Scott Page

Scott Page is the founder of Interface Studio, a collaborative design office based in Philadelphia.

Member for
18 years 4 months

Contributed 46 posts

Full Bio

Scott Page is an urban designer and planner with degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and Georgia Tech. His experience in neighborhood design, city-wide housing strategies, waterfront planning, downtown revitalization and economic development has resulted in innovative and achievable strategies for a diversity of public, non-profit and private clients. Scott's design process merges creative grass-roots planning with a focus on sustainable development and design. His project work has been featured in 306090, CITY, The Journal of Urban Technology, Salon, The Philadelphia Inquirer and, most recently, in Crossover: Architecture Urbanism Technology, by 010 publishers, Rotterdam.

Scott founded Interface Studio in 2004 to explore the relationship between urban design and information technology. Today, the firm is engaged in a wide range of assignments including work in Philadelphia, Chicago, Rochester and Camden. Scott is also a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Design.

DIY Urbanism

I think many planners, in principle, agree that public involvement and grass-roots approaches to planning are necessary. The emphasis on the sheer numbers of people a plan "includes" is only one recent example of our profession’s emphasis on public involvement. But I think deep down, many colleagues see a distinctive split between involving the public and empowering them to implement. Involving is necessary and important to get any plan endorsed. But once that plan is complete, the public (residents, business owners, local stakeholders) is many times not regarded as an implementation partner except perhaps in roles of advocacy.

Undressing the naked city

Often times I’m struck by the advances we’ve made in mapping, modeling and depicting our cities. What was once the purview of mapmakers, surveyors or architects is now a democratized, engaging process that brings unexpected results. And the more advanced the technology, the more transparent our cities seem to become.

Beaten by an ugly stick?

Journalists and bloggers love to argue over city rankings which tend to multiply faster than the tribbles on star trek. Which city is the friendliest? What cities have the nicest parks? What cities are the best places to live for mildly overweight divorcees between the ages of 32 and 34? The data is scrutinized and then how it was interpreted lambasted as ridiculous. And of course rankings are ridiculous. Cities are too complex to boil down to a few numbers.

An unheralded conference

I had the opportunity to spend a day at the <a href="http://www.vacantproperties.org/index.html">Vacant Properties</a> conference late last month which, if you’re not familiar with the “movement,” you should be. Granted it’s not for everyone. At the opening plenary session, the moderator asked “who is here from a weak market city?” A room full of hands went up with a collective giggle. It felt like an AA meeting for cities. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward addressing it.

Our collective identity crisis

Since making the switch from architecture to planning / urban design, I’ve been fascinated by the continuing dialogue that surrounds what we do to explain… what we do. There is less emphasis on this dialogue in architecture of course as the tacit assumption is that architects build. (I would say not all great architects need to build but this is a debate for a different setting.) What did often emerge in architecture was the common concern that “design” is not valued to the degree that it should. And why not? Architects spend anywhere from 5-6 years in school the majority of which is spent in studio learning how to design. Who wants to then enter the profession feeling like their education mis-led them?