• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Charette symposium al waer hirani
 

Charette symposium al waer hirani

on

  • 223 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
223
Views on SlideShare
223
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Thank you very much for giving me a chance to present: Background I am an Architect, have recently completed MSc with specialisation in Charrette.Today I am going to present a part of my research, key findings from the interviews with practitioners of community design and charrettesPresentation will be just under 10mins, divided in two parts:First part: providing background information i.e. whom did I interview and what did I ask?Second part: summary of findings from the interviews. The issues align with the key questions asked in Symposium 1 ‘Master Planning Process’.
  • Part 1: whom did I interview? Can divide stakeholder in a few different ways for the purpose of this study in three broad categories based on their influence. This is merely to demonstrate spread of views. [Describe three groups] The interviewees experiences covered broad range, most SSCI charrette, EbD, other community based planning practices. IN TOTAL 25 INTERVIEWS FROM 3 GROUPS COVERING BROAD RANGE OF VIEWS
  • Continuing with part 1: what did I ask? Simple open ended questions, following conversational approach lasting between 30 to 90 minutes.Why? Primarily to understand drivers and motives behind their involvement in charrette/charrette like community practiceHow? To understand mechanism/procedure of charrette. This covered broad range of discussion from engagement, collaboration, feedback, project management to leadership.What? Predominantly focusing on end outcome for the community, results and lessons learned.
  • What did I learn?Findings- positive and negative views depend on the groups and an individual’s perception on a particular question/scenario. But overall feedback was very positive for charrette compare to the conventional planning process.Stakeholder engagement and feedback loop – mixed views, Group 1&2 believed‘charrette provides opportunity to increase stakeholders engagement and bring community on board’. Focused on producing a feasible plan with minimal rework’. While Group 3 felt ‘great show during the charrette event and we’ve been listened but we have not been included in the decision-making process’. Thus the feedback loop isn’t closed and in some projects they felt ‘we don’t know anything after charrette event and whether this event would make any difference to their town’. The views varied from project to project.Collaboration between stakeholders – Finding were very positive across all 3 groups, ‘much better collaboration compare to the conventional planning process. Charrette is a vehicle for collaboration between decision-makers, communities and professionals. Working collaboratively helps all interested parties to understand and support a project's rationale’. Vision and outcomes – charrette is very effective and focused approach which increases probability for implementation. The experts views ‘it also promotes trust between citizens and government through the building of long-term community goodwill’.Accelerated timescale and complexity – This was a very important question as charrette is all about time-compressed work sessions. Majority believed that 5-7 days are good enough to create the momentum to work collaboratively. But some of the experts from group 1, views were mixed due to the complex process. ‘fast track process tends to miss out important issues within the time frame if pre-charrette stage is not done properly. Thus pre-charrette and post-charrette work need full energy, time and resources to make the process successful. Leadership, knowledge and skill-set – This had very interesting views as charrette-like event need a good leader. For example, SSCI exemplar projects were led by Duany who has charismatic personality, very good leader and a great listener with well experienced team. ‘If we need to mainstream this approach in planning system, it requires skilled facilitator with a good leadership to run event smoothly. Plus it should be well resourced not just during the event but pre and post charrette process to make it successful’.Overall great feedback from all stakeholders on charrette being better understanding the need of the end user, fast track design and planning. However key questions have been around the delivery post-charrette or as some would call it ‘charrette hangover’.

Charette symposium al waer hirani Charette symposium al waer hirani Presentation 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.hirani@gmail.com26th 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 change?4hina.hirani@gmail.comCapability, 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