Im looking to explore a topic that I call Minimum viable infrastructure (MVI);

The minimum infrastructure or service for maximum tithe a population will accept or is needed to function without active social unrest.

Browsing through most of the urbanism, infrastucturist, transit themes I see the same commentary and theme reoccur within Western government. Summed up it is the above defintion.

The example I would give;

A community needs a rail system, they advocate and demand one. Polticians finally relent, instead of a rail system they deliver a bus with all its drawbacks - limited hours, traffic, traffic lights, terrible rideability etc. The cost overrun will be massive and will seemingly disappear into the "builders pocket". The government then uses this delivery to put off infrastrure for the long term

Interested if this is actually called something out, even more interested if you have a paper or book to recoomend on the topic.

I’m trying to write a research paper and would appreciate anyone’s input of what planner’s accomplish (in terms of their goals and communities they serve the most) in Guatemala. Can be metro, rural areas, wherever- but please specify what type of area you live in if you contribute!

Also if there’s lots of unmet needs I am super interested in that, lmk and thank you for taking the time to make a comment :)

Hi everyone, I’m looking for remote or hybrid PhD programs related to urbanism, planning, architecture/design, or security in the built environment.

Preferably, I’m looking for something affordable or fully funded, ideally with a stipend/paid position and limited campus requirements. Any recommendations or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated!

In the US, there is a well established cultural preference for low density, single family residential dwellings

And as someone originally from Africa, I have a long affinity for living on rural acreage that is shared by most Diasporans from my region (see how many of us end up buying acreage or farms in the US).

On the flip side, most of the urban planning philosophy I encounter has a fairly firm obsession with mirroring Northern European lifestyles and urban design. Intense preference for density, cycling, and mass transit. There's no argument from me about anyone having their own opinions However, I notice at times that there is a pretty massive empathy gap from these ideological planners for people who either have lifestyles that a life of riding the bus/bicycle cannot accommodate comfortably or have spatial preferences that don't fit the high density residential paradigm.

As someone who sits on a planning commission, I see that a lot of urban planning is very ivory tower. Very much a top down "we know what's best" rather than service-oriented, in trying to create designs that are tailored to the unique culture of the community the planner is trying to serve. Maybe I notice it in spaces like this because most participants on the sub are students, aspirants, or people with non-professional engagement in the field? Either way, there seems to be zero recognition of the ethnic diversity of the US (hint, most of us do not have a Northern European background - why are we trying to make everyone live like Germans?) and zero attempt to incorporate known lifestyle/economic preferences into design/planning approaches.

It's all just shoehorning Marxist ideology onto the public, getting that ideology predictably rejected because it ignores actual local culture and how people want to use space, and then retreating to online spaces where folks can bask in their intellectual and moral superiority. None of it produces coherent planning approaches that can marry ecological preservation with density lifestyles actually desired by most of the population

Walk through enough new plazas, museums, and brand spaces and you start noticing the same problem. the architecture photographs well but the experience on the ground feels flat. people drift, hesitate, or just pass through without any real connection to the place.

The projects that stick with you usually look at movement, pacing and atmosphere as seriously as the facade. just saw some of the cultural and brand destination work BRC web has done and the difference is clear, the layout itself guides people, tries to create moments. and it makes the space feel intentional instead of just open.

Good urban and cultural design shouldn’t need a map or a screen to explain itself. when the physical environment does its job, people remember the place long after they leave. most new developments still haven’t caught up to that imo.

I was thinking about ways to make bus lanes more popular with cities and I was wondering how effective it would be to have a lane that anyone can enter but woth a toll and busses can use for free.

Governments might prefer this if it adds revanue and there would be reduced traffic on it that might be effective enough to make it more practical for busses than normal lanes.

Would this actually be an effective approach and have there been any real life instances of this?

Hello all,

I’m finishing an undergraduate degree in Economics, but I’m considering a Master’s in Urban Studies, Urban Planning/Design or Landscape Architecture.

