2. PREFACE
i
he term “community engagement” has frequently had
negative connotations for both citizens and the professionals
who seek to engage them. The term can suggest a rote process,
marked by a lack of interest and frustration, which results in
limited understanding of differing perspectives and a lack of clarity
regarding purpose and outcomes. However, engagement is all
about understanding the client’s/customer’s/citizen’s perspective
and desired outcome. Creating this understanding has always
been the most fundamental, yet most challenging, part of any job.
So, I have always pondered a better way of providing a platform
for creating engagement, because at the end of the day all those
involved in the process are designers. As a collective and engaged
unit we can create innovative cities.
T
3. ABSTRACT
ii
ublic spaces are being developed without an authentic and
efficient platform for the community to voice its input. Currently,
a neighbourhood’s voice is inefficiently captured through costly
and ineffective methods such as focus groups, public meetings,
and surveys. These methods lead inevitably to a disconnection
between public spaces and the community. Public participation
is absent in many designs due to current planning policies and
ineffective methods of community involvement; we design for the
communityinsteadofwiththecommunity.Thisthesiswillexamine
the reasons why participatory design is not common practice
and explore ways that technology can overcome the barriers to
‘participatory placemaking.’ The goal is to create public spaces
designed as a result of community engagement by enabling the
community to reinvent and reimagine its surroundings. This goal
can be achieved by observing and listening to those who work,
live, and play in the local space.
P
4. INTRODUCTION
iii
ublic participation can also be referred to as community and
citizen engagement or community design. This approach allows
the community (participants) to revision their surroundings.
However, the act of engagement has been diluted in recent years
and remains as a one-way communication tool orchestrated by
planners(decisionmakers). Currently,thetop-bottomapproachis
frequentlyused;unfortunately,thisapproachinefficientlycaptures
the community’s voice, resulting in ripples that disconnect people
from their spaces and from one another. The process also creates
political tension between participants and the decision makers.
P
10. HISTORY
03
articipatory design has been a tool utilized by
civilizations since the beginning of democracy. To truly
understand the problem and constraints of public
engagement, we must analyse its historical roots and
analyse its most basic and fundamental attributes.
Citizen engagement and involvement is a cornerstone
ideology that exists in all democratic societies. It
fundamentally empowers citizens to be present in the
decision-making process that is critical in responsive
and responsible democracy. Public participation can
be traced back to 7th Century BCE Ancient Greece
where government reforms allowed citizens to attend
assemblies and the right to vote on matters effecting
their community (The Theory of Citizen Participation,
2003). More recently and comparative, in North
America, the roots of public participation can be found
in Colonial New England where town hall meetings
were the opportunity for the town settlement to
voice their input and concerns. Public participation
is not a new phenomenon; history has shown that it
is paramount to any democratic society in ensuring
their citizens are active within their community and
government. Public participation is one of the variants
of democracy wherein all members of the society have
a stake in formal political power (Muse, 2015).
Today, citizen engagement remains as a crucial
method for shaping our political and social wellbeing.
In our political system, citizens have the power to act
as a community in voicing their input collectively.
Furthermore, it is also cornerstone for any effective
public space ensuring that those who use the space,
will also be those who can voice their ideas. Society has
advanced in many ways since our democratic infancy,
yet many of methods of engaging the public remain
P
11. 04
the same. Granted, that the simplicity of a town hall
meeting is effective; it alone may no longer be the most
effective and efficient way of capturing the voice of
the public. This paper will examine our past methods
of citizen engagement and where planners mistakenly
neglected it.
12. PRINCIPLES
05
ublic participation is mandated for most public
plans and programs, resulting in goals, objectives, and
principles that aid navigating the challenge of involving
the community. This mandatory step has resulted in a
degreeoftokenismandinefficiency;however,thispaper
will examine those barriers later. Public participation,
when orchestrated correctly, reaches many community
and social wellbeing goals. Many professionals have
developed and published series of principles that
outline effective public participation. Cogan published
some simple yet powerful building blocks that are
integral to programs legality and success, they must:
Meet legal requirements; clearly articulate goals and
objectives; command political support; be an integral
part of the decision-making structure; receive adequate
funding, staff, and time; identify concerned or affected
publics; and delineate clear roles and responsibilities
for participants (Cogan et. al, 1986).
P
14. 1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
7
9
11
07
Eleven Principles for
Creating Great Community Places
Public space design offers a unique approach to directly incorporate the community to co-design the places that they live,
work, and play. Effective public spaces are difficult to accomplish due to their complexity and difficulty to facilitate. The
Project for Public Spaces created Eleven Principles for Creating Great Community Places, to create a guideline for planners
and designers to create vibrant public spaces for the community.
The Community is The Expert
create a place not a design
look for partners
you can see a lot by observing
have a vision
start with the petunias: lighter quicker, cheaper
triangulate
form supports function
money is not the issue
you are never finished
they always say “it can’t be done”
The goal is to create a place that has both a strong sense of community and a comfortable image. The design cannot
compromise the local community’s ambitions. Function over Form.
Collaboration is intangible to the success of the design of the public space by gaining insight from a wide range of per-
spectives.
Observe those who work, live, and play in the local space.
The space needs to be designed as a collective vision from everyone in the community. It should instill a sense of pride in
the people who live and work in the surrounding area.
The complexity of public spaces results in constantly changing and maintaining the space. Experiment with short term
improvements that can be tested and refined over many years.
Place and arrangement of key elements of a site directly influence how the site flows.
Public spaces should function as an accessible part of the community ecosystem.
Most public space dilemmas root from lack of funding. If the community and other partners are involved in programming
and other activities, this can reduce costs.
Public spaces are living commodities within the community ecosystem. They continue to evolve, change and grow along
with the community. It is important to keep this long-term goal in mind when designing public spaces.
Creating good public spaces is inevitably about encountering obstacles, because no one in either the public or private
sectors has the job or responsibilities to create places. Starting with small scale community-nurturing improvements can
demonstrate the importance of “places” and help to overcome obstacles.
Tapping into the local community’s experiences and desires is an invaluable asset that needs to be taken into considera-
tion during the entirety of the design.
16. PROBLEM
09
ublicparticipationprogramsarethebonestructure
of any effective design. If done properly, they effectively
create spaces as the result of the participant’s vision.
