The grounded projection: A reflective examination of urban design pedagogy at Melbourne School of Design
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2025.v6si197Keywords:
urban design, pedagogy, design thinking, Melbourne School of Design, educationAbstract
Urban design education faces unprecedented challenges as ecological emergencies, socio-political risks and technological transitions converge to reshape cities worldwide. These planetary-scale disruptions necessitate pedagogical approaches that prepare future urban designers for fundamentally different professional realities. This paper presents the Master of Urban Design program at the University of Melbourne as a response to these challenges: a grounded projective approach that systematically integrates analytical rigour with speculative imagination across three sequential design studios and a culminating thesis. The paper documents a carefully orchestrated pedagogical journey: students master rule-based design thinking through intensive engagement with urban morphology, design codes, rules and regulations, then collaborate with industry partners to address pressing questions of social equity and public health, before ultimately expanding their temporal vision to envision climate-adapted and technologically augmented urban futures spanning multiple generations. Following this three-design studio sequence, the thesis studio enables students to pursue individual research expertise. Throughout this progression, Melbourne transcends its role as a mere case study to become a genuine living laboratory and a place where students develop profound contextual knowledge. This comprehensive framework demonstrates how systematic spatial-analytical foundations enable rather than constrain imaginative speculation, how individual design expertise can flourish within collaborative frameworks, and how extended temporal thinking can be meaningfully integrated into studio-based education. The program's critical contribution lies in creating space for speculation and projective work by drawing intelligently and creatively from a grounded understanding of urban design practice and enabling students to envision transformative urban futures while maintaining disciplinary rigour.
Downloads
References
Alberti, M. (2016). Cities that think like planets: Complexity, resilience, and innovation in hybrid ecosystems. University of Washington Press.
Banerjee, T. (2016). The brave new urban design pedagogy: Some observations. Journal of Urban Design, 21(5), 540-544.
Batuman, B., & Altay Baykan, D. (2014). Critique by design: Tackling urban renewal in the design studio. Urban Design International, 19(3), 199-214.
Berghauser Pont, M., & Haupt, P. (2010). Spacematrix: Space, density and urban form. NAI Publishers
Busquets, J., Yang, D., & Keller, M. (2019). Urban grids: Handbook for regular city design (1st ed.). Oro Editions.
Chiaradia, A. J. F., Sieh, L., & Plimmer, F. (2017). Values in urban design: A design studio teaching approach. Design Studies, 49, 66-100.
Cuthbert, A. R. (2006). The form of cities: Political economy and urban design. Blackwell Publishing.
Cuthbert, A. R. (2007). Urban design: requiem for an era – Review and critique of the last 50 years. Urban Design International, 12, 177-223.
Çalışkan, O. (2012). Design thinking in urbanism: Learning from the designers. Urban Design International, 17 (4), 272-96.
Çalışkan, O., Tümtürk, O., & Yavuz, I. (2020). Imagineering: A model approach for futuristic design thinking in urbanism. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 173(1), 16-33.
Higgins, M., Aitken-Rose, E., & Dixon, J. (2009). The pedagogy of the planning studio: A view from down under. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4(1), 8-30.
Hillier, B., & Leaman, A. (1974). How is design possible? Journal of Architectural Research, 3(1), 4-11.
Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Musgrove, J., & O’Sullivan, P. (2025). Knowledge and design. In B. Hillier, L. Vaughan, J. Peponis, & R. C. Dalton (Eds.), Space syntax: Selected papers by Bill Hillier (pp. 26-44).
Kamalipour, H., & Peimani, N. (2022). Learning and teaching urban design through design studio pedagogy: A blended studio on transit urbanism. Education Sciences, 12(10), 712.
Kamalipour, H., & Peimani, N. (2025). Urban design education: Designing a pedagogy for an evolving field. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Karakiewicz, J. (2019). Design is real, complex, inclusive, emergent and evil. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 18(1), 5-19.
Karakiewicz, J. (2020). Perturbanism in future cities: Enhancing sustainability in the Galapagos Islands through complex adaptive systems. Architectural Design, 90(3), 38-43.
Lang, J. (2005). Urban design: A typology of procedures and products. Routledge.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2020). Responsibilities and challenges of urban design in the 21st century. Journal of Urban Design, 25(1), 22-24.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Mukhija, V. (2016). Responding to informality through urban design studio pedagogy. Journal of Urban Design, 21(5), 577-595.
Mah, D., & Villoria, L. A. (2016). Lifestyled: Health and places. Jovis.
Marshall, S. (2016). The kind of art urban design is. Journal of Urban Design, 21(4), 399-423.
Melbourne School of Design. (2023). ABP strategy 2023-2028: Designing futures. The University of Melbourne. https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/4678106/ABP_Strategy_2023-2028.pdf
Moudon, A. V. (1992). A Catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know. Journal of Planning Literature, 6(4), 331-349.
Moudon, A. V. (1994). Getting to know the built landscape: Typomorphology. In K. A. Frank & L. H. Schneekloth (Eds.), Ordering space: Types in architecture and design. John Wiley & Sons.
Palmer, J., Cooper, I. & Van der Vorst, R., (1997). Mapping out fuzzy buzzwords – Who sits where on sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 5(2), 87-93.
Romice, O., Rudlin, D., AlWaer, H., Greaves, M., Thwaites, K., & Porta, S. (2022). Urban design as a specialised, evidence-based, coordinated educational and professional endeavour. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Urban Design and Planning, 1-45.
Sepe, M. (2020). Shaping the future: perspectives in research on, and the teaching of, urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 25(1), 28-31.
Sloterdijk, P. (2008). Foam city. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 9(1), 47-59.
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81-98.
Victoria Planning Authority. (2025). Fishermans Bend framework: The next chapter in Melbourne’s growth story. Victoria State Government. https://www.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-04/Fishermans-Bend-Framework.pdf
Waldheim, C., Jun, W., & Boya, Z. (2020). Towards a “new” heliomorphism. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 27(5), 98-104.
Yavuz Özgür, I. & Çalışkan, O. (2025). Urban design pedagogies: An international perspective. Urban Design International. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-025-00271-w
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Onur Tümtürk, Justyna Karakiewicz, Leire Asensio Villoria, David Mah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


