curriculum development teaching modules n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Curriculum Development Teaching Modules PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Curriculum Development Teaching Modules

Curriculum Development Teaching Modules

106 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Curriculum Development Teaching Modules

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 14-Oct-2004, BUD PICT, Draft Report on WP6 Curriculum DevelopmentTeaching Modules ALEX DEFFNER VASSILIS BOURDAKIS Dept. of Planning and Regional Development, School of Engineering, University of Thessaly (UTH), Volos, Greece



  4. II. 3 CORE TEACHING MODULES (13 units) • Introductory • Introduction to PICT(1 unit=1 teaching hour) 1.1. What is PICT(0,1 unit) • PICT (Planning Inclusion of Clients through e-training)is a transnational project financed in part by the European Commission in the context of Leonardo Da Vinci's Community Vocational Training Action Programme. It is implemented by local authorities, universities, private consultancies and social partners in four European countries: Belgium, Greece, Hungary and the United Kingdom

  5. Core 2 1.2. Project aims(0,1 unit) • The project aims to facilitate effective public participation in planning, through the development and use of advanced ICT applications that may promote interaction and dialogue between planners and the public

  6. Core 3 1.3. Who can benefit? (0,3 unit) • The citizen who cares enough to better understand planning concepts and who would like to become involved in the shaping of urban planning decisions • The local entrepreneurs who are affected by planning decisions and would like to develop their capacity to take part in the planning process • The planners who can improve their skills on new planning and design technologies and their ability to engage more effectively in a dialogue with the local stakeholders, thus enlightening and nurturing the participatory procedures

  7. Core 4 • The local competent authorities who can set the course for a democratic planning process and train planning personnel to that effect • The universities which can jointly formulate learning material, develop further and test laboratory applications of "user-friendly" design and mapping tools, to be used for public participation and teaching purposes at the national and European level

  8. Core 5 1.4. Actions planned and expected results(0,5 unit) • The project starts by defining the conceptual and operational framework for public participation in planning. To that effect the project reviews and codifies theory and practice of public participation across Europe and compiles characteristic examples of good or not so good practice and legislation • Taking existing European experience as a starting point, four pilot projects are set up, one in each participating local authority. The pilot projects are launched by mapping out the needs of the citizen and planning professional as they relate to their capacity for facilitating interaction between them

  9. Core 6 • Then a planning issue is selected to focus the participatory process on and suitable ICT applications are developed to illustrate points for discussion and interaction between the public and planners. A learning methodology is also compiled to enable all stakeholders involved increase their capacity for participation • To self-manage the process, each pilot area establishes a Local Consultative Committee and a "task force" to offer advice and practical help to individuals • The hosting of local workshops and an international conference are designed to raise public awareness and to widely disseminate project products and results

  10. Core 7 Project partners • United Kingdom • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (Project Contractor) • Liverpool John Moores University, School of the Built Environment • European Council of Town Planners (ECTP) • Greece • PRISMA Centre for Development Studies (Project Coordinator) • Municipality of Agia Varvara in the Prefecture of Athens • University of Thessaly, Dept of Planning & Regional Development

  11. Core 8 • Belgium • Hogeschool voor Wetenschap & Kunst Sint Lucas Architectuur • Hungary • Budapest University of Technology and Economics • WEBhu Kft. ICT Consultancy Project duration • The project started in November 2002 and will end in October 2005 For more information • please visit the project website

  12. Core 9 B. Planning & participation(6 units) 2. Planning (4 units) 2.1. General concepts of urban planning (3 units) 2.1.1. Space, time and culture (0,5 unit) • Avoidance of spatial determinism: urban interventions can contribute or hinder already existing social tendencies, they cannot by themselves create new ones

  13. Core 10 • Importance of temporal dimension:Focus on daily life but also raising attention for a prospective view over longer periods of time • Multiculturalism: in a multicultural area it is ‘easier’ to argue for the importance of culture, in Brussels the different ethnic groups are rather large & connected, though not often integrated in a context of diversity