These programs have become a mandated process in
which planners build cities. In 2005, UNESCO proposed
participation as one of five key levers to build cities of
solidarity and citizenship. The proposal of participation
as a mechanism through which citizens and citizenship
isdevelopedisacknowledgedbybureaucraticdecision-
making bodies that have legislated participation
(Ebrahim, 2015). However, it is evident that the
legislation is not working as effectively or efficiently as
it potentially could. Public spaces are being developed
without an authentic and efficient platform for the
community to voice its input. This irresponsible misuse
of appropriate planning is present in suburban, urban,
and rural communities across Canada.
The problems associated with public participation
within these areas of study all possess their distinct
constraints of successfully including the public in
community planning. However, a problem that is
evident in all communities is inefficient and costly
methods that inevitably lead to a disconnection
between the community and their beloved public
spaces. This paper will analyse the current problems
and constraints of public participation in these
demographic communities as well as an in-depth
analysis of the problematic methods practiced today.
P
17. Rural commUNITIES
10
People in rural community’s lack linkages to one
another and with their public spaces such as parks,
town halls, downtowns, and waterfronts. The
underlying constraint that inhibits people within rural
communities to actively participate in the planning
and development process of their community lies in
their inability to attend town hall meetings. Community
members in rural communities are faced with the
barrier of transportation as seen through travel times
associated in receiving health care and education. If
travel times are an issue for the necessities of life such
as health care and proper education it is only logical
to assume that public meetings and surveys are an
inadequate and ineffective method for capturing the
public’s voice.
No demographic within rural communities are ignored
to the extent of the elderly as few of them have access
to a vehicle or the costs associated with travelling to
town centres are too high. The lack of viable options to
participate for rural community members leaves them
powerless and suffering from democratic inequality
in the way funding is allocated to urban centres
opposed to rural areas. Lack of accessibility, public
transportation, and realistic options truly segregates
the rural population from any form of engagement;
fragmenting their communities and creating higher
tensions, disputes, and social distortion. Actively
participating in the community is critical for a rural
community as our sprawling developments and
cities continue to encroach on their land without an
authentic, local voice.
The barriers associated with travel lengths and costs
halt any process of participatory design in rural
communities. This problem can be addressed by simply
allowing the community to participate in discussions
and meetings in the convenience of their own home.
As more community members in rural areas gradually
evolve to having internet access; the barriers of distance
can be overcome.
18. urban commUNITIES
11
People living within urban communities have a greater
opportunity than those who live in rural communities
to attend assemblies however participating in these
forums remains a major constraint. Public consultation
meetings are often held in the early afternoon on
weekdays, when people who are employed cannot
join, and if they want to, must take a day off work.
The inconvenience of these meetings result in
small community attendance and no information.
Furthermore, community members rarely are aware
of these meetings as they are advertised only in local
newspapers or hidden to mitigate public outcry. Also,
motivation seems to truly restrict most community
members from attending these forums. This paper has
outlined how it is a requirement for decision makers to
hold and attend these meetings but is a choice for the
community participants. This choice rarely motivates
people to attend as the perception of the current setup
of the meetings is vaguely boring, dry, and offers little
opportunity for active involvement. Current legislative
policies also deter community members to attend,
especially the have-not’s demographic, due to a lack of
empowerment. This demographic feels as though their
voice falls upon deaf ears and the entire procedure of
including them is a tokenistic endeavour.
20. ARNSTEIN’s LADDER
OF Participation
13
herry Arnstein was an influential health and social
worker that developed the foundational theory behind
community involvement. In 1969, Arnstein developed
The Ladder of Citizen Participation, a graphically
representation of an 8-rung ladder, each rung with its
graduated level of participation corresponding to the
resultingproduct.Theladderadvocatestheimportance
of citizen power, and how the extent of involvement
has direct effect on the social rippling of a community.
Arnstein defines participation as a “redistribution
of power that enables the have-not citizens to be
deliberately included in the future” (Arnstein, 1969,
1). The ladder will assist this paper in addressing the
problems that arise when ineffective methods are
applied and how citizens are directly effected by it.
S
22. NON-Participatory
15
MANIPULATION:Thisdegreehasbeenscrutinized
as a substitute for genuine community involvement
due to its goal of simply educating the public rather
than active involvement. This ingenuity results in
minimal citizen empowerment and a distorted attempt
by decision makers to authentically include citizens.
Arnstein’s history in American social work referenced
the urban renewal of cities when the socially elite were
invited by city housing officials to serve on Citizen
Advisory Committees (CACs) (Arnstein, 1969). These
committees operated as elitist titles and conducted
one-way education and persuasion programs with the
community rather than observing and listening to the
participants. Mandated requirements legitimized the
manipulative participation process by promoting these
ineffective methods as the explicit functions of the
committee (Arnstein, 1969).
Manipulation directly effects the low-income, have-not
community members. Unauthentic programs to appear
as a genuine approach to include citizens have also
been seen in these have-not communities in the forms
of neighbourhood councils and advisory groups. The
intention of these programs is to create the perception
that the community is actively involved in the planning
process, however the programs seldom have any
legitimateauthorityorpower.Theconceptof“grassroots
participation” appears to positively involve citizens but
the level of manipulation associated compromises any
benefits or empowerment for the participants. Arnstein
notes that the historical misuse of manipulation has
spurred the community to actively pursue further
levels of empowerment and that revitalized grassroots
programs now advocate genuine levels of participation
and responses to their ideas.
THERAPY: Arnstein’s experience in the health and
social work sector allowed her insight to the dishonest
use of therapeutic citizen participation. She states,
“In some respects group therapy, masked as citizen
participation, should be on the lowest rung of the
ladder because it is both dishonest and arrogant. Its
administrators - mental health experts from social
workers to psychiatrists - assume that powerlessness
is synonymous with mental illness.” (Arnstein, 1969, 4)
Arnstein views this process as focussing solely on curing
the participants of their views rather than creating any
sort of social change. In the planning sector this misuse
of participation can be applied to awareness programs
that offer no social reform.
23. tokenism
16
This method appears to only combat conflicts that
are apparent on the surface and to mitigate socially
shallow challenges. This degree of non-participation
offers no long-term benefits to the participants or the
decision makers.
