Planning from the inside out and engaging in transdisciplinary and trans-territory collaborations – The spatial-social practices of the practicum studios at NTU’s Graduate Institute of Building and Planning
Min Jay Kang
Associate Professor and Director
Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University
- Spatial planning and design education of the professional generalists:
Spatial planning and design education at the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning (GIBP) at National Taiwan University is marked by a distinctive rite of passage: "Practicum I." This mandatory course, overseen by three mentors, immerses first-year graduate students in intensive fieldwork, exploring the intricate interplay of spatial and social dynamics. While the experience evokes a range of emotions and sparks lively debates, it leaves indelible memories that resonate across generations.
At the heart of GIBP's pedagogy lies a profound interrogation of traditional planning and design paradigms that often detach from social realities. The institute advocates for a shift towards nurturing "professional generalists" – practitioners who transcend mere aesthetic considerations to embrace a transdisciplinary approach. This approach aims to deepen insights into urban and rural contexts, fostering a nuanced understanding of space rooted in real-world complexities.
Central to the training of professional generalists is the emphasis on specialization coupled with transdisciplinary understanding. GIBP seeks to break down disciplinary silos, recognizing the limitations of rigid specialization prevalent in Western academic models. As such, the institute intentionally reserves half of its annual admissions for students from diverse backgrounds, provided they share a commitment to social justice and possess adaptability to navigate the evolving landscape of future professions. These students collaborate with peers from planning and design backgrounds, engaging in practicum teams and research partnerships that form the backbone of the institute's spatial-social practices.
This transdisciplinary approach has become a hallmark of GIBP's educational philosophy, fostering a culture of critical inquiry, dialogue, and collaboration among students from various disciplines. These interactions have catalyzed numerous social movements and community actions, ranging from advocacy for housing rights to urban conservation initiatives.
The impact of GIBP's social practices extends far beyond the classroom. Through hands-on experiences gained in practicum courses and fieldwork, students contribute to meaningful social change. From the reinterpretation of cultural heritage sites to the sustainable development of farming industries, GIBP's initiatives resonate with real-world challenges and opportunities, yielding tangible impacts on communities and society at large.
In essence, GIBP's spatial planning and design education transcend academic boundaries, empowering students to become agents of positive change in the complex and ever-evolving urban landscape.
Figure 1 Participatory planning and design at Gara in GIBP’s Practicum I
- Planning and design from the inside out:
Examining the processes of these actions at GIBP reveals a departure from conventional approaches dictated by university social responsibility (USR) resources or top-down policy mandates. Instead, these initiatives stem from the institute's intrinsic values and commitment to societal engagement. When GIBP, as a spatial planning and design entity, interfaces with society, it seeks alternative avenues within the confines of past technocratic rationality, both in structural analysis and planning strategy.
This approach transcends traditional paradigms by fostering grassroots democratic participation from the bottom up and embracing an inside-out perspective. The inside-out approach acknowledges that planners and designers, while not necessarily insiders or locals themselves, possess the external professional knowledge essential for insiders. In the planning and design process, they eschew reliance solely on objective external analyses and predefined models applied to designated "sites," which often serve property owners or shareholders. Instead, they immerse themselves in the lived experiences of the field, engaging with stakeholders who have an intimate connection to the land or home. Through this interaction, they cultivate a profound understanding of the environmental sense of ownership inherent in these communities.
For example, during a GIBP practicum course in Taipei's Wanhua District, visual storytelling emerged as a pivotal method for field exploration. Through screenings and events showcasing student films, local residents were invited to reimagine and redefine the meaning of community public spaces. This collaborative process catalyzed subsequent action planning, driven by the insights and empowerment of community insiders.
Figure 2 The GIBP Practicum I catalyzed the Live-Stream Festival of Kulatao and the conservation of the open water
The inside-out approach transcends conventional bottom-up public participation by involving planners and designers in proactive social engagement long before participatory workshops commence. Instead of merely facilitating workshops to gather public opinions, they immerse themselves in fieldwork, continuously amassing local knowledge through anthropological methods akin to Geertz's concept of "thick description" (1973). This involves mapping spatial patterns along everyday-life routines and organizing them into a pattern language (Alexander et al., 1977), enabling planners and designers to propose participation methods tailored to local social and cultural perceptions.
In the context of GIBP's social practices, "participation" extends beyond stakeholders engaging in planners' and designers' operational schemes. It encompasses planners and designers actively involving themselves in the lives and experiences of stakeholders. Through the exchange of professional and local knowledge, this process evolves into a more profound, reciprocal, and empathetic form of "dialogical planning" (Stein and Harper, 2012). Such an approach recognizes the perspectives of marginalized and voiceless individuals, fostering an environment conducive to innovation and creativity.
When engaging in dialogue involving multiple parties, the challenge of dialogical planning often arises due to significant disparities in values between different stakeholders, particularly between those in positions of power and those marginalized. In such situations, professionals are faced with the decision to either align with power and capital or take a stand against them to defend the basic rights of the marginalized. GIBP has frequently found itself opposing various development projects that overlook the struggles of the lower social strata and the disempowered.
