Might check Clemson.

MIT - you can get an M.Arch or SMArchS and an MCP degree degree jointly (3 or 3.5 to 4 years, less if you qualify for M.Arch II or M.Arch I AP), or you can get an MCP degree with an Urban Design certificate if you don't want to do heard design.

Just be sure to define what you want to do with it. Do you want to be an architecturally literate planner? Or just a planning literate architect? Or an architect who specializes in urban design? These are different things and lead to different career paths... or in the case of the third option, possibly no career at all...

Oh yes, I forgot about MIT...

I want to be a planning literate architect who can also delve into urban design by virtue of her knowledge of urban systems. I want to know how cities really work, but ultimately I'd like to use that knowledge in the pursuit of better DESIGN at architectural and urban scales.

Does that make sense as a career move? It makes perfect sense to me from an academic interest perspective, but I'm less sure about how that translates into a job.

A general concern I have (about my field.. since I am an urban designer by trade) is that it can, if one is not careful, come to combine the worst of two things: lack of resolution in buildings with lack of analytical depth when it comes to understanding the urban context in which buildings sit.. leading to a pretty dubious career proposition. This may make sense in producing concept designs for urban and greenfield sites but there's no role for this function in other stages of design, from schematic on through to construction documentaton. In short, the urban design function - when poorly defined - just becomes a marketing piece to secure the real work that firms want to do (design buldings or provide detailed physical planning services, as required at latter stages of design). In this sense, the urban designer (who comes up with a big picture scheme or deploye at an urban scale) just hands off work to building architects, on one hand and one scale, and landscape architects and site development civil engineers on another scale.

I think one can aim to be an architect who understands planning and urban systems, but who ultimately wants to design buildings, or one can aim to be a planner who is literate in issues of both design and site development but who ultimately plans and programs urban systems and their more efficient/effective function. There really isn't a full, rigorous professional field that lies somewhere in between those two extremes.

As a practical matter (despite my title as an urban designer and my training and background as an architect) I really do the latter. I come up with and develop strategies for urban systems that enhance urban function, sustainability and livability, which can, in turn, lead either to better designs or better policy. I do this through programming, land-use, and planning analysis.

"it can, if one is not careful, come to combine the worst of two things: lack of resolution in buildings with lack of analytical depth when it comes to understanding the urban context in which buildings sit."

Those are very good points, Urbanist, and the reason I've been spending my energies finding urban planning programs as opposed to urban design programs is that I am afraid of exactly this. My previous experience in architectural education involved almost no real, substantive research into urban systems and no attempt to connect architectural design with economic or social factors, apart from cursory site investigations. It might be that I was an undergraduate or a quirk of the school I went to, but I have a feeling that its probably similar in any design-focused degree.

Hence my reluctance to pursue an urban design degree, or landscape architecture degree...

Wash U has a dual masters in Arch/Urban Design and Arch/MBA

Go and do a professional degree in Architecture and Landscape Architecture and get both ends covered ( and no you don't my small office including myself and have never been "slow" or out of work since I graduated in 1986. both profitable, good variety of work and understand both the contextual scale and detail.... clients appreciate it too.

Two additional programs to consider --

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of
http://www.arch.illinois.edu/programs/degree/march/dualdegree/march_MUP/

Maryland, University of
http://www.arch.umd.edu/architecture/academics/degree_programs/graduate/m_arch_mcp.cfm

I once worked for a Brit that was a practising architect and had matching degree in town planning. But he was also a economist so go figure. But yes it is extremely marketable - but you'd soon find, as he did, that you'd be too qualified and no one could reasonably afford you.

UW-Milwaukee has a dual M.Arch/M.UP degree, if you can handle the cold.

thank you for the additional suggestions! i'm glad to hear it's marketable, at least...

1) architects are great at policy, economics, etc. Think of Jamie Lerner.
2) "My previous experience in architectural education involved almost no real, substantive research into urban systems and no attempt to connect architectural design with economic or social factors, apart from cursory site investigations."
- maybe it was your school. Maybe it was you. it sounds like you have a 4 year degree in architecture, so substantive and in-depth research is a rarity. If you want to really know how a city works, go work for the City of X. have you tried that yet?