CONSULTATION: Consulting participants in
the planning process is a key step to ensuring the
communities vision is enforced in the design. However,
like the act of informing, this process can come across
as an ingenuine and an unauthentic approach to
empower the community’s voice. Arnstein advocates
that consultation can be capitalized if utilized in
unison with other modes of participation as this only
ensures that this will be heard and not influenced in
the implementation. Gaining data and information is
paramount in building public infrastructure and spaces,
however citizens should not merely be perceived as
statistical data but as equal stakeholders in the social
wellbeing of a community. Too often in consultation
applications this occurs and participation is gauged by
the attendance of town meetings, brochures handed
out,andsurveysfilledout.Arnsteindescribesthecitizen
experience induced by these platforms as “participated
in participation” and that the stakeholders can now
check it off their list of requirements.
The method of consultation will be analysed further in
depth later in this paper as it a categorical term for the
current and most commonly used methods of citizen
participation.
INFORMING: Informing citizens on the public
issues in integral to the initial steps of all engagement
strategies.However,theactofinformingtheparticipants
has shifted from a democratic discussion to a one-way
street communities so frequently see orchestrated in
town meetings. In doing so, the ability for citizens to
become more involved in the proposition is prohibited
and no feedback or discussions can resonate. This
lack of citizen power results in participants unable to
aid in designing the program or space; disconnecting
them from their public spaces and decision makers.
Participants are informed in a variety of ways that offer
little opportunity for feedback such as newspapers,
pamphlets, brochures, and posters. It is a requirement
to hold public information sessions for planners and
designers. This has given way to a tokenistic approach,
centred on one-way communication that offers little
community involvement. The number of barriers
associated with this inefficient and ineffective method
trump any participation empowerment.
”When powerholders restrict the input of citizens’
ideas solely to this level, participation remains just a
window-dressing ritual (Arnstein, 1969)
24. citizen power
17
PLACATION: At this rung in the ladder, citizen’s
empowermentincreasestheirabilitytovoicetheirideas.
However, tokenism is still present and restricts effective
community involvement. Placation offers hand picked
citizens to advise or influence a plan but the balance of
power is retained for decision makers. The product of
the collaboration between the two parties is dependent
upon the technical assistance of the decision makers
and the degree of active involvement of the hand-
picked participants.
Arnstein states that placation alone is not a solution
to empowering citizens to impact their surrounding
planning programs. Often, placation acts as another
form of tokenistic engagement by designing public
spaces and programs with citizens having a peripheral
role of watchdog and, ultimately, the “rubber stamp” of
theplangenerated(Arnstein,1969).Therefore,placation
inadequately provides citizens the opportunity to
be involved in the planning process from concept to
implementation. “By and large, people are once again
being planned for.” (Arnstein, 1969, 4)
PARTNERSHIP: Finally, at this rung of the ladder
power is redistributed through negotiation between
participants and decision makers. A partnership is
formed ensuring the cooperation between the two
parties to allow a collective vision for the community.
The planning and decision-making responsibilities are
sharedthroughmechanismssuchasjointpolicyboards
and planning committees (Arnstein, 1969). Partnerships
are an effective facilitation to include citizens as co-
designers with planners in the planning process.
Arnstein’s ladder categorizes this as true citizen power
and a method that mitigates tokenism and inefficiency.
DELEGATED POWER: An increased dominance
in citizen’s decision making authority results in the
seventh rung of the ladder: Delegated Power. At this
height in the ladder, the degree of citizen involvement
ensures them that their ideas and feedback will be
manifested in the plan. Decision makers resort to
a human centric approach of bargaining and open
discussion rather than pressuring the participants to
comply.
Enabling the participants to have the majority of seats
on a committee or program empowers them and
creates social equality. Delegated power is on option for
combination with some other method that are deemed
as infective implemented individually.
25. 18
CITIZEN CONTROL: The top tier rungs on the
ladder represent a higher degree of citizen engagement
and involvement in the participatory process. Clearly,
Anstein advocates that citizen engagement programs
that are categorized within the top three rungs
should be implemented in planning applications.
Citizen control distinctly allows the participants
to have complete authority of the process with no
intermediaries between the goal and its funds. This
complete and total participant power is rarely applied
to public spaces designs and creates a difficult process
for the community to navigate. Arnstein outlines
this ladder from citizen empowerment, with citizen
control at the pinnacle. This amount of citizen power
could potentially be best used in combination with
other strategic methods to ensure authentic citizen
involvement as well as tactical strategic planning.
Arnstein recognizes that the ladder is simplistic in
form and that in many ways citizens are engaged in
spaces between the rungs (Ebrahim, 2015). Moreover,
she acknowledges the ladder’s limitations and that
there could be numerous additional rungs on the
ladder (in order to capture the nuance of processes
of participation), that in the case of the ladder “the
participant”wasasingleentity,andthatitoversimplified
a process by the lack of acknowledgement of potential
barriers to participation (Arnstein, 1969).
The ladder truly represents the ideology: citizen
participation translates to citizen power. Citizen
participation strategically redistributes power to allow
the have-nots the ability to determine how information
is shared, community goals and mandates are outlined,
and how public spaces are utilized (Arnstein, 1969). It is
a viable option for the have-nots to reform the social
inequality of their community and to share in the
benefits of the affluent society (Ebrahim, 2015). This
paper will utilize Arnstein’s definitions of participation
and power and examine further on how ineffective
methods of participation disconnect the community
from reinventing their surroundings.
26. theory of
participation
19
he current attempts [methods] of involving the
community in the planning process has evolved
minimally from the first concept of the assembly or
town meeting. Currently, planners use a variety of
methods and tools of addressing participatory design
within public spaces design. These methods range
from town meetings to more sophisticated, individual
study groups. We still utilize the same principles in
addressing key issues and concepts, yet these methods
alone no longer efficiently involve the participants in
the design. Cogan observed that “with few exceptions,
a successful public involvement program incorporates
several techniques” (Cogan, et al. 1986 p. 292). Cogan
also developed a graphic representation of the
techniques that range from passive involvement to
active involvement. The public involvement spectrum
is broken down into five categories of participant
involvement.
Publicity: Publicity techniques are designed to
persuade and facilitate public support, relating to
citizens as passive consumers.
Public Education: Public education programs
present relatively complete and balanced information
so that citizens may draw their own conclusions.
Public Input: Public input techniques solicit ideas
and opinions from citizens. They are most effective
when combined with feedback mechanisms which
inform participants of the extent to which their input
has influenced ultimate decisions.
PublicInteraction:Publicinteractiontechniques
facilitate the exchange of information and ideas among
citizens, planners, and decision makers. When these
techniques are effectively utilized, each participant has
the opportunity to express his or her views, respond to
the ideas of others, and work toward consensus.
