Making Community Design Work

A Guide For Planners

Umut Toker

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351177412
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architektur
• Subtopic: Stadtplanung & Landschaftsgestaltung

Since the earliest settlements, people have deliberated the issues that affect their future together. Making Community Design Work shows how planners can guide the process toward effective decision making and beneficial community design.

This well-crafted book distills decades of community design experience into a sound conceptual framework of value to practicing planners as well as planning students. Umut Toker covers a broad range of planning scales and introduces field-tested tools for participatory decision making at regional, city, community, and site-specific levels.

To succeed, any planning project must address both the physical space and its users. From setting goals to evaluating results, Making Community Design Work helps planners navigate the process of creating environments that meet the needs of the people they serve.

Part 1
History and Social Motivation

Part 1 of this book introduces the historical background of and social motivation for current trends in community design. Chapter 1 explores the concept of participatory decision making and reviews the legal background that has prompted the turn to participatory decision making in planning and design. Chapter 2 introduces the objectives, stages, and outcomes of community design. Chapter 3 looks back to the origins of community design in the grassroots human-rights movements of the mid-20th century and forward to the role of social forces in fine-tuning participatory design practices and the role of the community designer.

1
Working with People for Their Future

It is pragmatically and psychologically beneficial for people to shape their environments to benefit their individual and community lives. In the case of a house, pragmatic concerns such as privacy or room proximity could define the benefit. In the case of a neighborhood, the location of commercial services in relation to major circulation axes could benefit all residents and business owners. In antiquity, people found efficacy in locating a temple dedicated to the veneration of a deity in a spot considered sacred.

The individual and community benefits to be derived from shaping the built environment, especially the urban environment, have usually accrued to those in power, however. In ancient Greek cities the agora, the city square where male landowners (but not slaves or females) gathered, would be situated prominently for exchange of political information and commercial goods. In cities of the Roman Empire, the building and location of stadiums, public baths, and other civic structures were understood to be part of the incumbent emperor’s display of power. The medieval cities of Europe were not very different. While the ruling class and important personalities were centrally located in cities, sometimes residing in fortified structures for protection, field laborers usually had to work outside the walls of the city to grow food crops. From antiquity to the present day, moreover, uprisings by people against power have always included attacking the physical structures that symbolized and upheld the social system people were fighting against.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the social and political implications of shaping neighborhoods and cities were more complex. In 19th-century Paris, the shaping of streets and plazas was influenced by efforts to minimize uprisings against the emperor while generating visual axes that reified grandiose governmental power. Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of the shaping of urban environments is Berlin, where for decades, families and neighbors were separated by a wall and lived under two different political regimes. In one of the most celebrated episodes of people expressing their wishes concerning the built environment in which they live, the Berlin Wall was demolished by the people and against the will of those who wanted to preserve it as a physical manifestation of their power.

Starting in the 1960s, the principle of people having a voice in the shaping of their built environment has been observed in many societies and through many design movements. But even as professionals and politicians have applauded the concept of participatory planning and design, a tension has remained between the concept of participatory decision making and the fact of power, whether that power is the hard power wielded by politicians or the soft power of planning and design professionals. In both cases there are individuals on one side who are deemed to have authority to make decisions about the built environment and, on the other side, individuals who must live in those built environments and who are the ones most affected by the decisions.

Evidently, the concept, process, and outcomes of participatory decision making concerning the built environment are complex. In this day and age, participatory planning and design sounds great: we live in a democratic society, and all should have a say in how our environment is shaped. In terms of process, however, everyone having a say has implications for those responsible for translating ideas into decisions about the built environment. It also has implications for those who express opinions about how their environments are shaped: participatory planning and design means exchanging information, ideas, opinions, and positions with those people who live near you. This may turn into lengthy discussions, even confrontations. So, participatory decision making for the built environment is not simple. As an introduction to community design, we can start by examining attitudes toward citizen participation over the past few decades.

