The dramatic growth of American urban areas since the 1940s, which has come in ever-larger increments especially at the urban fringe, has helped architecture and planning to flourish but has failed to produce an urban design profession of compara ble size or repute. The answer may lie in the ways in which architecture and planning have chosen to recon cile their internal forces with the de mands of societal change. But to un derstand those choices we may need to look at professional education in these fields and how they have made their place in the academy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Institute of Architects.1988. Architects for a New Century: Findings and Analysis of the AIA Vision 2000 ConferenceNew York: The American Institute of Architects.
2.
Argyris, C., and Schon, D.1974. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional EffectivenessSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Becker, E.1973. The Denial of DeathNew York : The Free Press.
4.
Benveniste, G.1977. The Politics of ExpertiseSan Francisco: Boyd & Fraser.
5.
Crane, D.1960. The City SymbolicJournal of the American Institute of Planners24(6):280-292.
6.
Dyckman, J.; Kreditor, A.; and Banerjee, T.1983. The two cultures of planning: Schooling and practice Working Paper Series, No. 13. Los Angeles: The Planning Institute, U.S.C.
7.
Franklin, J.1971. Design for Utopia: Selected Writings of Charles FourierNew York: Schocken Books .
8.
Lynch, K.1984. Prologue In Good City Form , K. Lynch. Cambridge: MIT Press.
9.
Nesbit, R.1973. The Quest for CommunityLondon : Oxford University Press.
10.
Perloff, H.1957. Education for Planning: City, State and RegionalBaltimore : Johns Hopkins Press .
11.
Raban, J.1975. Soft CityLondon: Fontana.
12.
Schon, D.1983. The Reflective PractitionerNew York : Basic Books.
13.
Simon, H.1969. The Sciences of the ArtificialCambridge : MIT Press.
14.
Wolfe, T.1981. From Bauhaus to Our HouseNew York : Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
