This article revisits the concept of place in planning and urban design and proposes a conceptual framework consisting of four ontological constructs of place as a set of visual attributes, product, process, and meaning. The article discusses the theoretical underpinnings of each concept and explores the advantages of a continuum between these terms to help bridge the gap between policy planning and physical design and to move toward a meaningful urban design. The study also examines the application of the proposed constructs of place to a sophomore-planning studio, focusing on the University of Cincinnati campus, which was offered at the School of Planning during the fall quarter of 2002.
Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, and Shlomo Angel. 1977. A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1974. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1977. The dynamics of architectural form. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Banerjee, Tridib. 2001. The future of public space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places. Journal of the American Planning Association67 (1): 9-24.
5.
Banerjee, Tridib, James Forsher, and Amer Moustafa, producers. 1996. Invented street. Los Angeles: Lusk Center Research Institute of the University of Southern California.
6.
Banerjee, Tridib, and Michael Southworth. 1991. City sense and city design: Writings and projects of Kevin Lynch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Bennett, Paul. 2001. The campus guide: The University of Cincinnati. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
8.
Blair, William G. E.1980. Visual resource management. EC (June): 6-15.
9.
Bohl, Charles C.2002. Place making: Developing town centers, main streets, and urban villages. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
10.
Boyer, Christine. 1996. The city of collective memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Castells, Manuel. 1989. The informational city. Oxford: Blackwell.
12.
Cosgrove, Denis, and Stephen Daniels, eds. 1988. The iconography of landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Cox, Harvey. 1968. The restoration of a sense of place: A theological reflection on the visual environment. Ekistics25 (151): 422-424.
14.
Crysler, Greig C.1995. Critical pedagogy and architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education48 (4): 208-217.
15.
Cullen, Gordon. 1971. The concise townscape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Dear, Michael. 1996. In the city time becomes visible: Intentionality and urbanism in Los Angeles, 1781-1991. In The city: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of the 20th century, edited by Ed Soja and Allen Scott, 76-104. Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
Diaz Moore, K.2001. The scientist, the social activist, the practitioner and the cleric: Pedagogical exploration towards a pedagogy of practice. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research18 (1): 59-79.
19.
Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom. 2001. Place matters: Metropolitics for the twenty-first century. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
20.
Ellin, Nan, ed. 1997. Architecture of fear. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
21.
Entrikin, J. Nicholas. 1990. The betweenness of place: Towards a geography of modernity. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
22.
Forsyth, Ann, Henry Lu, and Patricia McGirr. 1998. Inside the service learning studio in urban design. Landscape Journal18 (2): 166-178.
23.
Forsyth, Ann, Henry Lu, and Patricia McGirr. 2000. Service learning in an urban context: Implications for planning and design education. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research17 (3): 236-259.
24.
Fritz, Jan Marie. 2002. A little bit of sugar: Integrated service-learning courses. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology4 (1): 67-77.
25.
Gans, Herbert. 1968. People and plans: Essays on urban problems and solutions. New York: Basic Books.
26.
Gans, Herbert. 2002. The sociology of space: A use-centered view. City and Community1 (4): 329-339.
27.
Hargreaves Associates. 1991. University of Cincinnati master plan. San Francisco: Hargreaves Associates.
28.
Hayden, Dolores. 1995. The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackson, John, B.1986. Discovering the vernacular landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Jerde, Jon. 1999. You are here: The Jerde Partnership International. London: Phaidon.
32.
Koolhaas, Rem. 2001. Junkspace. In Project on the city 2, edited by C. J. Chung, J. Inaba, and R. Koolhaas, Harvard Design School, 408-422. Cologne, Germany: Taschen.
33.
Korthagan, F.1993. Two modes of reflection. Teacher and Teacher Education9 (3): 317-325.
34.
Laurie, Ian C.1978. Over-design is the death of outdoor liveliness. Landscape Architecture (November): 485-486.
35.
Lippard, Lucy R.1997. The lure of the local: Sense of place in a multicentered society. New York: New Press.
36.
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia, and Tridib Banerjee. 1998. Urban design downtown: Poetics and politics of form. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press.
38.
Lynch, Kevin. 1991. Managing the sense of a region. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Main Street. 2003. Horizons (University of Cincinnati), online edition. http://www.horizons.uc.edu/HardHat/hardmainstreet7-03.htm.
40.
Mollenkopf, John H., and Manuel Castells, eds. 1991. Dual city: Restructuring New York. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
41.
Moon, Jennifer A.1999. Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. London: Kogan Page.
42.
Moustafa, Amer, and Tridib Banerjee. 1995. Invented streets: Public life in private spaces. Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) Conference, Detroit, MI.
43.
Mugerauer, Robert. 1994. Interpretations on behalf of place: Environmental displacements and alternative responses. Albany: State University of New York Press.
44.
Rapoport, Amos. 1982. The meaning of the built environment: A non-verbal communication approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45.
Relph, Edward G.1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
46.
Rossi, Aldo. 1982. The architecture of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
Schön, D.1984. The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education38 (1): 2-9.
48.
Sholle, D.1992. Authority on the Left: Critical pedagogy, post-modernism, and vital strategies. Cultural Studies6 (2): 272-273.
49.
Shuman, Michael H.1998. Going local: Creating self-reliant communities in a global age. New York: Free Press.
50.
Soja, Ed, and Allen Scott, eds. 1996. The city: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of the 20th century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
51.
Sorkin, Michael. 1992. Variations on a theme park: Scenes from the new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang.
52.
Studio final report. 2002. Principles of Planning and Design I, University of Cincinnati. Fall Quarter.
53.
Thiis-Evensen, Thomas. 1999. Archetypes of urbanism: A method of the esthetic design of cities. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
54.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
55.
Webber, Melvin M.1964. The urban place and the nonplace urban realm. In Explorations into urban structure, edited by M. M Webberet al., 79-153. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
56.
Zukin, Sharon. 2001. How to create a cultural capital: Reflections on urban markets and places. In Century city: Art and culture in modern metropolis, edited by Iwona Blazwick, 258-265. London: Tate Gallery Publishing.