1.1. The Concept of Participatory Decision Making

The idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach: no one is against it in principle because it is good for you. (Arnstein 1969, 216)

The concept of participatory decision making, that people should deliberate together over issues that affect their future and make decisions accordingly, is age-old. As Sherry Arnstein put it, participatory decision making by its very nature is good since it gives people who will be affected by certain decisions a say in those decisions (Arnstein 1969). It helps groups and individuals understand one another’s point of view, and it facilitates decision making for the common good.

In a group of individuals trying to reach agreement, participatory decision making takes the power of making decisions away from any one individual and distributes it to everyone. In professional terms, participa-tory decision making means that the professional or the source of political power is not the sole decision maker but rather someone who works with people to help them reach decisions. In planning and design terms, participatory decision making means that the planner or designer works with people, helps them reach decisions about planning and design issues, and translates these decisions into planning and design language throughout the decision making process.

But if participation is “inherently good” (Sanoff 2000), why did Arnstein liken it to eating spinach, suggesting that it is good for you but perhaps slightly unsavory? We can approach this question from the point of view of various role players in the decision scenario.

Let us start with those who have the right to make decisions about the built environment, such as city officials, or those who are eligible to make decisions, such as professional planners and designers. If they want to hold on to that right or eligibility, participatory decision making may indeed be like eating spinach. Furthermore, participatory decision making may be perceived by such individuals as a process that needs more time and budget— yet another reason to think of spinach. On the other hand, members of the community will live in the planned and designed spaces. For them, the idea of participatory decision making may generate the impression that they will need to participate in more discussions and perhaps have to oppose the wishes of their fellow community members. Finally, might this process in fact go nowhere? After all the talk, might decision makers simply go ahead with what they had in mind in the first place?

Over the years, participatory planning and design has had its share of opposition. Some planning and design professionals have perceived the participatory approach as undermining the value of expertise and turning decision-making power over to uncredentialed individuals. Others have insisted that participatory planning and design consumes too much time and resources, and that professionals can reach the same decisions faster and more efficiently.

On the other hand, the advantages of community design are widely acknowledged, too. Community design puts everybody’s issues on the table, builds mutual understanding, and enables decision making for the common good rather than for the sole benefit of particular individuals or parties. In this sense, participatory planning and design is inherently democratic. How, then, can communities, planners, designers, and civil servants overcome the concerns raised above? Here is where the various participatory decision-making methods and instruments developed by community planners over the decades come into play. They have demonstrated worth in overcoming such potential problems and in giving everyone who stands to be affected by planning and design decisions a voice in the decision process.

Over the past five decades, participatory decision making has thrived, and more and more people have had a chance to voice their opinions about the environments that surround them. Since the 1960s both professional providers and users of planned and designed environments have learned from project experiences and have contributed know-how to participatory planning and design. They have learned from each other and from going through the process the advantages of participatory decision making. Community design formats, methods, and instruments have been developed to achieve the following:

1. To let professionals become facilitators in the decision-making process and maximize the use of their technical expertise by hearing about issues.
2. To efficiently design, manage, and analyze community design events.
3. To move toward consensus building and away from compromise.
4. To help reach planning and design decisions collaboratively, with the least time and budget expenditure possible.
5. To guide parties that will contribute to and manage implementation so that the decisions made are implemented as desired by the community.

This book is about the experience of participatory decision making in planning and design. The primary objective is to summarize the community design experience of the recent half century and build on it by systematically introducing community design activity formats, methods, and instruments. Because experience has shown that participatory decision making can be used at a variety of project scales, a second objective is to investigate the use of participatory decision-making tools and processes in regional plan development, urban planning, urban design, and site-specific design and development. Case materials for each kind of site are introduced to show participatory planning in action.