Public Partnership: Public partnerships offer
citizens a formalized role in shaping the ultimate
decisions.
T
27. professionalism
20
It is important to note that no technique belongs
distinctly to one category. In the event of a focus group,
a participant may have the opportunity to be educated
and interact with the facilitators and other participants.
Cogan’s participation spectrum argues that the target
number of participants involved in a method is related
to the degree of active involvement. This is a constraint
that is present in how planners facilitate and perceive
interactions with the community as public partnership
can be perceived as too costly and inefficient in
capturing only a small sample size. Cogan’s findings
show that a major constraint in current methods is
that active involvement is only truly effective in small
groups, which snowballs into other constraints such as
costs for these small groups or adversely inefficiency in
large groups. This chart demonstrates how important
active participation is for the community as it allows
them to feel empowered and involved in authentic
way. Clearly, many programs today can be classified as
Active or Passive, however each having their constraints
that hinder their overall warranted success.
Therefore,itcanbearguedthatatrulyeffectiveprogram
must feature active participation but also efficiently
reach a large amount of the population.
It is a fundamental ideology that everyone is a designer.
Planning cities and spaces is enormously complex with
distinct social, environmental, cultural, and economics
variables that only the local community can influence in
their vision. Planners and designer’s arrogance negates
them from considering an outside opinion. Consulting
the public is as essential as documenting an initial site
and analysis; if skipped, the design will be flawed.
”The community voice is
enormously important
in planning, not only for
political reasons, but
because the public are
the experts on their own
concerns, priorities and
preferences (Biggs, 2016, 1)
Cogan’s Participation Continuum
28. manifestations of
participation
21
brahim states that there are three commonly used
methodsfacilitatedbyplannersanddesignerstoengage
the community in design opportunities. These three
manifestations of community engagement act only as
a sampling of the current methods utilized by planners
and not as an in depth analysis of the entire field of
available community engagement efforts. Moreover,
these three manifestations correlate to three degrees of
the participant and stakeholder involvement.
E
LIGHT: Citizens who want to weigh in on an issue early in the process, but do not necessarily want to be involved in the
strategy or implementation. This involvement is usually limited to a few hours of engagement.
MEDIUM: Citizens who want to be involved in testing an idea, validating that what they are suggesting is wanted by the
community. This involves taking action to advocate for the idea in a variety of ways, including testing it in the public realm.
HEAVY: Citizens who want to be involved for the entire duration of the project, from concept to implementation. These
citizens are flexible and can commit to an undetermined (usually extended) amount of time for participation. This can be
anywhere from a few months to many years. With this nature of engagement, it is a partnership between stakeholders/
communities and decision makers to undertake the initiative together, and requires a long-view mindset.
(Ebrahim, 2016, 34)
Ebrahim’s Degree of Engagement
29. consultation
22
This method is the most widely used and facilitated
community engagement tool. This results from its
simplicity,widerangeofpotentialcommunitymembers
informed, and the fact that it is legally required for
most public space designs. Under Ebrahim’s Degree
of Engagement ecosystem, Consultations offer light
community engagement. In these forums, typically in
a town hall, the advocacy leading the forum initiates
the consultation and orchestrates it. Consultations are
rooted from our historical use of citizen engagement
of ancient Greece and Colonial New England. They are
utilized by the leading officials to inform the community
of new public concerns and the upcoming agenda and
allow the community to ask questions and debate
topics. However, public consultation has transitioned
from a powerful, democratic conversation to a one-
way communication tool for officials to not initiate
discussion but to simply inform the public and check it
off the list of requirements. (Creighton, 2005)
As these once synergistic discussions have transitioned
to a current, unbalanced information session they
have also become increasingly inaccessible to the local
public as noted earlier in the barriers that face rural and
urbancommunitiesfromattendingtheseengagements.
Ebrahim also noted that the notices advertised by
agencies and city officials are designed in such a way
that it does not appear obvious to the public that they
are intended to engage and invite them to dialogue.
This flaw in the consultation process is catalysed by
the fact that it may be required for city officials and
planners to attend these meetings but it is a choice for
the community. Decision-makers outline the processes
and agenda for the meetings, very often without
opportunities for open dialogue about the issues
that matter most to the public. If the public do attend
consultations, the opportunity for the community to
actively participate in the discussion is reserved for
the end of, sometimes very lengthy, presentations.
Ebrahim states how the itinerary of these meetings can
be very intimidating to some community members to
speak into a microphone to address their concerns
and ideas to a large number of people and how it
unrealistically can provide the opportunity for efficient
community input. The design and setting of these town
hall meetings typically give way to two outcomes and
reactions. “Firstly: adversarial, long-winded comments
coming from participants who have been waiting to
share their outrage with the institution
Ebrahim states that the corresponding methods
and levels of engagement are to be perceived as an
ecosystem rather than as a tool.
”Participation is contextual,
and these methods could
be used both in isolation
and in concert as a project
evolves. Seeing the three
manifestations as an
ecology also points to an
alternative characterization
(Ebrahim, 2015, 35)
30. tactical urbanism
Participants have adapted to the current dilemmas
associated with consultation engagement strategies
and have revolutionized the way community members
participate in the planning process by facilitating
innovative and collaborative methods of involvement.
This movement differs from consultation and
participatory design because it does not rely on the
leadership and initiation of expert decision makers
(planners, developers, designers etc.) and rather
offers a bottom up approach driven by those who live,
work and play in the local space. Gelbard states that,
“consultation participation methods seem to lack the
adaptive capacity to respond to the shifting qualities
23
(related or unrelated to the project at hand) for some
time. The second: a defeatist approach where the
participant feels overwhelmed by the environment,
circumstance, and issue, and does not voice their
opinions and insights, but does take away a scepticism
about bringing their voice to the table when “invited”
(Ebrahim, 2015).
Consultations are initiated early in the design and
developmentprocesstoshowcasefuturedevelopments
and to mitigate any future public outrage or dispute.
These early consultations are minimal in detail and
vague on tackling the large issues that may arise. These
primary steps rarely include topics that interest the
community or answer their questions as the goal in
these initial steps are to simply inform the community
and not to offer any discussion or feedback. The
decision makers often utilize these initial consultations
to simply gain exposure and to “check it off their list” of
requirements. This tokenistic approach segregates the
community from participating in any initial steps within
the design.