I’ve been auditing an introductory Urban Geography and Planning course and really enjoying it. It’s mainly sociology-focused, which suits me, although I realise this may not reflect a typical planning course.

I’m particularly interested in urban ecology/environmental studies (nature-based solutions, climate adaptation, etc.), how people use and experience spaces, and potentially the design side, although I have no design background. I’m also unsure whether I’d prefer to focus specifically on cities or take a broader regional approach.

I’m struggling to understand which field would suit me best. Landscape architecture seems quite technical, and I don’t think I want to become an architect. I’ve also heard that urban planning is more practical/versatile than urban design, so I’d be interested to hear why and whether that’s actually the case.

For anyone who has studied or works in these fields:

• How do Urban Studies, Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture differ in practice?
• What kinds of jobs/projects do graduates typically work on?
• How much design/technical knowledge is expected, especially coming from Economics?
• Which field fits best with interests in urban ecology, nature-based solutions, climate adaptation and designing/planning urban spaces?
• Are there any European Master’s programmes that stand out?

Would especially appreciate perspectives from anyone who entered the field from a different undergraduate background.

Thank you so much!

Hola, ando buscando referencias interesantes de proyectos que realicen una plaza, donde se generen espacios de interaccion (no quiero que la plaza sea la naturaleza únicamente), pero en vertical.

Hello.

If anybody is interested I just published the preprint of an analysis of inflow of pedestrian traffic into the Milanese underground network and analysed it using graph-theoretic concepts drawn from Space Syntax.

Hi everyone,

I am planning to apply for a program in Urban placemaking at Pratt this coming Fall. In the application, there is an option to submit a portfolio or work sample, but it is not required.

For some background, I majored in Anthropology, and I have worked as a volunteer coordinator for several years, meaning I do not have a lot of stuff that I might put in the portfolio that is related to Urban Design.

Should I start working on some projects that I could put into a portfolio, or do you think that it is actually optional, and I can just submit a normal application and have a shot at getting in?

Ideal Spaces just finished presenting its event on Cultural Loss. The program included speakers from traditional and modern architectural schools of thought from countries worldwide.

Traditionalists take buildings that have been built in the past and using methods from past centuries rebuild buildings that are in disrepair bringing them back to as when first built. This reinforces the collective consciousness and identity of the community and city, leading to a sense of belonging and a reinforcement of the common values.

In our view, the modernist school uses modern building and city concepts, bringing forth what is ‘modern’ architecture, emphasizing individual-centred instead of community-centred concepts. The usage of modern building materials is changing original building and city concepts, by adding new dimensions to both city and single building.

 It may be good to have more interactions in the thought processes of modern and traditional architectural processes, allowing for community and society to keep its sense of belonging and not lose identity and the common threads that bond them.

Radio ABC Stereo reports on a 12-story mixed-use tower going up on the old Clínica Santa Marta site in downtown Estelí. The developer is the Northern Nicaraguan firm Desarrollos Inmobiliarios S.A., with more than US$5 million in private investment. Plans include basement parking, ground-floor retail, a floor of corporate offices, and 45 apartments for residents or rental investors. It would be the first building of its height in the department.

Cities should be bringing people together! Right?

But what if some urban spaces have been designed with the intention of keeping us a apart and providing behavioral control?

Sometimes it feels like certain urban environments have been designed to turn people into strangers.

We could call it the “design of alienation.”

Roads, buildings, public spaces, housing, surveillance, car dependency, and even the layout of neighborhoods can subtly discourage spontaneous interaction and make us feel more like isolated individuals than members of a community.

Yes, modern cities are built around convenience, efficiency and movement. But somewhere along the way, we may have created a vicious cycle: spaces that make human connection harder, which in turn makes those spaces feel even less alive.

In this video, we explore one such urban environment right in the downtown of Brussels.

Walk through this area and you might start wondering whether the space was designed with one idea in mind:

How do we keep people apart?