Architecture, as a creative domain, allows its teaching and practice as well to highlight different features, equally important. One may focus upon creating better conditions for living, others upon the role of perception and of letting people experiment and experience space, others upon an architecture that allows its user to grow as a person and make sense of the world. In this context teaching architecture assumes helping the students acquire the needed skills and abilities for the profession, as well as helping them find their own path by exposing them to different challenges and allowing them to experiment and envision various ways of reaching outcomes. Given the status of proposal assumed by most of the design studio assignments, successfully implementing such features in designs depends in a first phase upon theme and context, upon the way they sustain each other, respond to one another, and then upon correctly identifying problems, challenges and needs at various scales, upon envisioning outcomes. The article shall focus upon the role and ways of addressing the potential social impact of architectural design studio proposals by following contemporary key concepts in a way that highlights, as skills acquired by the students, the capacity of understanding, of finding solutions and deciding, of following coherence, of designing an architecture that could change for the best the lives and experiences of its users. The method proposed starts with interdisciplinary bibliographic research besides the common architectural research of the assignment, of the program, of the context in order to identify the particular ways architecture could benefit its users. Research should further inform decision making regarding the key concepts to be followed (as, for example, social equity, accommodation of future growth, facilitation of discussions, exchanges and collaboration, wayfinding) and the coherent architectural responses. The article proposes a method to be applied in the design studio, already tested – as a first phase in a project – in workshops held by the author, focusing on certain contemporary key concepts, which highlight the very important role played by architecture in an anthropological perspective. The method proved its usefulness as the results showed the raised awareness of the students towards the potential impact of their design and openness towards understanding and further exploring it.

1.
Madanipour
A.
 Public and Private Spaces of the City.
London ; New York
:
Routledge
,
2003
.
2.
Hillier
B
,
Hanson
J.
 The Social Logic of Space. Reprint edition.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2005
.
3.
Tonkiss
F.
Cities by Design: The Social Life of Urban Form
. 1 edition.
Polity
,
2013
.
4.
Jaffe
R
,
de Koning
A.
 Introducing Urban Anthropology.
London and New York
:
Routledge
,
2016
.
5.
Askland
HH
,
Awad
R
,
Chambers
J
, et al. 
Anthropological Quests in Architecture: Pursuing the Human Subject. Archnet-IJAR
2014
;
8
:
284
295
.
6.
Hill
J.
 Actions of architecture: architects and creative users. London;
New York
:
Routledge
,
2003
.
7.
Sfintes
A-I
, Sfintes R. Rethinking Architectural Spaces for Solar Energy Better Use. In:
Visa
I
,
Duta
A
(eds)
Solar Energy Conversion in Communities
.
Springer Nature Switzerland AG
, (
2021
).
8.
Balula
L
,
Seixas
J.
 Contemporary City and Plural Knowledge: Reframing Urban Planning. In:
Mendes
MM
,
T
,
Cabral
J
(eds)
Architecture and the Social Sciences - Inter- and Multidisciplinary Approaches between Society and Space. Cham
,
Switzerland
:
Springer
,
2017
, pp.
69
84
.
9.
Gutiérrez FR.
City
, Urbanism, Social Sustainability and the Right to the City. In:
Henckel
D
,
Thomaier
S
,
Könecke
B
, et al.
(eds)
Space–Time Design of the Public City
.
Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
:
Springer
,
2013
, pp.
217
225
.
10.
Altman
I
, Low SM. Place Attachment: a conceptual inquiry. In: Altman I, Low SM (eds)
Place Attachment. New York and London
:
Plenum press
,
1992
, pp.
1
12
.
11.
Berger
M
,
Moritz
B
,
Carlier
L
, et al. (eds).
Designing Urban Inclusion. Oostkamp: L.Capitan
,
2018
.
12.
Steane
MA
,
Steemers
K.
 Environmental diversity in architecture. In:
Steane
MA
,
Steemers
K
(eds)
Environmental Diversity in Architecture
.
London ; New York
:
Spon Press
,
2004
, pp.
3
16
.
13.
Stickells L. Flow
Urbanism
. The heterotopia of flows. In:
Dehaene
M
,
Cauter L
de
(eds)
Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society
.
Taylor & Francis e-Library
,
2008
, pp.
247
257
.
14.
Mendes
MM
,
T
,
Cabral
J
(eds). Architecture and the Social Sciences - Inter- and Multidisciplinary Approaches between Society and Space. Cham,
Switzerland
:
Springer
, https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319534763 (
2017
, accessed 23 September 2018).
15.
Colleoni M.
Mobility
, Accessibility and Social Equity: A Comparative and Interdisciplinary Empirical Study in the Metropolitan Areas of Milan, Bologna and Turin. In:
Henckel
D
,
Thomaier
S
,
Könecke
B
, et al.
(eds)
Space–Time Design of the Public City
.
Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
:
Springer
,
2013
, pp.
137
156
.
16.
Miciukiewicz
K
,
Vigar
G.
 Encounters in Motion: Considerations of Time and Social Justice in Urban Mobility Research. In:
Henckel
D
,
Thomaier
S
,
Könecke
B
, et al.
(eds)
Space–Time Design of the Public City
.
Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
:
Springer
,
2013
, pp.
171
185
.
17.
Mareggi
M.
Urban Rhythms in the Contemporary City
. In:
Henckel
D
,
Thomaier
S
,
Könecke
B
, et al.
(eds) Space–Time Design of the Public City.
Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
:
Springer
,
2013
, pp.
3
20
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.