It is evident in how the evolution of the consultation
processhasyieldedpoorresultsfortheparticipantsand
the decision makers. Ebrahim outlined thoroughly that
the procedure of town meetings offer little to no active
participation for community members and that barriers
can restrict most from attending. As more guidelines
and requirements are installed within the consultation
method we will see improvements in these procedures,
effectiveness and efficiency. Furthermore, it is vital to
the wellbeing of the community and the end product
of the design to consult with the public in more than
an informative, tokenistic manner to gauge any future
dispute to reach the best outcome.
31. 24
of the economy, social structures, and emerging
local knowledge” (Gelbard, 2015, 277). Therefore,
this movement is a logical response to the problems
associated with participants waiting to be consulted
or engaged. This grassroots movement enables
community members to work together to reinvent and
reimagine their own surroundings from the result of city
officials poor planning strategies. One of the strongest
movements with the most momentum is Tactical
Urbanism.
”a city or citizen-led
approach to neighbourhood
building using short-term,
low-cost, and scalable
interventions, intended to
catalyse long term change
(Tactical Urbanism, 2015)
32. 25
This movement was started by The Street Plans
Collaborative in 2010. The Streets Plan Collaborative
is an award winning urban design firm that specializes
in street design and public involvement. Their concept
of tactical urbanism acts as citizen-driven, small scale
urban reinvention program that’s goal is to cater to the
local community. This approach allows a collaboration
of participation between the experts and non-experts
resulting in a balance of power to all of those involved.
The opportunities and projects associated with tactical
urbanism resemble urban experimentation and include
a variety of interventions that utilize underused and
abandoned public space. These programs capitalize
on minimal financial requirement and require just
community volunteer involvement to facilitate the
program. It has been increasingly popular in urban
centres as the disconnection between community
members and their public spaces widens. Citizens
are exercising their democratic right by this “guerilla”
movement advocating for change. Tactical urbanism
does not focus on short term goals but “to make
something - even something temporary - that will
change how a place works and is perceived. And once
that change has been made, to figure out how it can
be made again or made permanent” (Berg, 2012, 11).
This project has gained such a degree of momentum
and popularity that The Street Plans Collaborative
published a guidebook on Tactical Urbanism in 2011.
Just as the movement itself, this book was synonymous
with community engagement and became so popular
that it hit its domains limit on downloads and continues
to be a requirement for any urban planner (Berg, 2012).
Tactical urbanism clearly benefits the community
by enabling them to reinvent and reimagine their
own surroundings, however its applications in public
space reuse is beneficial to also planners and city
officials. The cooperation of outreach facilitated by
tactical urbanism portrays the decision makers as
truly invested in the future of the community; a quality
that is vacant in consultation programs. Moreover, it
acts as an inexpensive trial for community programs
without sacrificing economic resources to truly gauge
if it will positively benefit the community. Those who
practice this movement perceive barriers as design
opportunities, capitalizing on small changes that can
have large impacts that ripple throughout the social
structure of the community (Lydon, 2014). It is due to
this combination of active participation and simplistic
low risk high reward concept that makes tactical
urbanism so effective and popular.
33. 26
Ebrahim outlined how tactical urbanism offers a
refreshing approach to social interaction to create
new public spaces and offer innovative ways to
reuse existing spaces. It revitalizes old involvement
strategies that most parties have grown tired of. This
simplistic participation method can arguably be
stronger, and more permanent, if it can be combined
with another effective method of engagement. As this
growing movement continues to develop, we will see
more grassroots programs spring up to offer socially
sustainable way for communities to shape their
surroundings.
34. participatory design
27
Participatory design is a method that allows constant
community involvement and collaboration from
early conceptual stages to program and structure
implementation. This process effectively educates the
community on key pertinent planning and architectural
issues,financialspending,andzoningbylawsthatapply
todirectlytotheirpublicandprivatespaces.Thisdegree
of educating and involvement gives the community
participants a myriad of valuable information that will
aid them in developing their own collective designs and
ideas. Furthermore, it allows the community to logically
and realistically determine what issues can and need to
be addressed in the community and empowers them
to initiate discussion. Ebrahim states that the concept
of participatory design is collaboration between
participants and decision makers. Trust is built through
this collective agreement and requires an investment
of time between all parties to ensure continual
constructive discussions throughout the program’s
duration. The social bond that is forged through this
procedure will strengthen both parties and restore the
perception of trust with planners and city officials and
will increase overall understanding of the participants
wants and the decision maker’s capabilities. Ebrahim
notes that this method of community engagement is
an unusual process that differs from project to project.
This can be visualized as a non-linear process that will
require an investment of time, trust, and patience.
Participatory design was a response to renewing the
significance of a social responsibility in architecture
(Cooper, 2006). It grew in popularity in the 1960s and
offered a revitalized approach to empower citizens.
Currently, it is not common practice to implement
participatory design programs as the costs and time
investment associated with this timely process are
too high compared to consultations and tactical
urbanism approaches. Ebrahim links participatory
design with Arnstein’s ladder of participation and
notes that this method allows the highest potential
for citizen empowerment. This degree of participation
results into the highest level of commitment. This
commitment of the participants transcends into a high
level of accountability enabling them to be the “co-
designer”, ensuring all parties will work collaboratively
through barriers and disputes. Like tactical urbanism,
participatory design considers inclusion and
participation as a proactive, not reactive measure. It
requiresahighdegreeofcommitmentandparticipation
from the participants, as well as a commitment by the
decision makers, to work collaboratively for however
long it takes to complete the project (Ebrahim, 2015,
51).
The method of participatory design is implemented in
mainly two different ways. The first way is initiated by
planners and designers engaging the community in
35. 28
a preliminary vision building exercise to create abstract
visualizations of the proposed public spaced and
potential site characteristics. The integral information
gained from this experience is observed and analysed
by planners and integrated into the design. The process
allows planners to have the opportunity to ensure
the community’s vision is represented in the design
and to address unrealistic community desires. This
participatory design is ideally applied to small focus
group workshops. This simplistic style is the most
commonly used method of participatory design, as it
simply requires a series of hyper-creative consultations
that actively involve the community (Toker, 2012).
The second utilization of participatory design is
initiated by the community; a method that allows for
unprecedented citizen empowerment. This method
shares the decision making and design process equally
with the participants and decision makers, ensuring
that no final decision is made without full participation
or confirmation of all parties involved.
