One of the characteristics distinguishing Urban from architecture (A) is that of having long exalted the condition of individual to collective, singular to plural, intuitive to rationale, exclusion to inclusion, control to freedom, object to civility etc.. Inhabiting, as a notion, implies sense of belonging to a “concrete” place, region, identifiable as such, and decipherable as an area with particular annex: a place, therefore it is “comprehensible” in its extent. It perhaps long journey to distinguish this terminology in its conceptual presence and perhaps thesis is medium to comprehend the fundamental territories & constitution of word urban.
The thesis projects of departing batch demonstrated, richly enough the urban texture as large pattern formation, purely out of regional specificity. The each project managed to arrive analytically, at geographical specificity with clear urban perspective. Here the earlier argument implies accurately, that thesis has managed to articulate the word urban concept. The range of topics dealt with & questioning, what is collective, what is history and its relevance, what is public realm, what is periphery, what is urban, what is urban form and planning process. Each idea built with very specific lens and arrived at the argument. The issues are arrived at but demonstrations are still far from desirable.
Urban design interventions perhaps deals with subsistence without being competitive, visionary without being exuberant, conservative without being dogmatic, plural without being uncontrolled, regional without being political optimization, secular without being intangible, interactive without being varied domains. The coming years for masters with its richness of variety, multidisciplinary canvas, needs to develop specific action areas & mechanism to address and expand the frontiers of urban design.