You want to learn how to really design a skyscraper? Well, you won't learn how to detail a curtain wall in school. And you won't get all the pushing and pulling from an assortment of consultants who essentially tell you what you can and cannot do. Same goes with planning, but even more complex. I don't think you will get all that in school. I would try an internship with a city agency first.

3) dual degree is unlikely in 2-3 years. in fact, March I is unlikely in that time! i would estimate 4-4.5 for the 2 degrees, wherever.

4) why stop at planning and arch? why not add landscape? or substitute one for another? 'natural' systems are complex too; and integral to the life of cities, but does one need to study them in-depth to be able to design with them?

5) you could get an MBA to better understand money. Without money, there's no architecture or planning!

I guess what i'm saying is, you have a complex ambition. i would sit on it for a while. For me, i don't think specific academic training in both fields is your answer. It sounds like you want all this knowledge in one go b/c it will make finding a job easier, but it's a lifetime of knowledge you are talking about.

I would get a degree in critical thinking (architecture), and gradually gain knowledge.

my 2 cents. best,

Renmonk, I recently had the same questions... I'm interested in a position where I could have the freedom to work and think at all scales, if such a position exists.

Anybody know more about the possibility of really working across fields/ interdisciplinary groups, and what the dynamics have to be for this to be successful?

I've decided to do the MArch / MUD dual degree at Washington University in St Louis (also a good city to think about and experiment with techniques for revitalization). It will take 2.5 years / 81 credits for me to complete (with advanced standing in the architecture program).

Hah, if I hadn't already gone to wash u for undergrad I would be seriously considering that program...you should absolutely take a studio with Derek Hoeferlin while you're there (he's actually profiled on archinect right now)

not that i have anything against the school, just don't want to get my entire education at one institution.

@arthur, you may be right concerning real life experience vs. academic experience...but my interest in planning came about solely because of "real life" experience (working with inner-city youth in a failing school). i've worked in architecture and gone to school for architecture and I just don't see architects addressing at a fundamental level the issues that I ran into with these kids - public housing, access to quality education, access to quality food, economic development, gentrification. I love design, but my conscience won't let me gloss over these things. I think an architectural way of thinking and synthesizing information, coupled with the knowledge of urban systems gained from a MUP program, would be very valuable.

Your point is well taken, though. There is a fine line between wanting to keep your options open and not being able to make a decision...

sorry... to clarify, at MIT I think you can probably complete a full M.Arch + MCP in 3.5+1 year or 4.5 years or, more likely 3.5+1.5 or 5 years, by using all of your M.Arch elective requirement to take required planning courses. Hopefully you can get AP or M.Arch II, and therefore shave 1 to 1.5 years off that total (meaning that you might be able to do both degrees in 3.5 to 4 years). In any event, you will have a miserable time in school if you try to do this.

Renmonk,

I have a few points for your consideration:

1. I agree with some of the comments here that the dual-track is most likely not going to be 2+ years but more like 4 years. It is very likely that such a track has to be designed by the student himself with lots of support from the faculty involved. You may realize that by designing some of the course-work yourself, there will be schedule clashes (i.e., the course in architecture that gets you the M.Arch clashes with the course in Planning that gets you the MCP or MUP; or one of each is not offered during the concurrent semester). So inevitably, there is going to be some 'waiting' time that will prolong your studies.

2. It is also important to distinguish between urban design and urban planning. I think you have alluded to the fact that in most urban and regional planning programs, students are initiated into the issues of public administration, politics, policies, (urban & environmental) economics, political and planning theory, etc.,--coursework that is very much differentiated from what you will receive in urban design. In other words, people known as planners are usually not urban designers so to speak; rather it is the architect working at the scale of (physical) planning that is considered an urban designer. While there are usually variations in these sorts of things, the field of planning is nonetheless generally distinguishable from the 'field' of urban design.

3. People may think that such 'fields' are irrelevant in the practical arena. But let me assure you that if you are trying to fuse two distinct tracks in a productive or professionally useful way, the acknowledgment and recognition of your field for your work is paramount for your success.