There are, of course, certain principles that underlie community design. They are enumerated here and referenced again in discussions of examples from the field:

1. As receivers of planning and design services, the users of planned and designed environments should have the right to specify the desired aspects of the product they will receive.
2. The planner or designer working on a built environment–related project has a responsibility to provide planning and design services that will ensure that the product meets the users’ needs and wishes.
3. By planning and designing together, users, planners, and designers simultaneously learn from one another. This process contributes to an overall increase in the quality of environments created for people.
4. The evaluation of environments created for people should be based on the users’ experiences.

Through evaluations of the existing built environment and research, planning and design professionals can contribute to the body of professional planning and design knowledge and increase the quality of their work, as well as the overall quality of the services provided by their profession. The more planners and designers know about the qualities of the physical environment that will satisfy people, the better their products will be.

1.2. The Legal Background of Participatory Decision Making in Planning and Design

Participatory decision making takes place in a legal and regulatory framework. Many states require that decisions that affect people be made with their knowledge and input. Professionals who believe in maximizing the quality of their services choose participatory decision making for that reason, and not to meet legal requirements only. However, it is important that we look into the sources and current examples of legal requirements for participatory decision making.

Participatory decision making is embedded in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings, states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The due process clause establishes individuals’ right to be heard in matters that affect them. While this is an overarching principle that can be implemented in a variety of ways, states have adopted laws that provide precise guidance on transparency and participation in decision making. California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, for example, applies to legislative bodies of local agencies such as city councils and planning commissions and requires that such agencies enable the involvement of the public. Enacted in 1953, it states:

Public commissions, boards, councils and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created. (California Government Code, § 54950, Ch. I, Preamble)

The Brown Act requires public notice of meetings, as well as public posting of meeting agendas. The Brown Act also allows people attending such public meetings to record and broadcast the event over radio or television (unless recording would disrupt the meeting).

Several other states have similar laws. The State of Massachusetts’ Open Meeting Law, adopted in 1958, is applicable to governmental units at the state, county, and municipal levels. It requires that all meetings of a quorum of a governmental body be announced by public notice and that any individual be allowed to attend such meetings (with exceptions as defined by law). The states of New York, Nevada, Minnesota, Arizona, and Michigan, among others, have similar open meeting laws.

Over the course of the past five decades, planners and designers have developed innovative participatory decision-making formats, methods, and instruments not only to meet the legal requirements but also to ensure that people are involved in decisions that will affect them. While legal requirements for open decision making in some contexts and some jurisdictions exist, however, they do not guarantee that involvement will actually take place. Depending on how the law is implemented, public involvement may range from one-way, public hearing–style “respond to the ongoing discussion” activities to interactive community meetings.

2
What Is Community Design?

Objectives, Stages, and Outcomes

“Community design” is a term widely used in planning and design disciplines, and it has a variety of definitions. In the contemporary planning and design world, understandings of community design generally fall into one or the other of two main purviews. The first focuses on the act of making as a response to a group of people’s needs and aspirations: making for people. The second focuses on the act of decision making in collaboration with a group to meet that group’s needs and aspirations: making with people. The next section adds a bit more detail to these two views; then the chapter moves on to the objectives, stages, and outcomes of community design.

2.1. What is Community Design?

One available definition of community design is the act of designing the physical attributes of a community:

Community design is the art of making sustainable living places that both thrive and adapt to people’s needs for shelter, livelihood, commerce, recreation, and social order. (Hall and Porterfield 2001, 3)

Implicit in the “physical attributes” definition are the assumptions that a community is defined by, or at least related to, a locale and that the planning and design principles brought by the professionals will respond to people’s needs. Some go further and propose that these planning and design principles may affect people’s ways of doing things (Lennertz 1991). This approach is based on the following logic: (1) a planner or designer makes decisions with people’s interests and the planner’s own professional background in mind, (2) people occupy the product, and (3) people adapt to the product while the product adapts to people’s needs.

The second definition considers community design as an act of decision making with people:

How to make it possible for people to be involved in shaping and managing their environment ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part 1: History and Social Motivation
• Part 2: The Community Design Process
• Part 3: Community Design: Methods and Applications
• Part 4: Community Design Scales
• References
• Index