Educational landscapes: Socio-spatial educational environments as resources for architecture and urban planning

An unthinkable fusion

With the transition from a service society to an information society (Castells 1996), issues of sustainable urban development are increasingly being discussed in urban planning and architectural circles with the theme of education emerging as a key factor for economic and social progress in cities and regions. This is particularly true within the frame of urban social development, where education—understood as the provision of schooling and/or training and its accompanying infrastructure—is discussed as a form of social integration and participation, as well as a way of mitigating disparity and growing socio-spatial polarisation.

Such view on education is due, among other things, to the fact that, in order to promote the practical achievement of sustainable urban development, interdepartmental and comprehensive planning is required, which must be supported and sustained by adequate public planning and educational policies. This being so, the acquisition of knowledge and skills, as well as continuous learning, raise questions such as what and how a suitable context would look like (from neighbourhoods to cities and regions) and, more specifically, how learning spaces, whose materiality is manifestly shaped by the exercise of architecture and urban planning, are to be designed.

Such questions are complemented by other ones pertaining local development and the physical-material configuration of the educational and social infrastructure. These two factors, moreover, are addressed in urban social development programmes, often jointly designed by urban planners and architects, and implemented by local governments in their respective jurisdictions. However, a way to elucidate how the interaction between education and the physical-spatial environment—that “unthinkable fusion”—operates requires a broader understanding of the notion of education and how the concepts of “educational landscape” and “educational socio-spatial environments” ¹ arise therefrom.

Beyond formal training

From a holistic viewpoint, education² suggests that children and young people learn continuously and wherever they find themselves, not only within the confines of school environment. For instance, the time-space of journeys that precede and follow school hours through streets, squares, parks and other spaces that make up their daily lives are an integral part of their learning, which is defined as informal. Likewise, the divisions between the times and spaces of formal and informal learning tend to be, for the most part, blurred, given the complex ways in which they interweave with one another (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

In educational landscapes, formal (guided, with exams, certificates, e.g., school), semi-formal (without exams, certificates, but conducive, e.g., services for children and young people) and informal (not guided and not seemingly conducive, e.g., family, friends) learning combine in formal (classrooms, lecture halls, etc.) and informal settings (schoolyard, cinema, youth centre, streets, squares, parks, etc.). Source: Brkovic Dodig and Million (2018).

Certain German municipalities have developed projects which have embraced the content and space dimensions of the interface between urban development and education. Both fields are understood as spheres of (political) action. Analysis of the implementation of these interfaces in Germany has shown that the implementing bodies have engaged in common lines of discussion, and that approaches established in different regional and municipal policies have in some cases overlapped and diverged in others. In numerous places in Germany, urban social development is being deliberately undertaken in cooperation with educational institutions to create measures aimed at fostering a long-term, sustainable development vision, ranging from the regional to the neighbourhood level (Million et al. 2017a; Heinrich 2018). To that end, educators, designers, and planners are increasingly working in closer collaboration, thereby triggering synergies between their fields of knowledge and action, which has led to the emergence, within German literature, of so-called “educational landscapes” (Bildungslandschaften) (Mack 2008).

Today, in many German cities and municipalities, the promotion and construction of educational landscapes is an area of intersection between various educational planning and urban development efforts. This has meant, in terms of educational practice and policy, that questions of innovative pedagogical approaches to equal opportunities in education have, in recent years, almost unanimously been addressed by promoting educational landscapes. (Bleckmann and Durdel 2009; Bollweg and Otto 2011). As previously mentioned, this requires that architects and urban planners willingly work alongside educators (and potentially other stakeholders such as parents, youths and children). As a result of these interactions, educational landscapes become socio-spatial educational environments, which, as this article argues, can be employed as valuable resources for architecture and urban planning practice, for these disciplines play key roles in urban development.

In what follows, such transition—from educational landscapes to socio-spatial educational environments—is examined in further detail, with reference to four projects implemented in Germany. Afterwards, two initiatives, with extremely different backgrounds undertaken in Lima, Peru, are examined. Whereas the socio-spatial landscapes in Germany came about through deliberate joint action between urban developers and the education system, the Peruvian case studies evince less structured processes subject to institutional frameworks and regulations, which, despite these circumstances, have given way to socio-spatial educational environments. Furthermore, while the German cases demonstrate clear process-based intent, the Peruvian examples, though they too emerged from specific planned and executed projects, show to have entailed certain degree of serendipity. This article does not intend to compare the two very different contextual realities, as this would ultimately be futile, given the socio-economic disparity between the two of them. However, valuable lessons can still be drawn from both case studies and therewith contribute to the theoretical debate and, perhaps more importantly, the practical application of ideas in future projects of educational landscapes. Thus, the article seeks to make apparent how the practice of architecture and urban planning, in response to situational circumstances, can help to configure formal and informal educational processes. By the same token, socio-spatial educational environments, we argue, are a legitimate strategy in urban development. Similarly, the understanding that learning is not only formal and informal, but also continuous and directly influenced by the physical-material arrangements limiting its processes, reinforces the idea that education is far more than mere formal instruction. So, echoing the African proverb, it takes an “appropriately designed village” to educate their children and youths.

