. I am grateful to all of them for their thoughtful and insightful
contributions to the studio discussions and for their creative output at the end. I would
also like to thank Melissa Smith, the Co-ordinator of the BUD program for inviting me
to conduct the studio and for supporting our work.

References

Acuto, M., Dinardi, C., & Marx, C. (2019). Transcending (in) formal urbanism. Urban Studies,
0042098018810602.
Akpinar, I., Gülersoy, N.Z., Koramaz, K., Ozsoy, A., & Gurler, E. E. (2016). The Making of an
Urban Designer in the ambiguous global context: an interdisciplinary graduate education
at ITU. International Planning History Society Proceedings, 17(7), 21-34.
Alexander, C., Silverstein, M., Angel, S., Ishikawa, S., Abrams, D. (1975). The Oregon
Experiment. New York : Oxford University Press: New York.
Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Arefi, M., & Triantafillou, M. (2005). Reflections on the pedagogy of place in planning and
urban design. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 75-88.
Bendiner-Viani, G., & Maltby, E. (2010). Hybrid ways of Doing: A Model for Teaching Public
Space. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 4(2/3), 407-418.
Carmona, M. (2016). Urban design, a call for inter-disciplinarity. Journal of Urban
Design, 21(5), 548-550.
Cidre, E. (2016). How emergent is pedagogical practice in urban design? Journal of Urban
Design, 21(5), 535-539.
Crysler, C.G. (1995). Critical pedagogy and architectural education. Journal of Architectural
Education, 48(4), 208-217.
Glasser, D.E. (2000). Reflections on architectural education. Journal of Architectural
Education, 53(4), 250-252.
Hinson, D. (2007). Design as research: learning from doing in the design-build studio. Journal
of Architectural Education, 61(1), 23-26.
Hou, J. (2014). Life before/during/between/after the service-learning design studios. Community
matters: Service-learning in engaged design and planning, 315-334.
Keswani, K. (2018). The logic of design: its role in understanding the antecedents of urban
informality. Journal of Urban Design, 1-20.
Kim, A.M. (2015). Sidewalk city: remapping public space in Ho Chi Minh City. University of
Chicago Press.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Mukhija, V. (2016). Responding to informality through urban design
studio pedagogy. Journal of Urban Design, 21(5), 577-595.
Lukovich, T. (2017). On Pedagogy for Urban Design-Some Observations. YBL Journal of Built
Environment, 5(1), 84-101.
Palazzo, D. (2011). Pedagogical traditions. In Companion to Urban Design (pp. 61-72).
Routledge.
Salama, A.M. (2012). Knowledge and design: People-environment research for responsive
pedagogy and practice, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 8-27.
Salingaros, N.A. (2017) “Urbanity, Scientific Inquiry and Architecture”, interview with Michael
Doyle, Contour, Issue No. 1, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, 29
April 2017. http://contour.epfl.ch/?p=1480&lang=en . See also: “Urban Design
Education”, Videolecture, Agency/Agents of Urbanity International Colloquium, June 1-
2, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEkiNgNnIgI

122
 K. KESWANI: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: THINKING ABOUT INFORMALITY

Salingaros et al. (2006). Socially-organized housing: a new approach to urban structure,

Presented at the Brazilian and Ibero-American Congress on Social Housing,
Florianópolis, Brazil, 2006. http://zeta.math.utsa.edu/~yxk833/social.html
Salingaros, N. (2018). Walkabout’ design with human sensors: Campus design, part 4, Public
Square CNU Journal, 13 June 2018.
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2018/06/13/%E2%80%98walkabout%E2%80%99-
design-human-sensors-campus-design-part-4
Varnelis, K. (2007). Is there Research in the Studio? Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1),
11-14.

123

View publication stats