Academic context

Before unpacking the seminar itself, it is important to note that the course was developed and taught in parallel with my Doctor of Design dissertation project at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design. That project, titled Contesting Svalbard: Navigating Arctic Futures, was an in-depth inquiry into Svalbard’s design history and possible futures. Svalbard is an archipelago shaped by an irreducible plurality of interests and Arctic design traditions, yet formally under Norwegian sovereignty. My dissertation combined a granular analysis of the spatial implications of multinational occupation on the island group with a critique of the Norwegian nationalism embedded in the Svalbard project.

Central to this work is The Svalbard Treaty, which grants all 46 signatory states equal rights to conduct commercial and scientific research on the archipelago. This legal framework produces an intricate constellation of interests and stakeholders, while also providing a distinctive foundation for design experimentation, collaboration, and speculation in an Arctic context. At the same time, Norway has over the last few years increasingly tightened its control over Svalbard, gradually reshaping the notion of the island group as an Arctic common imagined and shaped collectively by many nations and people.

Between 2017 and 2024, I undertook six research trips to Svalbard—across both summer and winter seasons—while publishing chapters, articles, and edited volumes, and presenting my work at multiple venues and stages. These experiences allowed me to engage with diverse communities, making the project inherently collaborative and interdisciplinary. This network, together with my prior years of engagement in Arctic contexts, became essential in shaping the course and in enabling a wide range of guest contributions. Through the seminar, I sought to share with students the many ideas, perspectives, and debates around Arctic design that I have encountered and developed over the years.

Course Structure 

The Arctic Design seminar was organized in four parts. The first quarter of the course introduced students to the misguided assumptions and fantasies about inhabiting the Arctic’s vast and heterogeneous landscapes. This established a succinct introduction to the broader context surrounding the history and practice of Arctic settlement and infrastructural development. In parallel, it also introduced students to the projection of power and culture from south to north, revealing the complex and troubled history of dominant Western attitudes towards polar geographies and Arctic people groups. In response, Indigenous notions of North and the Arctic were addressed throughout this course.

Departing from texts published in the 1960s, by architects, and in the English language, the second quarter of the course introduced students to (i) who has dominated the literature on Arctic settlement and infrastructural development (i.e., European, North American, and Soviet/Russian authors), (ii) how they have framed their work, and (iii) how their distinct cultural, social, and geographical contexts led them to identify a very different Arctic settlement/city while, surprisingly, also sharing many of the same arguments. This discussion emphasized that Arctic settlement and infrastructural development have historically been shaped by national and international models of urbanism, which are not specific to the region and fail to adequately address its unique identity and challenges.

Therefore, based on more recent academic and creative work from key authors, the third quarter of this course introduced students to contemporary approaches in Arctic design—with a particular focus on landscape-driven responses. In this, both directly and indirectly, students gathered knowledge about the Arctic’s complex and diverse climates, ecologies, and land ownership policies, among other topics. Following work by authors/designers such as Nicole Luke, Susan Carruth, and Eimear Tynan this part of the course indicated that a repositioning of the Arctic design discipline is ongoing and allows for new creative input, such as that by students of this course.

As a result, throughout the course, and especially during the second half, we explored a few unique case studies that were expected to inspire students in their final project (e.g., design interventions in Greenlandic UNESCO sites and the decommissioning of the Norwegian mining town of Svea in Svalbard, among other examples). More specifically, by the end of the semester, each student was expected to develop and complete an extended visual essay on an agreed topic. All students were encouraged to produce a landscape-driven speculation about the challenges and/or future of Arctic design. This effort was preceded by three short papers—submitted at the end of each respective module. Finally, members of the course were expected to prepare for each week’s class by reading a selection of texts and actively contribute to group discussions throughout the term. 

Guest Contributors 

Guest lectures were integral to the course, offering students access to a broad spectrum of voices and design practices. Contributors included:

• Lisa Bloom, feminist art historian, discussed her book Climate Change and the New Polar Aesthetics (Duke University Press, 2022), including sections on feminist and Black perspectives in Arctic representation.

• Maureen Gruben and Kyra Kordoski introduced Gruben's work, including Stitching My Landscape (2017) and Nakataq (2025), with reflections on traditional Inuvialuit knowledge.

• Olga Petri examined how Soviet children’s literature reflected Arctic urban development through fabulous urbanism, where narratives of Indigenous life and Soviet ideals shaped architectural design and social control in the Far North.

• Jessica MacMillan, artist and amateur astronomer, presented her installation Time Line (2021) in Longyearbyen, and discussed the logistics of producing art in remote polar settings.

• Konstantin Ikonomidis, Swedish architect, shared insights on the award-winning Qaammat Pavilion in Greenland.

• Mari Bergset, founder and principal at Lo:Le Landskap, introduced her work and the concept of "snow-how" to explore the positive dimensions of snow in Arctic cities.

• Joar Nango, Sámi architect, challenged the overuse of the Lavvu typology and called for more inventive approaches to Indigenous design.

• Bertine Tønseth and Brona Keenan, from Komafest, discussed community-based placemaking in Northern Norway and the Kola Peninsula.

• Eimear Tynan presented her fieldwork along the Arctic coasts of Jan Mayen, Bjørnøya, and Hopen.

• Matthew Jull and Leena Cho shared their NSF-funded research on water infrastructure and public space in Utqiagvik, Alaska.

(Note: Many of the guest speakers contributed chapters to the volume, Arctic Practices: Design for a Changing World, Actar Publishers, 2025.)

Selected Student Work

• Jenny Suwiwatchai: Building on Marya Rozanova’s essay Indigenous Urbanization in Russia’s Arctic: The Case of Nenets Autonomous Region, Suwiwatchai analyzed the incorporation of traditional Nenets motifs into the post-Soviet architectural landscape of Naryan-Mar.

• Sakshi Vivek Thorat: Thorat unpacked through a detailed collection of maps how migratory patterns of the Bathurst caribou have shifted over time in response to rapid development across the Arctic landscape.

• Shivangi Chauhan: Chauhan explored the notion of femininity in Arctic design through four concepts (i.e., protection, sensitivity, cyclicality, resilience).

Acknowledgements and Concluding Notes

First, translating almost a decade of Arctic-focused research into a pedagogical format was both intellectually rewarding and professionally formative. Student engagement was high, the quality of work produced was exemplary, and course evaluations were consistently strong across both institutions. This is only possible with a good support network. I have to acknowledge the support of those who gave me the opportunity and trust to develop this course (i.e. Gary Hilderbrand and Mason White) and those who guided me in the process (i.e., Charles Waldheim, Rosalea Monacella, and Kira Clingen). Put differently, across both academic environments (i.e., Harvard and UofT), I've encountered individuals who are incredibly generous with their time and expertise, often going out of their way to support younger colleagues like myself. This informal mentorship and collegial uplift—frequently unacknowledged in formal institutional structures—is, in my view, an incredibly valuable aspect of academic life and ultimately benefits the students. Thank you.

If I were to teach the course again, I would build in more opportunities for students to engage in creative exploration throughout the semester. At present, the visual essay assignment at the end of the term is the primary outlet for creativity, which makes sense given the substantial body of material that needs to be introduced and carefully discussed beforehand. Still, weaving creative exercises into earlier stages of the course could enrich the learning process and give students more space to experiment as they absorb the content. Another change I would consider is co-teaching the seminar with a colleague who brings complementary expertise in Arctic design. Such a collaboration could expand the perspectives presented in the classroom, provide students with a richer learning experience, and more fully reflect the inherently interdisciplinary nature of the field.