“This type of design program can be called: making by
the people” (Ebrahim, 2015, 52). Clearly, this process is
rarely used as it delegates an abundance of power and
jurisdiction to the community. Ebrahim notes that this
type of participatory design are “Unicorns” due to their
complexity and challenges faced.
Participatory design offers an ideal approach of
involving the community throughout the entirety
of the design. This is evident in its initial stages as
the community is actively involved compared to the
tokenistic developments of consultations. The high
cost and time investment hinders participatory design
to be a widely-used form of engagement. However, this
level of engagement and education offers unparalleled
citizen empowerment and influence in the design
of their surrounding public spaces. To overcome the
barriers of participatory design’s high costs, it may be
better mandated if orchestrated through the use of
technology to lower forum costs and catalyse the ability
to gather information.
38. Why this problem
matters
for the public
31
Participatory design is integral to a cohesive, healthy,
lively, and happy community. This design methodology
can be categorized as a ‘bottom up’ approach by
consulting those who will use the space and piecing
together segments of design concepts and ideas
to create the big picture. It is only logical to create
public spaces as the result of the community’s vision;
by ensuring this, the public spaces will be utilized
to the fullest. It is inherent to the social well being of
a community by strengthening its ability to facilitate
action in their surroundings. However, the benefits go
even deeper than the obvious of simply demand and
supply for the community.
By promoting community collaboration and education,
citizens will improve their understanding of their own
preferences as well as the collective community and
can justify those preferences with better arguments
(Chambers 1996).
”the activity of community
design is based on
the principle that the
environment works better
if the people affected by
its changes are actively
involved in its creation and
management instead of
being treated as passive
consumers (Sanoff, 1995, 35)
39. placemaking
32
This fundamental ideology will negate adversarial, win-
lose approach and understand that their community
ambitions are interconnected with others and that
although their social identities conflict they “are
tied to each other in a common recognition of their
interdependence” (Chambers 1996).
Decades of poor designing and community planning
has resulted in a disconnection in the community
between one another and their public spaces.
Communities no longer are about enjoying the spaces
around them but are designed to be secluded from one
another. This social downfall has spurred a movement
across North America called ‘Place Making’. This
movement is instrumental in Project for Public Spaces
and places emphasis not on building spaces around
our communities; rather building communities centred
around public spaces that draw the community.
‘Placemaking inspires people to collectively reimagine
and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every
community’. Enabling the community to work together
in a collaborative manner allows a wider range of ideas
and feedback to be shared and less arguments and
disputes to arise. The concept of placemaking logically
utilizes the communities local character, location,
inspiration, values, and potential. Designing with the
acknowledgment of these goals will result in closer,
vibrant, and healthy cities.
A survey conducted by Project for Public Spaces
asked people what public spaces meant to them.
The results of the survey concluded that participatory
design and place making are a crucial and deeply-
valued commodity for those who feel intimately
connected to the places in their lives. Placemaking
through participatory design successfully brings the
community together and sparks the realization of how
powerful their collective vision can be. Reinvigorated
and vibrant public spaces such as parks, downtown
squares, plazas, trails, markets, and waterfronts can be
a realistic outcome by simply allowing the community
to collectively reinvent their surroundings.
”deliberation is expected to
lead to empathy with the
other and a broadened
sense of people’s own
interests through an
egalitarian, open-minded
and reciprocal process of
reasoned argumentation
(Mendelberg, 2002, 153)
40. power
for planners
33
A theme that is evident throughout this paper,
Arnstein’s ladder advocated that citizen participation is
citizen power. The importance of public participation is
evident in any successful democracy or community as
it encourages the public to voice meaningful input and
feedback into the decision-making process (Wouters,
2008). When included in the design process and
implementation; those involved can see the value of
direct participation in a plan and can feel empowered
if they see their ideas or issues reflected or addressed
in the design. This empowerment and inclusion is
critical to community members across Canada as
citizen participation is citizen power. This redistribution
of power strengthens all community members,
especially the low-income class; a demographic
who so rarely is included in the social processes and
consulted on future urban developments (Arnstein,
1969) This empowerment is the embodiment of citizen
engagement as it provides all community members the
abilitytocreatesocialchangeintheirlocalcommunities
and public spaces.
the process as well. Including and informing the
community in the design process allows planners to
observe and listen to those who work, live, and play
in the local setting; this allows them to understand
what the site truly needs. However, planners rarely
experience all the benefits associated with a successful
community engagement campaign.
The perception of planners and developers within
the process of public participation is critical as it
can either strengthen or weaken a community’s
outlook on city officials. For planners, most proposed
community plans require some method of community
engagement. If successful, the public involvement can
lead to future improved planning policies and personal
satisfaction. Arnstein’s ladder is utilized by planners in
assessing their own perception of a program’s purpose
and compare it to the anticipated perceptions of the
community. In the event of a successful community
involvement campaign, the differences between both
Public outreach is integral within the planning
process of all proposed developments within and
near communities, this can be seen through the
empowermentofthecommunity.Thearrayofbeneficial
outcomes is not solely experienced by the participants,
but the planners and developers who are orchestrating
41. for government
34
Clearly, citizens are beginning to lose trust in decision
maker’s policies and program implementation. Yet the
government is even more so losing trust and relations
with their citizens. Citizen trust in Communities across
Canada and with their government has created social
and political tension. This tension is due to neglect
and a lack of redistribution of power. The government
is focussed on economic progress and in doing so
are fragmenting neighbourhoods to build highways,
designing car centric cities, and creating pockets of
poverty and wealth; alienating communities (Hester,
2006).
party’s perception should be minimal. However, when
the differences of perceptions of the program’s purpose
arevast,conflictanddisputeareimminent.Thisconflict,
in most cases, leaves a devastating impact on the
community and gives way to a perception of mistrust
towards city officials. Therefore, it is vital for planners to
be as actively as involved in the participatory process
as their own participants. The disconnection between
community members and their public spaces is well
documented and inevitably leads to a sense of mistrust
and neglect from the city. Planners and the community
participants can experience a vast amount of benefits
from an effective and efficient collaboration.
City officials need to design with the community and
not just for it; they must take advantage of the local
assets and involve citizens in each stage of the process.
Hester advocates this in any democracy and coins it
Ecological Democracy: “Government by the people
emphasizing direct, hands on involvement.” (Hester,
2006). Having an actively engaged country will enhance
Canada’s social, political, and economic system. If
Arnstein advocates citizen participation equals citizen
power, faith in the democratic process will be enhanced
as people who deliberate become empowered and feel
that their government truly is “of the people” (Fishkin
1995). Citizens will then have the opportunity to be
engaged in civic affairs within their local and federal
government. The government will facilitate political
decisions that will become more understood by the
citizens and potential impacts can be addressed in the
primary stages.