4. Lots of comments here entail present programs and job opportunities. I think there is room to consider the category of "critical jobs or dual-tracks that do not exist yet". What you are proposing is a very powerful combination. True, it may combine the worst of two weak disciplines (architecture and planning); but it can also offer you a perspective and framework that is critical for envisioning the future, which is is lacking anyway in today's bankrupt--and delusional-reproduction of economical and political structures. Architects on one hand cannot, and do not work away from the reproduction and control of capital; while planners on the other hand are mostly still working with fantasy plans, or at any rate, plans infused with so much vagueness for political approval such that they amount to nothing in concrete when the time comes. There are of course exceptions; but as the word goes, they are truly exceptions. Your dual-perspective permits you to surmount the oversights of both nicely.

5. You already have a B.Arch. There is really no real need, short of getting additional experience, credibility or prestige, to earn an M.Arch. Rather, it is possible to refine your knowledge in architecture on your own, and building on that, go for a MUP or MCP, or better, a doctorate in one of the planning specialties that interest you (e.g., urban economics). If you look around, planning schools are still giving out financial support for specialized work. You just have to look around. But why a doctorate? This is because other than public departments, the other area planners work in are in think tanks affiliated with universities or governments. A B.Arch will get you the recognition that you understand the built environment, and a further PhD will get you the acknowledgment from your field, whatever that is. It will also afford you a supportive environment where you can create your own IP and research and activists' work to lead the field, or at the very least, to concretize the visions you have in this area.

So my recommendation in a nutshell: forget about the dual track. If you are going to spend 4-4.5 years to get a M.Arch and a MUP, why not get a PhD and along the way, get a B.S. or B.A. in urban studies.

thank you for the thorough response.

I don't have a B.Arch, I have a BA - which would make the MArch necessary. I know you're absolutely right about the time and hassle it would take to do this. I am applying to some architecture programs alone, but mostly in school that also have a planning department in order to benefit the most from any interdisciplinary research or collaboration.

Architecture and architects seem to be so...closed minded sometimes when it comes to the greater ramifications of their profession. Reading the forums on cyburbia is sometimes hilarious because of the things planners say about architects, making it obvious who has a design (or more precisely, "architecture-school") background and who doesn't. (e.g., "buildings nowadays don't have frills anymore, let's bring that back"). But is that the planners are not understanding, or that the architects are so self-absorbed that they don't recognize very valid questions about their supposedly unalterable assumptions? While I understand as much as the next person the validity of architecture as a way of thinking and seeing and a profession with a self-contained intellectual history and body of knowledge, shouldn't it be comprehensible to outsiders, at least when real people and built projects are in question? I am fascinated by the intellectual history, psychology, phenomenology and theory of architecture, but I get frustrated with people who seem to try to make it incomprehensible to outsiders (including planners), leading to people not valuing architecture as something that has anything to do with the "real world".

I guess I just happen to believe that the real strength and value of the profession of architecture lies in its breadth, its degree of connection with other disciplines as a way of enhancing its own intellectual foundations.

If that's your conviction on the values and strengths of architecture, then I think you are on a good track.

Let me say that in certain programs, it is possible to pair a M.Arch subsequently leading to a PhD. While that is possible, it is still not recommended because at least by convention, each of these degrees serves a different purpose. That said, the M.Arch is valuable in your case if you are planning on getting a license someday, or at least, to have the ability to go through the licensing procedures.

The same 'close-mindedness' can be said of a great many disciplines out there. It is one way of affirming oneself and at the same time, fending off folks perceived as 'outsiders'. The planner-architect polemic can become extremely discordant in a few schools where there are collaborative studios when both the planners and architects work together.

It is very easy to blame the architects for their perceived irrelevance to a whole slew of other disciplines involved in the built environment. But if one checks in with the older writings of architects--anywhere from Viollet-le-Duc, to Gropius to Kahn to Fuller--one quickly discovers that the obtuseness in theoretical writings from the late last century was an unprecedented and unfortunate turn of events. Luckily (or not so depending on your own perception...), architecture has been experiencing a dearth of theoretical writings because of the unprecedented building boom of 04-07.