A predicamental transition: from educational landscapes to socio-spatial educational environments

In the German debate, the term “educational landscape” (Bildungslandschaft) (Mack 2008) is often used instead of “educational associations” by urban planning professionals and (landscape) architects, because educational landscape encompasses physical-material characteristics in both public and private spaces, at different scales of practical intervention (from buildings and plots to blocks, neighbourhoods, and districts, to entire cities and regions). The lack of a consensus on the definition of this “guiding concept” is not therefore surprising. Bleckmann and Durdel (2009, 12) argue, for instance, that educational environments are

Concerning the interfaces and interdependencies between education and urban development, seen as fields of action, there is one type which is particularly strategic: educational landscapes “characterised by the networking of educational policies focusing on social space as an educational space” and “the design of socio-spatial living conditions […] as the basis of educational processes” (Berse 2009, 202). In other words, implementing educational landscapes with a socio-spatial nature integrates a “spatial perspective” into the concept of education. Consequently, educational landscapes become socio-spatial educational environments.

Four pillars, an empirical perspective on socio-spatial educational environments

Through the empirical study of eight practical examples of socio-spatial educational environments, academics in education and planning have provided insight to enhance and more clearly identify the definitions presented above (Million et al. 2017). In describing the common characteristics of socio-spatial educational environments in practice, four constituent components are determined. They are as follows:

Materialized socio-spatial educational environments

Examples of socio-spatial educational environments in German and Peruvian cities were chosen as case studies to explore, highlighting the unique nature of each geographical context, their gestation processes.

Tiered coordination: Socio-spatial educational environments in Germany

Estimates place the number of educational landscapes in Germany by 2017 at approximately 400, out of which around two dozen could be considered as socio-spatial educational environments (Million et al. 2017). Hence, socio-spatial educational environments are still viewed, in quantitative terms, as a small and incipient phenomenon. Completed examples already in operation include the Bildungszentrum Tor zur Welt [“Gateway to the World” education centre] (Hamburg), the Campus Technicus (Bernburg), the Quartiersbildungszentrum Morgenland [“Morgenland” neighbourhood education centre] (Bremen), the Altstadt-Nord educational landscape (Cologne), the Rütli Campus (Berlin) and the Campus for permanent learning (Osterholz-Scharmbeck)³. These examples were planned under the concentration model, in which socio-spatial educational environments draw on the existence of new and existing buildings to establish, to a greater or lesser extent, an interconnection with the urban fabric of the neighbourhoods they were built in (Figure 2). Such aspect reveals the inherent complexity, as mentioned previously, that establishing socio-spatial relationships entails. These four examples have sought to create a “unitary character” by providing green areas and free access to the socio-spatial educational environments and to the mechanisms connecting the different buildings.

Figure 2.

Examples of planned socio-spatial educational environments in Germany. Source: Million et al. (2017).

Likewise, all the examples mentioned above incorporate a wide range of stakeholders brought together through common goals and interests, working together on a programme plan encompassing both urban planning (renovation of a sector of the city) and educational issues (holistic and alternative educational provision). Another key common denominator is that the construction of these socio-spatial educational environments were directly integrated into financial support structures (e.g. from the federal government, the federal states or foundations) (Million et al. 2017).

Tahuantinsuyo Park: Serendipitous calculation

Tahuantinsuyo Park comprises two sports fields, an elementary school, a park, and a self-managed community dining hall (Figure 3). This complex is also the largest central public space in La Balanza neighbourhood, situated in northern Lima within Comas district. This district is located on the disadvantaged edge of the city, where socioeconomic conditions (residents belong to the first income quintiles) and spatial conditions (reflected in the quality and quantity of public infrastructure) contrast visibly with those of the “privileged center”. As the intervention and renovation of these spaces did not explicitly seek to create a socio-spatial educational environment, the end result was, to a certain extent, a product of serendipity. With the San Martín Community Dining Hall (an autonomously organised neighbourhood kitchen) as the centrepiece, a multi-purpose room and a small library were added (Figure 3). The dining room was first adapted as a result of the initiative of local women, organised under the banner of Mothers of San Martín Dining Hall, and members of the artistic association Fiteca, who for years had been recovering public spaces throughout the neighbourhood, with the aim of promoting cultural activities (theatre, dance and plastic arts) for children and young people.