”
”
In democracies like ours, trust
is a critical currency. In many
ways, we are paralyzed without
it. It is critical to building the
necessary public and political
support needed to create
meaningful change in our
communities (Biggs, 2016, 3)
In the process of city
building, building
community has been lost
(Hester, 2006, 4)
42. opportunities
35
t is evident that the current approach of simply
consulting and informing the public is not an effective
way to include them in the design. This paper has
examined how barriers prohibit community members
from attending and how the decision maker’s tokenistic
approach mitigates any authentic collaboration.
Plannersmustusemorethanoneapproachinengaging
the community and must exhibit an enthusiastic
approach in gaining invaluable community insight.
The opportunities for an authentic platform for the
community to voice their ideas to allow planners
to create better cities can become reality. Recently,
innovative minds have addressed this issue by
overcomingthesebarrierstoempowerparticipants.The
methods stem from what Ebrahim analysed as tactical
urbanism, and are a revolutionary way of increasing
efficient participation. Moreover, the concept of tactical
urbanism delivers a degree of community
empowerment by actively seeking out change in their
publicspaces.Utilizingabottomupapproachensuresa
redistribution of power. Their brilliancy lies within their
simplicity and high level of community participation.
These recent methods overcome many obstacles
hindering effective community design, however their
ability to reach many people within the community or
members living in rural areas is still a constraint.
I
43. technology
36
Technology may be disconnecting people from nature
but its potential to act for a beacon of community ideas
and information is astronomical. By using an online
platform, the issues of accessibility, difficulty of voicing
ideas, and time and cost investments can be mitigated.
The top down approach of community planning is no
longer efficient and it is only logical to utilize the tools
already provided to us.
The proposition of crowdsourcing community ideas for
planners to analyse and implement is a method that
cities need to make a reality
Crowdsourcing therefore can harvest ideas, data, and
input from the community in an unprecedented way.
Enabling the community to easily input their collective
ideas creates optimal opportunities for vibrant spaces
andinnovativeideas.Theonlinecollaborationofuniting
community members, solving problems, and sharing
ideas will promote offline results. Crowdsourcing
emphasizes a bottom up approach that will ensure
a redistribution of power and minimize inefficient
planning methods.
Furthermore, this branch of tactical urbanism will
expose the real issues within a community from the
smallest complaint to the largest community issue;
igniting active citizen participation.
Technology’s potential to catalyse community
engagement is clear, however this paper has outlined
that no approach works on its own. It is vital to pair
this bottom up concept with an effective method
that is facilitated by decision makers. Together, they
complement each other well ensuring an opportunity
for community engagement with accountability for
planners and opportunity to educate pertinent zoning
by laws and requirements.
”
”
Crowd Sourcing
decentralizes decision-
making by utilizing large
groups of people to assist
with solving problems,
generating ideas, funding,
generating data, and
making decisions (Smith,
2016, 2)
Citizens are the assets
of a city and with active
participation, creativity and
ideas will foster concepts
of accountability and
transparency in response
to community problems
(Collins, 2016, 1)
44. experiment
37
ith the echoing theme of promoting active
participation and community involvement, it was
only logical for me to conduct an experiment with my
research and opportunities of crowd sourcing in mind.
I decided to embark on the GORBA trails in Guelph
Lake, a trail system frequented by hikers, dog walkers,
and mountain bikers. I situated myself at the starting
confluence of the trail where bikers and hikers separate,
just off Victoria road. My goal for this experiment was
simple: Ask the participants what they would like to see
improved with these trails, any recommendations, or
any constructive feedback at all. The methodology of
this experiment consisted of me observing their input
and recording their responses in a list format on a large
sheet. From there they could also observe other users
recommendations and had the option to vote those
ideas up or down; mimicking a crowd sourced platform.
My experiment was brief but efficient; simplistic but
effective.Thishasraisedevenmoreconsiderationforthe
potential of a crowdsourced platform for involvement.
It also provides opportunity for the decision makers, in
this case GORBA or GRCA, to address the top ideas and
give feedback. If an app or web based platform could
engage community members when they are simply out
for an afternoon walk the possibilities to create public
spaces as the result of the community’s vison is endless.
W
45. gorba trail
17
20
15
9
8
4
4
2
5
16
12
17
14
15
9
feedback
VOTES IDEA
INCREASE SIGNAGE
INCREASE WATER DRAINAGE ON PATH
BETTER PARKING
PROVIDE WASTE BINS
MORE BIKE JUMPS
BOARDWALKS
DOG PARK
GRAVEL PATHS
LESS LITTER
INCREASE TRAIL CONNECTIVITY
INCREASE TRAIL DIVERSITY
SAFER CROSSWALK
MORE REST STOPS
MORE PLACES TO SIT
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
38
PARTICIPANTS:32people,rangingfromteenagers
to elderly. Most repeat visitors.
TOP TRENDING IDEA: Increased signage
LOWEST TRENDING IDEA: Gravel Paths
46. conclusion
39
ublic spaces are a priceless asset to all community
members; they provide places that characterize the
local surroundings and emphasise the natural features
of a place. These vibrant spaces create a welcoming
presence that promote social interaction and are
the backbone of any community. Why then do we
undervalue their opinions and ideas and totally exclude
them from the design process? Clearly the current
methods and approaches by planners disconnect the
community from eachother and their local spaces.
If new community engagement innovations can be
implemented that actively involve citizens and enable
a redistribution of power, this can change.
P
47.
48. referencesArnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of
the American Institute of Planners
A Ladder of Citizen Participation - Sherry R Arnstein. (2006). Re-
trieved November 10, 2016, from http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-
arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html#d0e132
Berg, N. (2012). The Official Guide to Tactical Urbanism. Retrieved
February 2, 2015, from http://www.citylab.com/design/2012/03/
guide-tactical-urbanism/1387/
Biggs, D. (2016). How Community Engagement Can Restore Trust
in Government. Retrieved November 10, 2016, from http://www.
planetizen.com/node/88483/how-community-engagement-can-
restore-trust-government
Chambers. S. (1996). Reasonable Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press.
Cogan, A., Sharpe, S., & Hertzberg, J. (1986). Citizen Participation.