  14. Core 11 2.1.2. Creativity, innovation and leisure (0,5 unit) • Use of creativity(process from consumption to production) as a dynamic tool for urban innovation and imaginative action, focusing on culture • Having an open mind for innovative practices (as well as theoretical approaches) • Importance of leisure activities especially for areas that have unemployed people who are rich in time (they have more, albeit ‘forced’, leisure time) and poor in money a general contradiction

  15. Core 12 2.1.3. Sustainability (2 units) • Sustainable development in planning-three dimensions: society, economy and environment • Urban sustainability: a contradiction in terms? • Definition of a sustainable city: ‘organised so as to enable all its citizens to meet their own needs and to enhance their well-being without damaging the natural world or endangering the living conditions of other people now or in the future’ (Girardet, 1999)

  16. Core 13 • another (‘second degree’)definition of a sustainable city by Richard Rogers (1997): just, beautiful, creative, ecological, of easy contact & mobility, compact & polycentric, diverse • Kevin Lynch (1972): sustainability is ‘future preservation’ involving actions ethically or aesthetically internalised, so that they become satisfying things to do now: ‘as historical preservation requires the disposal of the irrelevant past, so future preservation requires the elimination of the irrelevant future’

  17. Core 14 • Sustainable cities-best practice initiatives according to ICLEI (International Council for Local Environment Initiatives) • Improved production/consumption cycles • Gender & social diversity • Innovative use of technology • Environmental protection & restoration • Improved transport & communication • Participatory governance & planning • Self-help development techniques

  18. Core 15 people’s needs as starting point • Clean air & water, healthy food & good housing • Quality education, vibrant culture, good health care, satisfying employment or occupation • Safety in public spaces, supportive, relationships, equal opportunities, and freedom of expression • Meeting the special requirements of the young, the old and the disabled

  19. Core 16 • 5 lessons for policy development according to Wally N’ Dow, former Dir. Gen. of UNCHS (Un. Nat. Centre for Human Settlements) • Power of good examples • Complexity of issues • Local level action has large scale repercussions • Exchanges take place between peer groups in different cities • Changing the way urban institutions work

  20. Core 17 • checklist of key questions: Does my city- • Compile an annual environmental report? • Use life cycle analysis in its own purchasing decisions? • Support public environmental education? • Create jobs from environmental regeneration? • Have polices for transport integration and pedestrianisation • Encourage ecological businesses? • Support ecological architecture an urban villages?

  21. Core 18 • culture of sustainability: development of concepts of real sustainability • Involve the whole person • Place long term stewardship above short term satisfaction • Ensure justice and fairness informed by civic responsibility • Identify the appropriate scale of viable human activities • Encourage diversity within the unity of a given community • Develop precautionary principles,anticipating the effects of our actions • Ensure that our use of resources does not diminish the living environment

  22. Core 19 • Commission of the European Communities (1998) - 4 policy aims • strengthening economic prosperity and employmentin cities • Promoting equality, social inclusion and regeneration in urban areas • Protecting and improving the urban environment: towards local & global sustainability • Contributing to good urban governance and local empowerment

  23. Core 20 • Local Agenda 21 (Raemaekers, 2000; Gilbert et al.) • Process of developing local policies for sustainable development and building partnerships between local authorities and other sectors to implement them • Product of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) endorsed by 150 nations • Integrative goal seeking to break down barriers between sectors in both public and private life – it is a continuing process

  24. Core 21 • Range of practised methods: traditional consultation on draft plans, public meetings, fora bringing together representatives from different interests, round tables, focus groups • Sustainability indicator: asking people to identify specific measurable aspects of their living environment which to them indicate their health • Support mechanism: no setting out by LA 21 but Las have been leaders among governments in addressing sustainability issues (even before the adoption of LA 21)

  25. Core 22 2.2. Vision for local development & Community Planning (1 unit) 2.2.1. Vision for local development (0,2 unit) • Abony: quality of roads in questionnaire • Developing a sense for integrated local development (housing AND public space AND social-economic background) • Importance of local economic development – ‘new localism’: from outward- to inward-looking societies (C. Williams in Planning Beyond 2000)

  26. Core 23 2.2.2.Community planning (0,8 unit) • Focusing on the needs of particular groups (e.g. elderly and Roma in A. Varvara: the first, along with housewives, are willing to participate in PICT but are IT illiterate-on the other hand, young people are IT literate but do not seem willing to participate in PICT)

