46
UERALD L. YOUNG
Regional Planning a t the University of Pennsylvania, and has repeatedly
made himself heard to the effect that “the world, the city and man as
responsive to physical and biological processes-in a word to ecologyare entirely absent from the operative body of planning knowledge. If
the planner is part social scientist, part physical planner, he is in no part
natural scientist or ecologist.” The same indictment may be aimed at the
others where “no single body of knowledge has greater relevance to the
problems confronted by society and thus by the [environmental design
fields] than does ecology”.
Architects and those in associated disciplines are beginning to mouth
the words “ecology” and “environment”, whereas in practice (with
some exceptions such as McHarg) the apparent commitment is quite
different. For the applied disciplines to be accepted as seriously committed to an ecological method, it must begin to show in professional
training programs: this is all too slow in appearing. For example, the
curriculum a t most schools or departments of architecture still reflects a
commitment to turning out ego-oriented fine artists bent on satisfying
their own aesthetic sense. Or they graduate structural engineers committed only to a sound and functional building or, perhaps, a combination of the two. I n only a few schools are courses in “environmental
design” a required, or even optionally available, part of the curriculum;
practically non-existent are required background courses in ecology.
There is a very subtle danger inherent in the above paradoxical
situation. Too many in the design disciplines are too willing to adapt the
terminology without mastery of the conceptual substance that must
support the words. Renaming a course “environmental design” does not
change the content nor does it make it sound ecology. The problems and
the importance of an ecological approach in the applied fields are legion
-they require some amplification.
1. Engineering as applied human ecology
Analysis of the role played by engineers as applied human ecologists
is complicated by two factors. First is the fact that there is so very little
literature on the relationship between engineering and ecology, a t least
as known to me; Sears’ (1947) comment stands virtually alone. Second,
engineers will have a singular effect on the roles of others classified here
as applied human ecologists: their designs and techniques will affect
especially the kind of performance achieved by the architect and the
planner. Engineers will play a critical role in the shaping of human
environments, particularly as they are major contributors to the design
of technology and to the design of structures.
A few comments may be offered (despite the scarcity of sources in
engineering) on the nature of technology, which is the focus and product
UERALD L. YOUNG
Regional Planning a t the University of Pennsylvania, and has repeatedly
made himself heard to the effect that “the world, the city and man as
responsive to physical and biological processes-in a word to ecologyare entirely absent from the operative body of planning knowledge. If
the planner is part social scientist, part physical planner, he is in no part
natural scientist or ecologist.” The same indictment may be aimed at the
others where “no single body of knowledge has greater relevance to the
problems confronted by society and thus by the [environmental design
fields] than does ecology”.
Architects and those in associated disciplines are beginning to mouth
the words “ecology” and “environment”, whereas in practice (with
some exceptions such as McHarg) the apparent commitment is quite
different. For the applied disciplines to be accepted as seriously committed to an ecological method, it must begin to show in professional
training programs: this is all too slow in appearing. For example, the
curriculum a t most schools or departments of architecture still reflects a
commitment to turning out ego-oriented fine artists bent on satisfying
their own aesthetic sense. Or they graduate structural engineers committed only to a sound and functional building or, perhaps, a combination of the two. I n only a few schools are courses in “environmental
design” a required, or even optionally available, part of the curriculum;
practically non-existent are required background courses in ecology.
There is a very subtle danger inherent in the above paradoxical
situation. Too many in the design disciplines are too willing to adapt the
terminology without mastery of the conceptual substance that must
support the words. Renaming a course “environmental design” does not
change the content nor does it make it sound ecology. The problems and
the importance of an ecological approach in the applied fields are legion
-they require some amplification.
1. Engineering as applied human ecology
Analysis of the role played by engineers as applied human ecologists
is complicated by two factors. First is the fact that there is so very little
literature on the relationship between engineering and ecology, a t least
as known to me; Sears’ (1947) comment stands virtually alone. Second,
engineers will have a singular effect on the roles of others classified here
as applied human ecologists: their designs and techniques will affect
especially the kind of performance achieved by the architect and the
planner. Engineers will play a critical role in the shaping of human
environments, particularly as they are major contributors to the design
of technology and to the design of structures.
A few comments may be offered (despite the scarcity of sources in
engineering) on the nature of technology, which is the focus and product