Objective In the face of the dual challenges posed by the global ecological crisis and the socio-spatial restructuring generated by the post-Fordist economic transition, contemporary campus design is undergoing a profound paradigm shift. This paper argues that the conventional approach, which treats landscape as a decorative afterthought to architecture-centric master planning, is no longer tenable. The primary objective of this research is to systematically reframe the contemporary campus as an “infrastructural landscape”, utilizing the theoretical lens of landscape urbanism. This study contends that such a reconceptualization is not merely a stylistic alternative but a necessary structural response to the complex demands of modern educational pedagogy and the imperative for greater urban resilience. The aim is to establish a robust theoretical framework that repositions the campus as a dynamic, high-performance system capable of actively mediating ecological processes, catalyzing social interaction, and integrating deeply with the larger urban fabric, thereby providing a systematic design philosophy to address the key challenges facing not only campus design but urbanism at large.

Methods This paper employs a qualitative research methodology that combines theoretical synthesis with critical case study analysis. The core analytical framework is derived from the foundational theories of landscape urbanism, particularly the work of Charles Waldheim and James Corner. Key theoretical tenets—such as “landscape as infrastructure”, “process over form”, and “openness and indeterminacy”—are critically examined and adapted to the specific context of the campus. The research unfolds through a dual-perspective analysis. First, an inward-looking perspective, termed “the landscape in the campus”, investigates how landscape functions as a social and ecological infrastructure to support internal campus activities. This part reconstructs the campus landscape’s performance across four key domains: Facilitating learning, fostering social interaction, promoting health and wellbeing, and enhancing cultural and aesthetic values. It draws upon contemporary design precedents and pedagogical theories to illustrate these mechanisms. Second, an outward-looking perspective, “the campus as landscape”, elevates the analysis to the urban scale. This part examines the campus as an integrated entity and its role within the broader urban context, focusing on its function as a social infrastructure for community engagement and as a key component of urban green infrastructure (e.g., as a “sponge campus” unit and a biodiversity corridor). Finally, the study culminates in an in-depth analysis of an emergent design typology: The “campus megaform as urban landscape”, primarily drawing from recent, innovative school projects in high-density Chinese cities like Shenzhen. This analysis synthesizes the theoretical discussions of both landscape urbanism and Kenneth Frampton’s theory of the megaform.

Results The research reveals that when viewed through the lens of landscape urbanism, the campus is transformed from a static collection of objects into a dynamic, process-oriented field. The inward-looking analysis demonstrates that by prioritizing process, the performance of the campus landscape is significantly activated. It becomes a versatile infrastructure that systematically supports the pedagogical mission of “spatial education” by creating flexible, indeterminate spaces that catalyze informal learning and social encounters, moving beyond monofunctional typologies. The outward-looking analysis confirms that the campus, as an infrastructural landscape, can play a critical role in shaping a more resilient and vibrant urban environment. By dissolving rigid boundaries, it functions as a social and cultural nucleus for the surrounding community. As an ecological infrastructure, it contributes quantifiable benefits to the city’s metabolic systems, such as stormwater management and mitigation of the urban heat island effect. The investigation into the campus megaform yields the most significant result: This typology represents the ultimate synthesis of the paper’s two analytical perspectives. Practices in Shenzhen demonstrate a radical, vertical interpretation of landscape urbanism, where programs, circulation, and green spaces are woven into a three-dimensional, high-density architectural-landscape hybrid. This “vertical landscape” acts as both a highly efficient internal social and ecological infrastructure and a powerful new form of urban landmark. It thus materialized the theoretical convergence of Waldheim’s process-based infrastructuralism and Frampton’s form-based critique of the megalopolis, offering a potent new model for campus design in land-scarce urban contexts.

Conclusion This paper concludes that the “infrastructural campus” is not merely a design strategy but a comprehensive new paradigm for understanding and shaping educational environments in the 21st century. It requires a fundamental cognitive shift from seeing the campus as a collection of buildings to perceiving it as a living, open, and performative system deeply intertwined with urban and ecological networks. This paradigm provides a systemic methodology for campus design and, more importantly, elevates the campus—this unique “micro-city”—to the status of a prototype for future urbanism. By testing strategies of ecological resilience, social integration, and infrastructural performance at a manageable scale, the infrastructural campus offers invaluable lessons and tangible precedents for how we might construct more resilient, dynamic, and humanistic urban environments on a broader scale. The study provides a critical analytical framework for the application of landscape urbanism theory in campus design and offers fundamental insights that are crucial for the future development of both educational institutions and the cities they inhabit.