The Practice of State and Regional Planning
Collins, L. (2016, March 17). Empowered Design, By ‘The Crowd’
Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://www.planetizen.com/
node/85008/empowered-design-crowd
Cooper, R. W. F. (2006). Participatory Architecture in Montreal: Three
Case Studies. Concordia University
Creighton, J. L. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook: Making
Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement. John Wiley & Sons.
Ebrahim, Z. (2015). Eating Spinach: Future implications of con-
temporary methods for citizen participation in design. Retrieved
November 10, 2016, from http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/249/1/
Ebrahim_Zahra_2015_MDes_SFIN_MRP.pdf
Fishkin, J. S. (1997). The Voice of the People. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Gelbard, S. (2015, January). Design Citizens: Professional-Grass-
roots Urban Tactics. Spacing
Hester, R. (2006) Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum - c.ymcdn.com. (2014). Re-
trieved November 10, 2016, from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.
iap2.org/resource/resmgr/Foundations_Course/IAP2_P2_Spec-
trum.pdf
Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action
for Long-Term Change. Island Press.
Mendelberg, T. (2002). THE DELIBERATIVE CITIZEN: THEORY AND
EVIDENCE. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.prince-
ton.edu/~talim/mendelberg - deliberative citizen.pdf
Muse, S., & Narsiah, S. (2015). Public Participation in Selected Civi-
lizations: Problems and Potentials. Retrieved November 4, 2016,
from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSSA/JSSA-06-
0-000-15-Web/JSSA-06-3-000-15-Abst-PDF/JSSA-06-3-415-15-174-
Muse-S-A/JSSA-06-3-415-174-Muse-S-A-Tx[12].pdf
Planning Analysis: The Theory of Citizen Participation. (2003).
Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://pages.uoregon.edu/rgp/
PPPM613/class10theory.htm
Rural Health Care Introduction - British Columbia. (2007). Retrieved
November 4, 2016, from http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/
publications/year/2007/conversation_on_health/PartII/PartII_Ru-
ralCare.pdf
Sanoff, H. (1999). Community Participation Methods in Design and
Planning (1st ed.). Wiley.
Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially
inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and
social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies,
24(4), 450-457. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001
Smith, K. L. (2016). Four Steps to Enhanced Crowdsourcing.
Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://www.planetizen.com/
node/86045/four-steps-enhanced-crowdsourcing
Tactical Urbanism. (2015). Retrieved March 7, 2015, from http://
tacticalurbanismguide.com
What is Placemaking? - Project for Public Spaces. (2015). Retrieved
November 04, 2016, from http://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_
placemaking/
Wouters. (2008). Evaluating public inputs in National Park Manage-
ment Plan reviews. Retrieved November 4, 2016, from http://www.
doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/sfc308a.pdf
49. list of images
Photos not cited taken by me.
Arnstein, S. (1969). Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation [Digital image]. Retrieved from
http://www.georgejulian.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Arnsteins-ladder-
1969-cropped.jpg
Cogan’s Participation Continuum [Digital image]. (2012). Retrieved from http://pages.
uoregon.edu/rgp/PPPM613/class10theory.htm
Colonial Meeting [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from https://
zapier.cachefly.net/storage/photos/cd64398eb90a20dc664637935968e422.jpg
Community Engagement Framework [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/images/general-information/communi-
ty-engagement-framework/communityengagementframeworkcropped.jpg
Ebrahim. (2015). Ebrahim’s Degree of Engagement [Digital image]. Retrieved Novem-
ber 23, 2016, from http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/249/1/Ebrahim_Zahra_2015_MDes_
SFIN_MRP.pdf
Fancy Crave [Bridge]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fancycrave.com/post/152392104198/
download-by-aaron-birch
Fancy Crave [Phone]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fancycrave.com/post/142911552777/
download-by-firmbee
Fancy Crave [Phone2]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fancycrave.com/
post/140443806658/download-by-danistsaypeng
Fancy Crave [Girl]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fancycrave.com/post/149172021845/
download-by-mike-wilson
Fancy Crave [Bubblel]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fancycrave.com/
post/145622816145/download-by-jordan-mcqueen
Fancy Crave [Bench]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fancycrave.com/post/145554764639/
download-by-michal-jarmoluk
Fancy Crave [Fence]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://fancycrave.com/post/146008126229/
download-by-cameron-kirby
Flickr [Collaboration]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/rebarartc-
ollective/7136979003/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Notes]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/rebarartcollec-
tive/6991006882/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Board]. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/notan-
artist/6172261600/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Drawing]. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaf-
cp/8229192102/in/faves-137089567@N04
Flickr [Model]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/austintexas-
gov/7999895134/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Urban Design]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/austintex-
asgov/7999895307/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Delegation]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/austintexas-
gov/7999905604/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Public Spaces]. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/car-
losalk/16137274140/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Chalkboard]. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/11374850@
N07/9310813282/in/faves-137089567@N04/
Flickr [Court]. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/joep-
po/12710084923/in/faves-137089567@N04/
IAP2. (n.d.). IAP2 Spectrum [Spectrum]. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://c.
ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/Foundations_Course
[Meeting]. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/rurallearningcent-
er/5683657711/in/faves-137089567@N04/
New Old Stock Photo (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nos.twnsnd.co/im-
age/148694167567
New Old Stock Photo [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://
nos.twnsnd.co/image/147701723702
New Old Stock Photo [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://
nos.twnsnd.co/image/141205304562
New Old Stock Photo [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://
nos.twnsnd.co/image/140510999654
Parking Day [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://agile-city.
com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PARKingDay0091.jpg
Parking Day Streets [Digital image]. (2012). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from https://
mobileplanning.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/tumblr_mbl97xvfok1rfj7tpo1_12801.jpg
PPS. (2015). Project For Public Spaces [Successful Spaces]. Retrieved from http://www.
pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/
[Rural Isolation]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from https://aotw-pd.
s3.amazonaws.com/styles/aotw_detail_ir/s3/images/rural_isolation_bestads.
jpg?itok=BIv7jiY1
University of Toronto [Community Engagement]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016,
from https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/student-life/sites/files/student-life/public/shared/
images/CE Wordle.png
[User Design]. (2015). Retrieved from https://twitter.com/docandrewmurray/sta-
tus/657439220970213376/photo/1
Vibrant Spaces (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://www.beta.uclg-
planning.org/sites/default/files/whd3.jpg
