Charrettes lecture dundee_2


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Charrettes lecture dundee_2

  1. 1. The Practice of Charrettes: From Norway and Transylvania to the UKDr Susan Parham, Head of Urbanism, Centre for Sustainable Communitieswww.uh-­‐
  2. 2. Today’s presentation
  3. 3. The background – situating charrettes• Need to situate charrettes within broad trends in which participation in planning and designprocesses has moved from edge to mainstream• Variations of participative process now found in all kinds of planning and design regimes at alllevels – supranational, national, regional, sub-regional, city wide, neighbourhood and verylocal• Why? Changes driven by ‘bottom up’ citizen activist movements of the 1960s/1970s (cfRachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’, reaction to comprehensive ‘renewal’ processes)• Focus on participative democracy reflects ‘crisis of legitimacy of the state’ and the ‘democraticdeficit’• Participative approaches can act as counter balance to ‘top down’ processes of planning anddevelopment• Participation in planning and design can be aspect of good ‘governance’ of place• Can reflect more reflexive approach by government, business, social stakeholders
  4. 4. The background - charrette practice and urbanismSustainable urbanism: before the crash….“As the housing market becomes ever more pressurised, Britain is embarking on a series ofmassive urban developments under the banner of the government’s growth agenda. There is agreat opportunity to take advantage of this development and regeneration programme to changethe face of the country for the better – to produce walkable communities on a human scale, withlocal character and a sense of identity, which provide for social balance and show respect for theenvironment. But equally there is an enormous danger that the mistakes of previous waves of20th century comprehensive development may be repeated, and more ‘nowhere’ placesproduced offering no particular identity or sense of community cohesion, no new hopes orpossibilities for our weakest social groups”.Valuing Sustainable Urbanism, PFBE, 2007Downturn a chance to reflect and improve design based engagement/placemaking?
  5. 5. The background to charrette practiceSustainable urbanism principles….
  6. 6. Charrettes’ theoretical underpinningsArnstein’s ladder of participation(1969) justly famous• Citizen Control• Delegated Power• Partnership• Placation• Consultation• Informing• Therapy• Manipulation“Jumping off Arnsteins ladder: sociallearning as a new policy paradigmfor climate change adaptation“KevinCollins and Ray Ison, EnvironmentalPolicy and Governance, Volume 19, Issue6, pages 358–373 November/December2009“The snakes and ladders of userinvolvement: Moving beyond Arnstein”Jonathan Quetzal Trittera,Alison McCallumb, Health Policy, Volume76, Issue 2, Pages 156-168 (April 2006)“Community Engagement: Participation onWhose Terms?” Brian W. Head,Australian Journal of Political Science,Volume 42, Number 3, September 2007 ,pp. 441-454
  7. 7. Situating charrettes - from theory to practice….Charrette processes moving to the mainstream…engagement at the heart of the processTake up of charrettes reflects way stakeholder engagement now the mainstream language (andpractice) of public policy, management consultancy, public relations, and business strategicplanning and CSR.“Engagement is the process of exchanging information, listening to andlearning from stakeholders - with the goal of building understanding and trust on issues ofmutual Interest.“Community Engagement or Community Action: Choosing Not to Play the Game” JamesMartin Whelan and Kristen Lyons, Journal of Environmental Politics, (2005) pp596-610, No14
  8. 8. Situating charrettes and themainstreaming ofengagementIncreasing the democracyof design?The language of engagement nowpermeates public policy but is this a formof incorporation? Does it reflect real shiftsin power? Can the practice of charrettesmove us beyond this?
