Appropriate Pedagogical Approaches For Conduct of Site Planning and Built Environment Studio in Spatial Planning Education Programs


  • Valliappan Alagappan Department of Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh India.



Spatial planning education is multi-disciplinary in nature and particularly site planning needs exposure to Engineering, Architectural, Landscape, Sociological, Economic, and Infrastructural aspects. The curriculum of the spatial planning program introduces the site-planning studio (multi-level design and planning) at the initial semesters without introduction of single space design and planning. Due to inadequate exposure the students find it difficult to plan and design residential layouts in the planning studio. The site-planning studio provides a good understanding of how the articulation of density can modify the built form and environment. There are considerable lacunae in the adopted approaches of site planning studios in various planning schools. The author discusses in detail the varied methodologies and approaches adopted in site planning and built environment studio programs. The two pedagogical studios methods experimented in the site-planning studio were discussed at length. One method discusses from unit level planning and designing to block and neighborhood level and other method discusses from neighborhood to block and unit level. Within these two studio pedagogical methodologies, for conduct of site planning exercises two approaches were generally adopted i.e block-based approach and Design based approach. The characteristic features, outcomes, advantages and disadvantages of each methodologies /approach offer an understanding of how site-planning studios have to be taught in the planning program. The author emphasizes the importance of a gradual progression from a single space design and planning to multi-level design and planning for enhanced comprehension of students.


All India Council For Technical Education (2008). Model Curriculum for Undergraduate Course in Bachelor degree of Planning. Government of India.

Bernstein Basil B (1975). Class and Pedagogies: Visible and Invisible. Washington. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Publications.

Higgins, M and Reeves, D. (2006). Creative thinking in Planning: How do we climb outside the box? Town Planning Review 77(2): 221-244.

Hyland, K (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 16:148-64.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). (2007). Planning Principles and Design Considerations, Chapter 4. Accessed September 10, 2015.

Lalenis, K. and Sapounakis A. (2010). From Decay to Opportunity: Planning Education as a Means for Reversing the Impacts of Economic Crisis. CEBE Transactions 7(2): 70-94

Laurie, M (1985). An Introductory to Landscape Architecture. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Publications.

Lynch, K. ed. (1984). Site Planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Regional Research Institute. Site Planning and Design. Accessed February 15, 2015.

Malloch M, L. Cairns, K. Evans and Bridget N O Connor. (2010).The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. London: Sage Publications.

Mc Conatha et al (2014). Mobile Pedagogy and Perspectives on Teaching and Learning. Hershey, Pennsylvania. IGI Global Publications.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. (2009). Design and Planning Process: A guide to good practice, Greater Manchester, England.

Simonds, J.O. (1998). A Manual of Site Planning and Design. New York. McGraw Hill Professional Publications.

Woyseth, D.H. (2007). Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. International Journal of Architectural Research 1(3): 194-206.




How to Cite

Alagappan, V. (2015). Appropriate Pedagogical Approaches For Conduct of Site Planning and Built Environment Studio in Spatial Planning Education Programs. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 2(3).