  27. Core 24 • Principles of community planning • Agree rules and boundaries • Be visionary yet realistic • Build local capacity • Encourage collaboration • Have fun • Learn from others • Personal initiative • respect of cultural context • Train • Visualize

  28. Core 25 3. General concepts of public participation (2 units) 3.1.Methodology & various concepts (0,5 unit) • Developing an appropriate methodology of discussion between the public and the planners (two separate groups, and then together, e.g. assembly in Brussels) • combination of simplified versions of SWOT (internal environment: strengths, weaknesses, external environment: opportunities, threats) Analysis & Delphi method

  29. Core 26 • Synergetic distribution of information: Integration of different sorts of communication channels to invite and inform people, in respect of the existing of associations, planners and authorities • Self-help and independence: Enable involvement by providing means to inform oneself (empowering one’s viewpoints and points of view) • Joined development: Enable interaction and discussions

  30. Core 27 • different views of public participation (pp) depend on the degree of involvement of the experts and the criteria of representing the public • lack of experience and consequently of participatory culture in Greece (however, participatory experience in A. Varvara) • Brussels: in respect & connected to the existing strong elaborated participatory fabric • Abony: inviting the public to participate in planning decisions & consultation with public (result of questionnaire)

  31. Core 28 3.2. ‘Schema of pp’(0,5 unit) • Hampton-two major objectives behind the introduction of greater pp in planning during the late 1960s: policy-making and decisions can benefit from better information about public preferences and residents’ concerns, pp can draw people into a stronger and longer-term relationship with government and enhance their current and future ability to play a significant role in policy-making • relationship of specific techniques to subsidiary objectives in pp

  32. Core 29 • the involved groupsare distinguished in: • major elites (e.g. local business groups, major employers, Chambers of Commerce, trade unions) • minor elites (local interest groups, community associations, action groups • public as collectivity of individuals

  33. Core 30 3.3.Equal Opportunities Guide(0,5 unit) • London Government ManagementBoard -conditions for success within LAs, selection of relative factors: • race • women • disabled • elderly • children • part time & casual workers

  34. Core 31 3.4. Key principles for good practice in pp (0,5 unit) • Clear aims of participation at the outset • insurances of the central role of local politicians at the programme • link of motives, objectives and intentions of the participation programme with the appropriate techniques • interpretation of the nature and implications of policies and plans for the users • identification of the procedures for information collection from the public in order to evaluate and act

  35. Core 32 C. IT (6 units) 4. Methods & techniques 4.1. Methods for helping people to get involved in planning (3 units) (Vassilis) • e.g. electronic map, gaming, simulation • only for Planners?

  36. Core 33 • Technology support: having group sessions in which tools and technologies play a supportive role. • Space and time: Combining scheduling tools with spatial models ('4D-viewer'), • Joined perspectives: Combining eye-level views and bird’s-eye views ('3D-projection'), • Complementary expertise: Considering different background of people (literacy of architectural concepts, drawing and imaging techniques), • Compact information and complexity delimitation: Considering universal limits and characteristics of human perception (e.g. mind can only keep seven plus or minus two ‘chunks of information’ in the short term memory at a time [Miller, 1956])

  37. Core 34 4.2. Preparation of techniques (2 units, 3 slides→1 more, Annette) 4.2.1.Content (1 unit) • Broad AND Specific: In order to communicate the 3D and 4D information, one needs to start with a clear contextual urban model. AutoCAD and GIS information needs to be filtered to keep only the relevant information • Context visualisation: Modelling software to adapt the contextual urban model (adding the new interventions) • Urban and Architectural Detailing: Modelling and Rendering software (SketchUp / 3DS-MAX / VRML etc.) as a visually rich presentation tool

  38. Core 35 4.2.2. Combining content in tools (1 unit, 2 slides→1 more, Annette) • The 3D projection needs: • a story / scenario • an interaction scenario • a specific scale model (e.g. 1:200 for public space interventions) • fine-tuned projection slides (e.g. in PowerPoint) • The 4D viewer needs: • a story / scenario • an interaction scenario • a specific 3D CAD model • a time / planning schedule