  9. 9. Engagement through charrette practice
  10. 10. Charrettes as part of the ‘palette’ of engagement methods inurbanism practiceNow a broad palette of engagement methods and techniques can be used,depending on the planning and design circumstances. Some examples are:• visioning exercises/‘mind mapping’/’clean sheet of paper’ exercises• walkabouts and street audits• planning for real type exercises/charrettes/Enqiries by Design/masterplan consultations• facilitated workshops, focus groups or forums• one-to-one in-depth interviews with stakeholders/peer interviewing/vox pops• social surveys and questionnaires• participant/non-participant observation• case study construction, narratives (‘light’ ethnography)• online consultative formats (the rise of Survey Monkey)• ideas exhibitions/other feedback and dissemination events
  11. 11. But what exactly is an urban design and planning charrette?Some working definitionsDefinition from The Town Paper“A charrette is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers and others collaborate on avision for development. It provides a forum for ideas and offers the unique advantage of giving immediatefeedback to the designers. More importantly, it allows everyone who participates to be a mutual author ofthe plan.” alternative charrette definition from Kingston University, Department ofLandscape Architecture, 2009“Design Charrette - Typically a collaborative session in which a group of designers drafts a solution to adesign problem. While the structure of a charrette varies, depending on the design problem and theindividuals in the group, charrettes often take place in multiple sessions in which the group divides into sub-groups, including consultation or active participation of a range of stakeholders. Each sub-group thenpresents its work to the full group as material for future dialogue. Such charrettes serve as a way of quicklygenerating a design solution while integrating the aptitudes and interests of a diverse group of people.”
  12. 12. Defining the urban design and planning charretteAn historical note“The term "charrette" is derived from the French word for"little cart." In Paris during the 19th century, professors atthe Ecole de Beaux Arts circulated with little carts tocollect final drawings from their students. Students wouldjump on the "charrette" to put finishing touches on theirpresentation minutes before the deadline.”
  13. 13. The urban design and planning charrette: structureHow the charrette is organised“The charrette is located near the project site. The team of design experts and consultants setsup a full working office, complete with drafting equipment, supplies, computers, copy machines,fax machines, and telephones. Formal and informal meetings are held throughout the event andupdates to the plan are presented periodically.”
  14. 14. The urban design and planning charrette: processThe three stages of the charrette process“Through brainstorming and design activity, many goals are accomplished during the charrette.First, everyone who has a stake in the project develops a vested interest in the ultimate vision.Second, the design team works together to produce a set of finished documents that address allaspects of design. Third, since the input of all the players is gathered at one event, it is possibleto avoid the prolonged discussions that typically delay conventional planning projects. Finally, thefinished result is produced more efficiently and cost-effectively because the process iscollaborative.”
  15. 15. The urban design and planning charrette: processNCI system demonstrates useful points about good charrette practice“Phase 1 - Careful stakeholder research and analysis guards against mishandling key partieswho, if overlooked, may become project blockers. The early public kick-off workshop creates trustand educates a communityPhase 2 - The multiple-day charrette maximizes the opportunities for members of the public toparticipate – day or night, weekday or weekend. Multiple-days provide the design team time towork through concepts with key stakeholders and to respond to the unexpectedPhase 3 - The post-charrette phase provides a safety net for engaging those who may havemissed the charrette. Follow-up public meetings provide another chance for stakeholders toparticipate in a design feedback loop”
  16. 16. The urban design and planning charrette: engagementThe charrette’s engagement aspects“Charrettes are organized to encourage the participation of all. That includes everyone who isinterested in the making of a development: the developer, business interests, governmentofficials, interested residents, and activists. Ultimately, the purpose of the charrette is to give allthe participants enough information to make good decisions during the planning process.” from any sector are aired, explored and tested – “live”Parallel, not serial, engagement – those contributing hear multiple perspectivesAll inputs are recorded, how they are processed is auditable – understand why, and why notPerspectives are actively sought, not reactively received
