"This paper describes the course the author designed and teaches, and partic-ularly, some radical changes in the author's attitude towards the course overthe three years In which it has been offered. Its purpose is to stimulate dis-cussion on the "why" of teaching cultural/spatial issues, in the belief thatthe "how" and "what" will follow.The first part of the paper will describe the content areas of the course: re-gionalism; some theoretical aspects of culture and environment; home through history; home across cultures; issues of class, subclass, and genderin the home; beyond the home: bars, streets and neighborhoods; homes inchange; and several sessions on designing for cultural change. The threegeneral themes that structure and organize the course will be discussed. Thefirst princuple is the progression of the course from the relatively famil-iar, the issue of visual fit and formal context, through the much less famil-iar terrain of cultural issues and factors, on to or back to, the role of thedesigner and the social secientist in coping with cultural diversity andchange. The second principle is that the generalized concept of "culture andchange" can subsume most relevant issues, such as the cultural imbedding ofarchitecture; cultural diversity; the problem of subcultures, including therelation between the four subcultures of designers, clients, users, and so-cial scientists; and the role of history and continuity the both cultural evo-lution and cultural revoulution. The third principle, the most thorny anddifficult theme, is that of the relationship between visal and formal con-cerns on the one hand, and issues of cultural and behavioral supportivenesson the other.The second part of the paper will present the author's thoughts on the valueof the course: the "why" of its existence. This is an account of myprogress.or maybe my aimless wandering, from the initial, simple goal ofmaking students aware of the cultural blinders we all wear on to severalother values. Among these are the celebration of architecture and the humanlandscape as the most comlex artifacts of humanity and the intricate rela-tionship between culture and these products; the realization, that both vis-ual/formal and social/cultural issues are important and it is their con-gruence that builds the highest forms of architecture and landscape; anunderstanding of relations between designer and social scientists; the not-to-be-mocked goal of the sensitive tourist and the problematic relationshipbetween the insider's world and outsiders world and the realization thatmost high-style designers defend and justify their work through culturaltheories of unbelievable banality. The last issue is waht now seems to me thegreatest value of the course: its role as a crucible for the students' examina-tion of their own personal and presonal and professional values. The third part, which seems much more simplistic than it turns out to be, isa discussion of the place and role of the course in the curriculum, its rela-tion across or between across or between departments, its relation to thedesign curriculum or the design studio per se and finally, the issue of thetransmission of information versus the stimulation of the students' own ide-as and reflections."