Working with the urban sitegeist dynamic practices and interactivity

This thesis's contribution to knowledge has arisen from the reflections on my unique design practices; their methods offer ways of overcoming the complacency of urban design thinking about the economic and ecological impasse facing our cities, and the resulting crisis in the discipline. It demonstrates how designers can surpass/transcend top-down quantitative approaches, which sideline urban solutions, exclude low socio-economic groups, and produce the homogenised urban forms described by Sassen, Rittel and Webber. Such approaches undermine local economies, collaborative and creative networks, non-quantifiable realities, and ironically, the very diversity which is needed for successful urban adaptation. Opposing such practices, my thesis reflects on a practice of rethinking the discipline, addressing 'wicked problems' of urban adaptation, which need to be considered from a multiplicity of investigative angles. In opposing the `generic city', as delineated by Koolhaas, the practice laid out in this thesis engages strongly with protagonists on site, synthesising diverse perspectives with spatial intelligence into cogent proposals of adaptation. The reflected practice, furthermore extends work done by Studio Basel and the Berlage Institute in developing methods which recognise onsite potentials and build effective advocacy tools, protocols, and strategies that can influence decision makers. In restoring the principle of engagement with local economies, populations, and networks, and drawing on historical and international practice, precedents, and research, this thesis investigates and calls for a rethinking of the discipline.<br><br> Four projects, which adapt current and/or historical urban areas of economic production, serve as exemplars for this thesis. Their mixed makeup enables the testing of Jacob's and Sassen's hypothesis that urban diversity drives innovation and therefore urban adaptation strategies. Potentials are identified on site, and diverse urban actors tapped for local intelligence, creating a pool of knowledge on which to draw and conceptualise city renewal. The projects were further supported by six methods for identifying on site potentials, communicating findings, reflecting on practice, and advocating for change. These methods comprise: the extraction of local experience though dialogue and local interaction; the exchange of project references with peers to inform new ideas; the development of interactive project and process structures for complex teams and sites; the distilling of collective ideas into coherent proposals through drawing; the active quest for critique as a tool for self-improvement; and the mixing of different modes of practising and external engagement within projects to improve and refine project outcomes. These methods are flexibly combined, their sequencing depending on the operational and geographic contexts of projects, to achieve maximum impact in advocating for change. I extend on Lahoud and Mau to argue that the designer no longer has the luxury of sitting on the fence when faced with the destructive effects of climate change and inequality in the urban fabric. Such structured methods are therefore essential when conceptualising complex projects of adaptation and building an engaged and purposeful practice.<br><br> The first case study, an academic project at territorial scale (the Melbourne Section) influenced peer-research and presciently demonstrated opportunities for site-specific developments in the metropolitan region. The second case study (Batemans Bay) mixed practice, research and activism, swaying council and public opinion on questions of climate adaptation. The third example (Kunshan projects) in China successfully introduced ideas for adaptation beyond the commission brief from the Chinese council and augmented the importance of both transdisciplinary collaborations and the role of designers in driving innovative site solutions. The last project and case study (Cremorne 2025) mixed teaching and research publication with advocacy work. It identified social, cultural and economic mixity as the platform for innovation and adaptation. It also influentially advocated for the preservation of historical industrial precincts, built a strong environmental and economic case for mixity, and highlighted the dangers of tech-gentrification. Shortlisted for leadership, advocacy and research at the 2020 Urban Design Awards, the project validates the use of multi-focused practice modes to communicate complex adaptation proposals and change the climate of opinion. <br><br> The contribution of this thesis to original knowledge lies in part with the design and application of methods which support a small and often self-initiated urban practice in locating site-specific solutions to local and global problems. Adaptability to changing conditions and dynamic contexts are fundamental to my practice, which seeks to communicate outcomes and shift public and government opinion. As the thesis demonstrates, employing the different modes of teaching, research, practice, writing, exhibiting, hosting events, and online discussions furthers the reach and influence of alternative proposals for urban adaptation. In turn, each of these modes of engagement encourages self-reflection and feedback from stakeholders that informs new future project iterations. Such a practice allows a deeper, multifaceted understanding of sites and can effectively communicate purpose to wider audiences, agents of investment, and government and influential stakeholders. This approach is also more cognisant and respectful of the different lived realities and aspirations of people than data driven methods are, for they ignore unquantifiable and unrecorded realities of sites, and it restores the human right of all people to their city. The principles of this practice are furthermore articulated in the format of a manifesto, to be carried forward to peers, provoke discussion and instigate reflection within the discipline and academia.<br><br> As the thesis further argues, universities are ideally placed to support dynamic practices in a moment of crisis. Universities are testing grounds for original, ground-breaking ideas, offering opportunities for innovative practice through their transdisciplinary networks and the funding of cutting-edge projects, which are not harnessed to commercial ends. The engaged practices this thesis outlines re-situate universities at the forefront of urban discourse and aim to revitalise a visionary tradition of architects.