  17. 17. The urban design and planning charrette:a design refinement processFeedback loops…
  18. 18. The urban design and planning charrette: refinement processImage from MaudsleyHospital Charretteprocess in UK, 2008.Run by Bill Lennertzusing NCI principles loops in detail…
  19. 19. Examples of charrette practice in the UK and abroad
  20. 20. Not all charrettes are exactly the same in approachSome examples…National Charrette Institute in US - provides a “proven, flexible, three-step framework that can becustomized for your project.” Centre for Sustainable Communities at University of Hertfordshire conducts an ongoingprogram offering entire range of NCI training, specifically adapted for practice in the UK, includinglocal case studies.’s Foundation undertakes a number of significant scale Enquiry by Design processes whichare analagous to charrettes and partners charrettes in places including Norway, Romania and Cuba - has developedand run a range of charrettes which have pioneered the use of concurrent planning courses andsocial surveys
  21. 21. Enquiries by DesignPrince’s Foundation for the Built Environment Enquiry by Design (EbD) process“A single event held over several days assesses a complex series of design requirements of anew or revived community. …The EbD is usually staged over five days and varies according tothe size and complexity of the site. The outcome is a vision that unifies everyone involved in thedevelopment, including those who will eventually give planning permission. This intense five-dayworkshop is normally preceded by one or more two-day scoping workshops, to gather technicalinformation, conduct a thorough physical analysis of the site and its surroundings and produce aPattern Book - a study of nearby villages, towns and neighbourhoods which identifies prevalentlocal spatial types which should be drawn upon for the design of the new development.”
  22. 22. EbD examples:Crewkerne, South Somerset
  23. 23. EbD Examples:Landarcy, Wales
  24. 24. EbD engagement on design:North Baddesley and Romsey, Hampshire
  25. 25. Charrette practice examples:INTBAU, CEU and partners, Åfjord, Central Norway, 2009
  26. 26. Charrette practice examples:Åfjord Central Norway, 2009
  27. 27. Charrette practice examples:Åfjord Central Norway, 2009
  28. 28. Charrette practice examples:Åfjord Central Norway, 2009
  29. 29. Charrette practice examples:Åfjord, Central Norway, 2009
  30. 30. Charrette practice examples:Brokelandsheia, Central Norway, 2009
  31. 31. Charrette practice examples:Brokelandsheia, Central Norway, 2009
  32. 32. Charrette practice examples:Brokelandsheia, Central Norway, 2009
  33. 33. Charrette practice examples:INTBAU and partners, Petrova, Maramures, Transylvania, 2008
  34. 34. Charrette practice examples:INTBAU and partners, Petrova, Maramures, Transylvania, 2008
  35. 35. Charrette practice examples:INTBAU and partners, Petrova, Maramures, Transylvania, 2008
  36. 36. Charrette practice examples:INTBAU and partners, Petrova, Maramures, Transylvania, 2008
  37. 37. Charrette practice examples:INTBAU and partners, Laslea, Transylvania, 2003
  38. 38. Charrette practice examples:INTBAU and partners, Laslea, Transylvania, 2003
  39. 39. Charrette practice examples: Făgăraș Atelier de Urbanism,Carpathian region of Transylvania, 2012
  40. 40. Charrette practice examples: Făgăraș Atelier de Urbanism,Carpathian region of Transylvania, 2012
  41. 41. Charrette practice examples: Făgăraș Atelier de Urbanism,Carpathian region of Transylvania, 2012
  42. 42. Charrette practice examples: Făgăraș Atelier de Urbanism,Carpathian region of Transylvania, 2012
  43. 43. Charrette practice examples: Făgăraș Atelier de Urbanism,Carpathian region of Transylvania, 2012
  44. 44. UK charrette examples:The Hertfordshire Charrette -Establishing The Most SustainableDesign Options For HertfordshireThe (now abandoned) East of England Planincluded government targets for an additional82,300 homes in Hertfordshire. As with otherregions, the core issues facing the county are thestandard of existing housing and the requirement forfurther homes and development. The HertfordshireCharrette was a collaborative exercise involving theUniversity of Hertfordshire, BRE, TurnberryConsulting and urban designers, DPZ. Held in June/July 2008, the main focus of the charrette was thefuture growth of the county and how this could becarried out in the most sustainable manner possible.