  39. Core 36 4.3. Presentation tools (1 unit, 3 slides→1 more, Annette) • Narrative development with PowerPoint including renderings and photographic material as a generally accepted / available presentation tool. • Use of Internet and viewer-plug-ins (text / pictures / movies / VR / maps) as a channel to the home

  40. Core 37 • Use of '4D-viewer' as a specific tool to discuss spatial planning issues --> combining scheduling tools with spatial models • Use of '3D-projection', as a facilitator tool for interaction at exhibitions and in small group presentations. --> combining eye-level views and bird’s-eye views • Recycling and derivatives: Re-use of renderings or projections for billboards, neighbourhood newspapers, manuals, PowerPoint-presentations, etc.

  41. III. 6 TEACHING MODULES FOR THE PUBLIC (25 units) A. Planning & Participation (7 units) • Introductory themes to urban planning (3 units) 1.1. Why plan? (0,2 unit) • Necessity of planning even after so many failures • Necessity of introducing order into chaos? • urban planning is more than restrictions, it is also potentialities • Focus on basic needs, but urban interventions can not save everything • Importance of the lack of planning culture (e.g. in Greece)

  42. Public 2 1.2. Definition of planning(0,2 unit) • Ernest Alexander: ‘deliberate social or organizational activity of developing an optimal strategy of future action to achieve a desired set of goals, for solving novel problems in complex contexts, and attended by the power & intention to commit resources & to act as necessary to implement the chosen strategy’

  43. Public 3 1.3. Perception of planner’s job (0,2 unit) • in A. Varvara association with technical services authority that controls building construction and grants building permissions, rather vague concept of designing towns, streets layouts & traffic management • Halewood: negative view of planning, confusion (need for more consultation with the community) • Abony: no knowledge of what a planner does

  44. Public 4 1.4. Definition of the problem(0,2 unit) • It depends on the analytical orientations of the individual (Archibald): • academic expert: ‘if the shoe fits, wear it’ • strategic expert: ‘the shoe you’re wearing doesn’t fit, and you should try one like this instead’ • clinical expert: ‘if the shoe doesn’t fit, then there’s something wrong with your foot’

  45. Public 5 1.4. Urban planning functions(0,5 unit) Four main functions according to Le Corbusier (Athens Charter 1933) • housing • work • leisure • transport

  46. Public 6 1.5. Making cities work(1 unit) • Venice as classic case study (even if few, if any, cities have canals) since its working principles can be applied to modern day cities • Making cities work depends on best practice examples of: • arriving in the city (transport): most successful gateways and transport interchanges, first (and lasting) impressions really count, cities are not just places where people live but they are destinations that many people visit for brief period • getting around the city (transport): great challenge for most urban leaders: how to move people around in safety, comfort and speed, acute political trade-offs: pedestrian vs car, pollution vs clean air, communities vs roads, a matter not only of huge public investment but also of ideas and good operating practices

  47. Public 7 • enjoying the city (leisure): ingenious approaches that are taken to parks, shopping malls and public spaces, large number of (usually) small-scale amenities that make a city fun to be in • working in the city (work) • living in the city (housing)

  48. Public 8 • Main issues: cities have to find a solution to the car (road space has to be rationed since it is not a free public good), even the most spectacular developments have to be on a human scale, information is the key, it is people )often one individual) that make things happen • It is a cumulative effect of visionary ideas, sometimes small, that make cities work

  49. Public 9 1.6. Various concepts (0,5 unit) • Human action: a material process indicative of mental processes starting from perception, passing through knowledge and appropriation and leading to consciousness - development of a consciousness for the collective good (A. Varvara) • Space: focusing on the mental process startin from perceiving buildings, one’s district, the neighbouring district, understanding the larger context of the municipality, to town, region and nation

  50. Public 10 • Open & green spaces & tree planting as improvement of the quality of life (A. Varvara) • Cultural activities: from popular culture to high culture • Art as a cultural function in the city • Time: focus on the present (solutions of problems), but also importance of interventions with long-term impacts • Urban furniture (e.g. lighting) as an enrichment of security at night – discouragement of drug dealing (A. Varvara)