Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to transform urban planning research, practice, and education, yet few curricula address “Urban AI.” This paper presents the pedagogical design of a pilot Urban AI course and argues for three meta learning goals: applying AI effectively and appropriately in urban challenges, addressing its social, environmental, and governance impacts, and developing normative judgments and professional identities around AI. Pilot teaching produced a knowledge graph connecting essential skills to these goals and a critical framework for AI use and reflection, grounded in analysis of 235 student reflection journals, alongside course evaluations, syllabus materials, and student projects.
AtenasJavieraHavemannLeoNerantziChrissi. 2025. “Critical and Creative Pedagogies for Artificial Intelligence and Data Literacy: An Epistemic Data Justice Approach for Academic Practice.” Research in Learning Technology32:3296.
BrinkleyCatherineStahmerCarl. 2024. “What is in a Plan? Using Natural Language Processing to Read 461 California City General Plans.” Journal of Planning Education and Research44 (2): 632–48.
8.
ChaturvediVikramde VriesWalter Timo. 2021. “Machine Learning Algorithms for Urban Land Use Planning: A Review.”Urban Science5(3): 68.
9.
ClaytonPaigeGoodspeedRobertGreenJamaalLassiterAllisonRiggsWilliamWilsonBev. 2025. “More than Analytics: Five Approaches to Educating Professionals to Shape Today’s Digital Cities.” Journal of Planning Education and Research15:726–32.
10.
DengRuiqiJiangMaoliYuXinluLuYuyanLiuShasha. 2025. “Does ChatGPT Enhance Student Learning? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies.” Computers & Education227:1–35.
11.
DrummondWilliam J.FrenchSteven P.2008. “The Future of GIS in Planning: Converging Technologies and Diverging Interests.” Journal of the American Planning Association74 (2): 161–74.
12.
DuekerKenneth J.2007. “Geographic Information Systems and Computer-Aided Mapping.” Journal of the American Planning Association53 (3): 383–90.
13.
FreirePaulo. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by RamosMyra Bergman. 50th Anniversary Edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
14.
FrenchSteven P.WigginsLyna L.1989. “Computer Adoption and Use in California Planning Agencies: Implications for Education.” Journal of Planning Education and Research8 (2): 97–108.
15.
FuXinyuLiChaosuZhaiWei. 2023. “Using natural Language Processing to Read Plans: A Study of 78 Resilience Plans from the 100 Resilient Cities Network.” Journal of the American Planning Association89 (1): 107–19.
16.
GodschalkDavid R.McMahonGerard. 1992. “Staffing the Revolution: GIS Education for Planners.” Journal of Planning Education and Research11 (3): 216–26.
17.
HuangXiaoWangSiqinWilsonJohnKedronPeter. 2025. Geoai and Human Geography. Berlin: Springer.
18.
ItoKoichiKangYuhaoZhangYeZhangFanBiljeckiFilip. 2024. “Understanding Urban Perception with Visual Data: A Systematic Review.” Cities152:105169.
19.
KolbDavid A.1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20.
KontokostaConstantine E.2021. “Urban Informatics in the Science and Practice of Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research41 (4): 382–95.
21.
LeeJongwon. 2025. “Generative AI and Geography Education.” In GeoAI and Human Geography: The Dawn of a New Spatial Intelligence Era, edited by WilsonJohnKedronPeterWangSiqinHuangXiao, 297–312, Cham: Springer.
22.
LehmannMatthiasCorneliusPhilipp B.StingFabian J.2024. “AI Meets the Classroom: When Does ChatGPT Harm Learning?” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.09047v1.
23.
LewisArmandaStoyanovichJulia. 2022. “Teaching Responsible Data Science: Charting New Pedagogical Territory.” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education32 (3): 783–807.
24.
MontaguA. Simon. 2001. “Repackaging the Revolution: Making GIS Instruction Relevant to Planners.” Journal of Planning Education and Research21 (2): 184–95.
QuanSteven Jige. 2022. “Urban-GAN: An Artificial Intelligence-Aided Computation System for Plural Urban Design.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science49 (9): 2500–15.
29.
Salazar-MirandaAriannaTalenEmily. 2025. “An AI-Based Analysis of Zoning Reforms in US Cities.” Nature Cities2:304–15.
30.
SanchezThomas W.BrenmanMarcYeXinyue. 2025. “The Ethical Concerns of Artificial Intelligence in Urban Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association91 (2): 294–307.
31.
SanchezThomas W.ShumwayHannahGordnerTreyLimTheo. 2023. “The Prospects of Artificial Intelligence in Urban Planning.” International Journal of Urban Sciences27 (2): 179–94.
32.
SchönDonald A. [1983] 1984. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
33.
TuXinmingZouJamesSuWeijie J.ZhangLinjun. 2023. “What Should Data Science Education Do with Large Language Models?”arXiv [preprint]. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2307.02792.
34.
WuAbraham NoahStouffsRudiBiljeckiFilip. 2022. “Generative Adversarial Networks in the Built Environment: A Comprehensive Review of the Application of GANs across Data Types and Scales.” Building and Environment223:109477.
35.
YeXinyueYigitcanlarTanGoodchildMichaelHuangXiaoLiWenwenShawShih-LungFuYanjieGongWenjingNewmanGalen. 2025. “Artificial Intelligence in Urban Science: Why Does It Matter?”Annals of GIS31 (2): 181–89.
36.
ZhengYuXuFengliLinYumingSantiPaoloRattiCarloWangQi R.LiYong. 2025. “Urban Planning in the Era of Large Language Models.” Nature Computational Science5:727–36.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