  45. 45. UK charrette examples:The Hertfordshire Charrette - Establishing The MostSustainableDesign Options For HertfordshireThere were a number of workshops attendedby designers, planners, councillors, businessowners and the general public to discussviews and visions for the best way forward.These sessions provided an ideal platform toaddress the social and environmental issuesrelating to development whilst shapingstrategies which respond to Hertfordshirescharacter and landscape. BRE provided anon-going sustainability assessment of the keyworkshop outputs using the GreenPrintsustainability framework.
  46. 46. UK charrette examples:The Old Hatfield Charrette
  47. 47. UK charrette examples:Deptford Creekside charrette, London, 2008“The charrette process should set a precedent for future consultations onredevelopment and regeneration for Creekside and other areas. The key being that it isemployed at the start of the design process when minds are open, rather thanconsultation at the end of a design process when minds are closed and battle linesdrawn. These proposals were put together by a multidisciplinary team of 26, who workedfor six long days, held six public meetings, held one to ones and smaller group meetingsand engaged with at least 350 stakeholders. The team met with passionateengagement, optimism, despair, anger and joy. There is still time to think aboutCreekside as a place and to create an exemplary, interconnected, sustainable, unique,and creative destination and home. If you are involved in any way in shaping this placewe urge you to read this document and to take note of its ideas”Quote from charrette report by Design for London
  48. 48. UK charrette examples:Elsick Charrette, Scotland, 2008
  49. 49. UK charrette examples:Elsick Charrette, Scotland, 2008
  50. 50. ‘Mini charrette’ processHanbury Hall, Inner East London, 2010Using charrette principles –including design ‘feedback loops’in a ‘squeezed’one day or half day format
  51. 51. Other charrette style examples:Railway Street Masterplan, Brierfield, Pendle, UK (Urbed)
  52. 52. Critique of charrettes as a design and engagement processKey strengths of the charrette processSaves time and money, Increases probability for implementation, promotes trust betweencommunities, developers and government, results in the best sustainable designArgued weaknessesUse of single type of process - does not use the wider range of engagement processes thatmight be suitable for participatory planningRole of charrette facilitator - can be manipulator/maintain too much controlBond, S. and Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2007) Public participation and New Urbanism: aconflicting agenda? Planning Theory and Practice 8(4):pp. 449-472. 2007
  53. 53. The urban design and planning engagement process:public policy under LabourIn 2008 the UK Department for Communities and Local Government announced grants of up to £70,000(total pot up to £5 million) to allow under represented groups a better say on planning. Referencedcharrettes, “planning for real” and planning aid as very useful consultative planning tools:“The new grants are part of a major Government drive to put communities in control, strengthen activecitizenship and give people more say over local services.Planning is already one of the most democratic processes with the majority of decisions taken by electedlocal councillors. But too often decisions become contentious because of the perceived lack of publicinvolvement in decisions that leave under represented groups frustrated and disenchanted.The planning empowerment grants announced today will help tackle this sense of injustice byencouraging councils to secure greater legitimacy for decisions by placing some power in the hands oflocal communities generating a vibrant, engaged and healthier local democracy.”
