Abstract
This study compares architectural and planning approaches to urban form and design within a North American context. It presents a critical assessment of the results of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with a group of highly experienced architects, landscape architects, and planners from the Greater Toronto Region. Dialogues with practitioners revealed a growing intellectual divide in regard to understanding urban form and design issues. Planners portrayed the urban form as a product of social and economic forces or a backdrop for civic institutions, private development initiatives, and public action. Architects and landscape architects, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of built configurations and spatial relations in shaping economic, social, and cultural patterns. With such a polarized perspective of urban development processes, each group of practitioners proposed different and somewhat contradictory visions for the future of North American built forms. This study develops an understanding of theoretical and pragmatic concerns within design professions (architecture/landscape architecture) and social science professions (planning at large) that hamper the development of integrative urban design visions. It extends an interdisciplinary understanding of built environments and the forces that shape them and paves the way for more in-depth studies aimed at creating more integrative urban design theories and development strategies.