Since 2012, the Coordinadora de la Ciudad (en Construcción) (CCC), an architectural firm founded and led by Peruvian architects Javier Vera and Eleázar Cuadros, designed and implemented the expansion of the dining hall, the park, and its adjacent surroundings (planned in two phases, 2012-2014 and 2015-2017).

Figure 3.

Tahuantinsuyo Park as a contingent socio-spatial educational environment. Source: compiled by authors, CCC Archive, Eleázar Cuadros.

Project management and funding ranged from small initiatives led by residents to participation in international funding competitions; the Municipality of Comas also played a role by lending machinery and labour, and directly funding the creation of a carpentry workshop (Bayona, 2017). Because of the close collaboration and joint work between the CCC and Fiteca—as participating institutions organizationally cooperating—there is a certain broader programmatic veil that encompasses, in one way or another, aspects concerning the socio-spatial educational environment of a more informal nature. However, the degree of programmatic planning that may have existed did not explicitly set out to create a socio-spatial educational environment, but rather the intervention and improvement of buildings and public spaces in accordance with a master plan drawn up by the CCC (Figure 3).

Consequently, a wide range of stakeholders has been actively involved, without ostensibly having to align interests and actions through a specific overall vision set forth in a common mission statement or cooperation agreement (one of the four aforementioned constituent components). Furthermore, educational and urban factors are included somewhat separately from one another. For instance, the small library (aside from the notable benefits for the local children and youths) is not clearly related to the primary school. Moreover, the urban aspect (restoring public spaces) has played the biggest role in the activities implemented while the other components have been interwoven quite incidentally, based on the zoning and project strategies featured in the master plan (Figure 3). Be that as it may, it is noteworthy how the gradual process of creating socio-spatial relationships will not only eventually address such shortcomings, but also the fact that these relationships emerged from the collaboration, and mutual learning, between designers and children (Castillo Ulloa et al. 2021). Similarly, in the German cases, children participate to a greater or lesser extent in designing the educational landscape. More specifically, the first step, called the seed project, involved painting wooden poles with bright colours and placing them right in front of the main dining hall entrance, to attract children and see what they would do with them. After a while, the children began to climb up and down the poles and ended up audaciously trying to move from one to another. Benches created from painted tires were made available to the children, and a fence was replaced with a dirt ramp leading to a nearby green area (Figures 3 and 4). Suggestions that children made known through their actions were integrated into future implementation stages of the intervention plan, or, to put it another way, into the consolidation of socio-spatial relationships (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

The Seed project (top photo) and its consolidation as socio-spatial relationships in the educational landscape in La Balanza neighbourhood, transitions between the building housing the dining room, multi-purpose room, library and the green area (bottom right and central photo) and one of the football fields (bottom left photo). Source: CCC Archive and the authors.

Overall, due to the strategic location of the public spaces and institutions, together with the functions they house and their progressive spatial convergence, the case of Tahuantinsuyo Park can be seen as a socio-spatial educational environment, particularly aimed at children and young people (and even adults as well, given the relative emphasis on informal learning that the initiative, somewhat tacitly, implies).

The children’s path: Towards a (potential) autonomous navigation of public space

In the southern neighbourhood of San Juan de Miraflores, also located on the edge of the city, and an integral part of the “Alto Perú” project, “The children’s path: Learning paths in the public space” proposal, while not yet materialized, it has been specifically designed, as opposed to the case in La Balanza, as a socio-spatial educational environment in more accordance with the process-based intent of the German model (Figure 5). The initiative seeks urban and social connectivity and focuses on early childhood as a catalyst for community change. Spaces, people, and institutions linked with formal and informal learning would form the basis of collaboration, with simple and recurring actions aimed at having young children come out to the streets to both have fun and learn. In other words, they would travel through their formal and informal learning spaces in a relaxed and, ideally, independent fashion.

Figure 5.

Diagrammatic proposal for “The children’s path: Learning paths in the public space”. Source: Carlos Javier Vega, Hannah Klug, Walter Soto, Abel Castello, Silvia Aragon.

Additionally, features of the four constituent components characterising socio-spatial educational environments set out by Million et al. (2017)—diversity of participating institutions, different forms of organisational cooperation, integration of educational and spatial aspects into the overall concept, and socio-spatial relationships—are discernible in this initiative. For instance, as Figure 5 shows, the Mapping and Team/Strategy stages provide an overview of the possible institutions and key stakeholders involved and, particularly in terms of strategy, outline potential forms of organisational collaboration. The “Prototypes”, described as “Three Paths”, also hint at how socio-spatial relationships might come to fruition. Additionally, considering that “The children’s path” is not designed as an “acupuncture-style” intervention (as was the case for Tahuantinsuyo Park), but is part of a broader programme strategy, the socio-spatial educational environment may result in learning that lands somewhere between formal and informal. The proposal’s main idea, that of the “neighbourhood school”, proposes that formal learning should be “taken out of the classroom” and merge with its informal counterpart in a fluid, organic fashion.