  54. 54. The urban design and planning engagement process:public policy now – Localism Bill and beyondRoll forward to 2012 and charrettes have received positive mention in PlanningAdvice Note 3 on Community Engagement (Scottish Government) and in the newLocalism Bill. National Planning Policy Framework suggests strong role fordesign and engagement in planning and development process:“The draft Framework sets out nationally important issues and leaves othermatters for local councils and communities to decide themselves. Socommunities can plan to meet their needs, without the Government alwaysgetting in the way and telling them what to do”. Those bringing forwarddevelopment are “expected to play their part by recognising and responding tothe needs of communities”. (Draft NPPF, 2011: 5).“Developers will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by theirproposals to evolve design proposals that take account of the views of thecommunity. Proposals that can demonstrate good engagement with thecommunity in developing the design of the new development should be lookedon more favourably.” (Draft National Planning Policy Framework, 2011: 34)
  55. 55. The urban design and planning engagement process:National Planning Policy FrameworkFramework makes the point that timely engagement can mean lessopposition to a proposed development and offer opportunities forcommunities to play a bigger part in place shaping in future.‘Front loading’ of the process is consistently advocated to make sureissues are ironed out with communities before planning applications aremade.Framework stresses the need for early engagement betweendevelopers and councils, as well as between developers andsurrounding communities and statutory agencies.“Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiencyand effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties.Good quality pre-application discussion enables better coordinationbetween public and private resources and improved outcomes to thecommunity.” (National Planning Policy Framework, 2011: 21)
  56. 56. The urban design and planning engagement process:related policy aspectsLocal planning authorities in England have been invited by thegovernment to apply for grants under the Neighbourhood PlanningFront Runners scheme. The grants are being used to help localplanning authorities gain insight into how the provisions forneighbourhood planning are likely to work in practice followingCommencement of the Localism Bill. Councils are being expected toundertake a planning project in close collaboration with an establishedcommunity group or parish council in a manner similar to thatenvisaged in the Localism Act, or, in business areas, with a localbusiness organisation.Also a new role for local communities through Neighbourhood Plans to,identify opportunities to give planning permissions throughNeighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to BuildOrders.
  57. 57. The urban design and planning engagement process:responses to present governmental positionNot everyone convinced by this – and there are implications forsustainable design and placemaking outcomes and process ofgetting there:"Economic growth is generally set to trump the aspirations oflocal communities expressed in local and neighbourhood plans.The relationship between the presumption in favour ofsustainable development and the primacy of locally-leddevelopment plans is not clear”. (RTPI)Are development proposals agreed on the basis of ‘thepresumption’ likely to cause ongoing conflicts with local groupsthat undermine rather than support the planning process?(CSC)
  58. 58. The Scottish Government Planning Note 3 andSustainable Communities Charrette Series (SCCI)
  59. 59. The urban design and planning engagement process:Scottish Government Planning Advice Note 3 2010“Whatever the circumstances, it is important that allstakeholders know the extent to which they can beinvolved in planning decisions, taking into account thepractical limits of the process and the constraints within which itoperates. For instance, while development plans will set out theplanning authoritys policies and proposals, whetherdevelopment will actually occur on a piece of land will alsodepend on subsequent regulatory processes, such as the needfor planning consent, and a host of other factors including thelandowners aspirations for the site”.
  60. 60. The urban design and planning engagement process:Scottish Government Planning Advice Note 3 2010Being clear about terms used“The term consultation is used to mean the dynamic process ofdialogue between individuals or groups, based on a genuine exchangeof views and, normally, with the objective of influencing decisions,policies or programmes of action.The terms engagement and involvement are generallyinterchangeable and are taken to mean the establishment of effectiverelationships with individuals or groups.Participation is everything that enables people to influence thedecisions and get involved in the actions that affect their lives. In thecontext of this document engagement is, in effect, giving people agenuine opportunity to have a say on a development plan or proposalwhich affects them; listening to what they say and reaching a decisionin an open and transparent way taking account of all views expressed”
  61. 61. The urban design and planning engagement process:Scottish Government Planning Advice Note 3 2010Principles of community engagement1.Community Engagement must be meaningful and proportionate.2.Community Engagement must happen at an early stage to influence the shape of plans and proposals.3.It is essential for people or interest groups to get involved in the preparation of development plans as this iswhere decisions on the strategy, for growth or protection, are made.Defining community is not simple. It means different things in different situations. It can be based on location -those who live, work or use an area. But it can also be based on a common interest, value or background - forexample societal groups (based on race, faith, ethnicity, disability, age, gender or sexual orientation), membersof sports clubs and heritage or cultural groups. Each community will have different desires and needs whichhave to be balanced against the desires and needs of others”.
