Charette symposium al waer hiraniPresentation Transcript
Organised by Husam Al Waer
Organised by Husam Al WaerProfessor of Environmental Geoscience Dean of theSchool of the Environment
public lifeeconomicleverageefficienciesresourcescollaborationManaging changeSymposium 1:Masterplanning process under current conditionsObservations:• Context: people and place matter• Clarity: what is the strategic intent?• Client: what is the role of the end user?• Collaboration: how are people involved?• Change: it is a constantIssues:• Engagement by design: how ?• Charrette: status?Conditionmaking and prioritiesMasterplanning process
Community CharrettesHow they are made, where they fitTensions:• Authenticity: ‘theatre’ or open process?• Context: style driven or place driven?• Status: fit statutory plans or separate?• Impact: Fast design, slow delivery?Propositions: responding to place by design• Collaboration [Robinson]• Practice [Parham]• Policy [Thompson]Symposium 2:The practice of community charrette design in the UKEngagementReal timedecisions?SpeedConcentratedresources?prioritiesInforming masterplanning process
Presentations:• Pragmatism of Charettes-UoD research: HinaHinari• Knowledge-dialogue-place: Sandy Robinson• Practice of CommunityCharettes: Susan Parham• Place frameworks-learning from charettes:David Thompson
1Pragmatism of CharretteViews from stakeholdersHina HiraniMSc, B.Arch (Hons), RIBA, RIAShina.email@example.com October 2012The Practice of Community Charrettes Design in the UK (Symposium)
Whom did I interview?• Those involved indelivery of the project(private interests)• Those who determinethe context (publicinterests)• Directly affected - localcommunity• Indirectly affected dependingupon the context (widercommunity / interest groups)• Academics (charrette &planning discipline)• Media & campaigngroups• Users / clients for otherprojectsGroup 2:Affect the projectGroup 3:Affected by the projectGroup 1:Experts / Independents225 interviews in total across 3 groups
What did I ask?3Open ended discussions lasting between 30 to 90 minutes
What did I learn about charrette?4Strong view from most stakeholders on Charrette being better atunderstanding the need of end user than conventional planning processTheme1Theme2Theme3Theme4Theme5Stakeholder engagement and ‘feedback loops’Collaboration between stakeholdersVision and outcomesAccelerated timescale for dealing with complex issuesLeadership, knowledge and skill-setGroup 1&2 believed ‘it is well plugged into the community. It provides opportunity to increasestakeholders engagement ‘. While Group 3 felt ‘its a great show and we’ve been listened but wehave not been included in the decision-making process’. Thus the feedback loop isn’t closed.‘It is a vehicle for collaboration between decision-makers, communities andprofessionals’. Working collaboratively helps all interested parties to understand andsupport a projects rationale.charrette is very effective and focused approach which increases probability forimplementation. ‘it also promotes trust between citizens and government throughthe building of long-term community goodwill’.Mixed views due to the complex process. ‘fast track process tends to miss importantissues within the time frame if pre-charrette stage is not done properly’.‘If we need to mainstream this approach in planning system, it requires skilled facilitator witha good leadership to run event successfully’.
What’s necessary for firstname.lastname@example.orgCapability, engagement, leadership, trust, staying powerThank you‘For making places for people’…….as concluded insymposium 1-Masterplanning Process’
Key questionsGeddes Institute: Community CharettesEngagementWhat does pragmatic collaboration to guidechange in places look like?
SpeedWhat is the role of design in changingplaces?EngagementWhat does pragmatic collaboration tomanage change in places look like?Key questionsGeddes Institute: Community Charettes
Organised by Husam Al WaerLearning lessons from the practice of charrettes fromNorway to Transylvania and beyond