From intention to action: Some final thoughts

At different intensities, in different forms and with a range of intentions, social and urban environment of cities, municipalities, districts, and neighbourhoods offer spaces and opportunities for both formal and informal learning. As explored in this article, socio-spatial educational environments combine goals and motivations of both thematic content and physical-material character regarding learning seen as a holistic and continuous process. This also makes manifest the inherently spatial nature of learning processes and the need to make the transitions and intersections between formal and informal learning more flexible. After all, the “urban spaces where the individual interacts, develops, undergoes experiences, and seeks possibilities becomes a constitutive issue for ‘flexible’ education” (Bollweg and Otto 2011, 206). Therefore, given that education is a spatial category, space could as easily be considered an educational category. This being the case, it is worthwhile—indeed, necessary—to view architectural design and urban planning, as disciplines shape the materiality of (urban) spaces, from a pedagogical angle and thus pose questions such as what kind of educational landscapes are needed in today’s and tomorrow’s knowledge society.

Regarding the Peruvian examples, while the San Juan de Miraflores initiative is still a preliminary design, in La Balanza work has already been completed (although improvements are ongoing). In addition, the insights from both cases, as they respond to the formation of a socio-spatial educational environment, turn out to be relevant for the wider debate on managing the development of Lima’s neighbourhoods, districts, and the city as a whole. From opening up—symbolically and materially—primary schools, whose common denominator is that they are inevitably walled in, to the inversion of school and neighbourhood to blur the borders that separate them (in San Juan de Miraflores), to the direct incorporation of the contribution of children and young people to create socio-spatial relationships (in La Balanza), the potential that underlies each of the instances analyzed still has much to offer to the practice of architecture and urban planning. To achieve this, it should be noted, it is necessary to increase coordination between institutions and to continue the relentless search for resources to implement the projects (perhaps the most important challenge).

In the German examples, while academic debate grows and practical experience expands, promoting the production of educational landscapes and socio-spatial educational environments is not without its difficulties. One such obstacle is the urgent need for new school buildings, which conflicts with the complex, slow coordination processes that materializing socio-spatial educational environments entails. Likewise, the absence of regular subsidies can be a major drawback for fostering necessary teamwork as well as the potential lack of space for implementing creative structural ideas. In this sense, the ingenuity displayed by the Peruvian teams, particularly the CCC, has created a benchmark for how to circumvent budget constraints and maximise resources.

These obstacles notwithstanding, there are several reasons why educational landscapes and socio-spatial educational environments should be developed further. More specifically, the conceptual idea of a socio-spatial educational environment addresses urgent social problems such as the constant need to reconsider formal education quality, social segregation in cities, and the slow and complex construction and/or restoration of social infrastructure. Socio-spatial educational environments also represent a clear conceptual framework for achieving an adequate level of coordination among various institutional stakeholders. Therefore, several goals can be pursued and different interests met in cases where relatively few conflicts tend to arise. At the same time, however, systematic and reliable evidence is lacking on how well educational landscapes and particularly socio-spatial educational environments actually promote education. Therefore, their practical usefulness and the role that they can play at neighbourhood level (and beyond) must be proven. One of the main criticisms of these initiatives focuses on the appropriateness of introducing learning activities into socio-spatial environments and the encroachment of school activities into children and young people’s free time (Million et al. 2017). Furthermore, potentially removing the limits of teaching in the socio-spatial environment in general, and specifically in public spaces, is deemed problematic.

Finally, a common factor in all the examples discussed, despite noteworthy contextual differences, is that both the buildings and the interstitial spaces between them are designed as pinions within the machinery of educational landscapes and socio-spatial educational environments. Viewing space, and its design and planning, as education categories that take the form of socio-spatial educational environments requires an iterative, practical counterpart. In other words, educational landscapes and socio-spatial educational environments are not self-propelled and therefore require structures and assignment of responsibilities to create networks among stakeholders. This means they are never “simply finished” but instead must be constantly managed, moderated, maintained and even adapted. Therefore, and to return to this article’s main argument, it must be recognized that, between educational socio-spatial environments, as strategic components, and the practice of architecture and urban planning, there is still a long way to go to bridge the gap between the “theoretical saying” and the “material and palpable fact”. Nevertheless, the journey is well worth it.