  62. 62. The urban design and planning engagement process:Scottish Government Planning Advice Note 3 2010Community Engagement in Planning“Effective engagement with the public can lead to better plans, better decisions and more satisfactoryoutcomes and can help to avoid delays in the planning process. It also improves confidence in the fairness ofthe planning system.The Scottish Government expects engagement with the public to be meaningful and to occur from the earlieststages in the planning process to enable community views to be reflected in development plans anddevelopment proposals.Minimum requirements for consultation and engagement in the planning system are established throughlegislation. Advice on community engagement in the planning system, linked to the National Standards forCommunity Engagement, is provided in PAN 81 Community Engagement.
  63. 63. The urban design and planning engagement process:Scottish Government Planning Advice Note 3 2010How the process is expected to workEveryone has the right to comment on any planning application which is being considered by a planningauthority. Legitimate public concern or support expressed on a relevant planning matter should be aconsideration in planning decisions.Planning authorities must ensure that communities are given the opportunity to get involved in the preparationof development plans. Planning authorities and developers should ensure appropriate and proportionate stepsare taken to engage with communities when planning policies and guidance are being developed, whendevelopment proposals are being formed and when applications for planning permission are made.Individuals and community groups should ensure that they focus on planning issues and utilise availableopportunities for engaging constructively with developers and planning authorities.Close working with communities can help to identify and overcome sensitivities or concerns associated withnew development. Liaison committees can have a role in offering communities greater involvement in theoperation of mineral extraction sites and other similar developments.
  64. 64. The urban design and planning engagement process:Scottish Government Charrette SeriesAs part of the Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative (SSCI), a Charrette Series was held between 1 and25 March 2010. The SSCI Charrette Series provided a unique and innovative opportunity for Scotland todevelop new approaches to sustainable planning while enabling a new level of public engagement in theplace-making process.A charrette is an interactive and intensive multi-disciplinary event that engages local people with experts todevelop designs for their community. It is a hands-on approach where ideas are translated into plans anddrawings.
  65. 65. The urban design and planning engagement process:Scottish Government Charrette SeriesThe charrettes developed designs for three of theSSCI exemplar projects at: Ladyfield, Dumfries;Lochgelly, Fife; and Grandhome, Aberdeen. Thisinvolved a series of intense design workshopslead by the internationally acclaimed designer,Andres Duany, each engaging with keystakeholders to deliver community masterplansand a vision of vibrant future communities.The events featured large, public presentations,encouraging the views of local communities tohelp formulate the visions, as well as severalspecific meetings for special interest groupswithin each of the sites local areas.
  66. 66. The urban design and planning engagement process:Where to next for the practice of charrettes?What should we expect from charrette practice in turbulent times?Expanded role for communities and third sector in planning and designing places? (Supportedby advice to third sector (PFBE and others)A divergent context of both incorporation and increasing radicalism? (the 1% protests)What about the ‘structural’ issues? Who plans, engages, decides and how do charrettes fit ingiven following issues:Climate change mitigation and adaptation‘Lumpy’ nature of urban development and ‘sprawl’ as business as usualNorth/side divide on housing and economic vibrancyBig infrastructure issues (another round of nuclear power? Wind power? Transport inc newairports and heavy rail? etc)Waste and pollution (nuclear waste, air pollution etc…)
  67. 67. The urban design and planning engagement process:Can charrettes work at the ‘big bits of kit’ scale?Infrastructure Planning CommissionThe Infrastructure Planning Commission is theindependent body that examines applications fornationally significant infrastructure projects. These are thelarge projects that support the economy and vital publicservices, including railways, large wind farms, powerstations, reservoirs, harbours, airports and sewagetreatment works.“With pressure on the UK’s ageing energy and transportinfrastructures mounting, is it time to put projects ofnational importance ahead of local concerns? Or doesthis bypass our democratic right to object?”
  68. 68. Dr Susan