The declaration "We Oppose" boldly adorns the walls of the entrance to GIBP's Gongguan Building, serving as a visible testament to the institute's stance. However, it's important to recognize that these opposition stances are not simply acts of contrarianism; rather, they have become a defining characteristic of GIBP. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to stereotype the department as solely focused on generating social movements, sometimes overlooking its expertise in planning and design professions.
- “We Oppose”?!
However, when the dialogue involves more than two parties, the challenge of dialogical planning often arises from significant disparities in values between the top and bottom, forcing professionals to choose to stand against power and capital. They must be willing to resist or take an opposing stance to defend the basic rights of the marginalized. GIBP has found itself in opposition to various development projects that overlook the struggles of the lower social strata and the disempowered.
The declaration "We Oppose" is boldly graffiti-ed on the walls of the entrance to the GIBP's Gongguan Building, serving as a vivid imprint. However, it's crucial to note that these opposition stances are not simply opposition for the sake of opposition; they have become a distinctive mark of GIBP. Unfortunately, they have sometimes been stereotyped as a department solely dedicated to generating social movements but lacking expertise in planning and design professions.
Figure 3 The teacher and students of GIBP protest against Taipei City Government’s master plan of Shezidao with full-scale eradication of the existing landscape and settlements
Indeed, GIBP has remained steadfast in its commitment to social communication, political negotiation, and the integration of power dynamics into planning education and professional development. The adoption of an "opposition" stance represents a deliberate choice to engage with power structures and advocate for marginalized communities. When this stance elicits positive responses from various levels of government and mainstream planning, subsequent planning initiatives become transformative experiments in both spatial and social realms, underscored by values of reform.
The preservation and revitalization efforts of Taipei's Treasure Hill Squatter Settlement serve as a poignant example of this ethos. Over the past twenty-five years, GIBP faculty and students have played an active role in reshaping the fate of this settlement, originally marginalized as informal and unauthorized. Through a dynamic preservation model, they have successfully retained both the self-built houses and the residents, setting a precedent for urban conservation and the protection of underprivileged residents' rights. This model has not only influenced the preservation of neighboring settlements like Toad Hill but has also impacted the overall spatial layout of southern Taipei City.
Across generations, GIBP has engaged in long-term interactions with settlement residents, seeking innovative solutions to land use planning challenges from within the community. Drawing upon the legal framework of urban planning and cultural heritage preservation laws, they have navigated through complex review and negotiation processes, reshaping the discourse of environmental planning and the practicalities of dynamic preservation.
From initial advocacy against forced eviction to curating expos on disempowered communities, from researching settlement landscapes to facilitating global artivist participation, GIBP's involvement in the Treasure Hill preservation plan has encountered numerous legal hurdles. These challenges have tested the technical and communicative skills honed through GIBP's spatial planning education.
Emphasizing community empowerment, GIBP's approach to revitalizing the Treasure Hill Settlement prioritizes the substantial participation of local residents and the protection of their right to the city. This commitment ensures that care for the disempowered and social inclusion are not just theoretical ideals but tangible outcomes of professional practice. Progress in the spatial realm of social practice is not achieved overnight; rather, it emerges through iterative processes guided by real-world experience and unwavering dedication.
Figure 4 The conservation and regeneration of Treasure Hill Settlement and Toad Hill Settlement closely associated with GIBP’s practicum courses of different generations
- The Spirit of the Big Table
The Blueprint mode of planning relies on the centralized vision and authority of strong professionals, whereas GIBP's social practices are grounded in collaborative efforts and the "spirit of the Big Table," which fosters direct democracy and collective decision-making. Unlike hierarchical structures, the Big Table operates on principles of equality, where participants are encouraged to listen and contribute on an equal footing. GIBP's spatial planning education values collective collaboration over individual heroism, often leading to the formation of local Big Tables in planning and field actions.
Questions about the scope, effectiveness, inclusivity, and adaptability of the Big Table are frequently raised, and GIBP continually seeks to approach the ideal through ongoing spatial practices. Participation in the Big Table is voluntary, and transdisciplinary dialogue and debate form the basis of decision-making. However, like any democratic process, the demands of the Big Table can sometimes strain individuals or the collective, leading to fatigue or inertia.
The concept of the Big Table and its application in social practices are not mere professional jargon; they represent deeply ingrained values within the GIBP community. While some members may hesitate or depart during the process, the tradition of the Big Table endures. In an era marked by rapid technological change, there is concern that face-to-face communication may be compromised, but the belief in the transformative power of the Big Table persists.
Just as being a transdisciplinary professional generalist is intrinsic to GIBP's DNA, the Big Table remains a cornerstone of the institute's philosophy. It is believed that the evolving nature of the Big Table will drive advancements in GIBP's methodology. Moreover, encountering or assembling Big Tables in diverse contexts around the world will inspire more meaningful and comprehensive social practices, even in the most unexpected corners.
Figure 5 GIBP’s practicum studio showing up to support the community of To Kwa Wan and the operation of Fixing Hong Kong at the most uncertain time of Hong Kong