"Real people" have long been removed from architecture for a long time; one can even argue if architecture as it is conceived today is actually meant for 'real people'. This is unfortunate but I think there is a change in the air now for architecture to embrace the everyday concerns and struggles in a concrete way. I am now reading the book, "Above the Pavement-the Farm!" documenting the PF1 project. While one can say many unfriendly and critical things on this project, it is nonetheless a marked departure from the theorizing of yesterday (think unfortunate transpositions of Deleuze and Foucault) promising something which is concrete and imbued with the potential for solving pressing problems through the art of building.

"I'd like to have more job flexibility/options/earning power"

Here is the secret to having more earning power... it is not having an extra degree, it is bring in business for your boss... It's no coincidence that salespeople, while often having loathsome jobs, are the ones taking home the money.

Not necessarily to be all doom-and-gloom... but planning is going to be on the backburner for a looooooooooooong time.

Over the course of the last two decades, we've really built nothing but shit. There's a handful of gems and some gold flakes in it. But, in its entirety... it is still shit.

And based on how planning functions, it'll be at least two more decades until at least the U.S. is ready to give 'nation building' another chance. That is, of course, if we have the resources or the money or another national tragedy with that time comes.

This is really the essential problem with planning-- past, present and future. It is serious business.

Unlike architecture, planning isn't a bad facade, a leaky building or a room that's too hot or too cold. Planning is real life, now and almost forever.

When you build an ugly building, you can always repaint it, repurpose it and reskin it. When you build a bad building, you can always change out the roof and windows. Since a building tends to be a singular object, you can always demolish it.

But, with planning, it more or less is forever. It's not easy nor really applicable to tear apart whole cities. You can't paint it. You can't through a rainscreen on it. You can't really do much.

And the way that city works, for better or worse, will affect the people in it for the rest of their lives.

So, what happens when you plan shit cities? You end up with shitty people. And, unlike a poor carpet choice, you can't throw shitty people away.

I completed my Bachelor of Applied Science (Architecture Science) RIBA Part 1 at Curtin University of Technology a year ago and am considering doing a dual/joint architecture masters program in Europe but outside UK (its okay if a partner/second University is not European). Can anyone please advise? English language. Thank you

I completed my Bachelor of Applied Science (Architecture Science) RIBA Part 1 at Curtin University of Technology a year ago and am considering doing a dual/joint architecture masters program in Europe but outside UK (its okay if a partner/second University is not European). Can anyone please advise? English language. Thank you

Since this thread has been revived.. @renmonk--I'm just curious what school / program you ended up choosing. Did you decide on a joint MArch / Urban Planning program? Good luck!

@renmonk I've been looking at dual courses recently as well. I have a degree in architecture and worked at architecture firms. However, I've always been interested in Urban Planning and worked with a couple of individual urban planners on small projects. That experience really helped me to realise my passion. Like you mentioned earlier, I don't think my conscience would let me over look the greater issues the world faces. 

I'm also very interested in what @arthurliu82 mentioned about landscape architecture. "'natural' systems are complex too; and integral to the life of cities". I've been working at a landscape architecture firm for this very same reason. We do a lot of work in environmental planning and regional planning (along with other commercial landscape projects to be able to feed the firm). However, essentially being an architect, I find my knowledge and understanding of the subject to be very limited. This is why I believe that its important to pursue a Master's degree. 

Hence, I've looking at dual degree programs in Planning and Landscape architecture. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions about schools offering these programs in the US. 

So  far, these are the schools I've been looking at:

• UC, Berkeley
• MIT
• University of North Carolina (Their dual degree, however, is inter-institutional - DCRP at Chapel Hill and MLA at NCSU)
• University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Their landscape department, however, has a policy of not funding students if their primary choice is something other than Landscape) 

I'd also like to look at schools in Canada as an option but haven't really read much about their programs. I'd love to hear back. Thank you! 

The University at Buffalo has a dual Master's of Architecture and Master of Urban Planning degree on a 3 year track if you have an accredited undergraduate degree in architecture I believe.