Charrettes lecture dundee_2

The Practice of Charrettes: From Norway and Transylvania to the UKDr Susan Parham, Head of Urbanism, Centre for Sustainable Communities

www.uh-‐sustainable.co.uk

Today’s presentation

The background – situating charrettes

• Need to situate charrettes within broad trends in which participation in planning and design processes has moved from edge to mainstream

• Variations of participative process now found in all kinds of planning and design regimes at all levels – supranational, national, regional, sub-regional, city wide, neighbourhood and very local

• Why? Changes driven by ‘bottom up’ citizen activist movements of the 1960s/1970s (cf Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’, reaction to comprehensive ‘renewal’ processes)

• Focus on participative democracy reflects ‘crisis of legitimacy of the state’ and the ‘democratic deficit’

• Participative approaches can act as counter balance to ‘top down’ processes of planning and development

• Participation in planning and design can be aspect of good ‘governance’ of place• Can reflect more reflexive approach by government, business, social stakeholders

The background - charrette practice and urbanism

Sustainable urbanism: before the crash….

“As the housing market becomes ever more pressurised, Britain is embarking on a series of massive urban developments under the banner of the government’s growth agenda. There is a great opportunity to take advantage of this development and regeneration programme to change the face of the country for the better – to produce walkable communities on a human scale, with local character and a sense of identity, which provide for social balance and show respect for the environment. But equally there is an enormous danger that the mistakes of previous waves of 20th century comprehensive development may be repeated, and more ‘nowhere’ places produced offering no particular identity or sense of community cohesion, no new hopes or possibilities for our weakest social groups”.Valuing Sustainable Urbanism, PFBE, 2007

Downturn a chance to reflect and improve design based engagement/placemaking?

The background to charrette practice

Sustainable urbanism principles….

Charrettes’ theoretical underpinnings

Arnstein’s ladder of participation (1969) justly famous

• Citizen Control• Delegated Power• Partnership• Placation • Consultation• Informing• Therapy • Manipulation

“Jumping off Arnstein's ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation“Kevin Collins and Ray Ison, Environmental Policy and Governance, Volume 19, Issue 6, pages 358–373 November/December 2009

“The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein” Jonathan Quetzal Trittera, Alison McCallumb, Health Policy, Volume 76, Issue 2, Pages 156-168 (April 2006)

“Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms?” Brian W. Head, Australian Journal of Political Science, Volume 42, Number 3, September 2007 , pp. 441-454

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.v19:6/issuetoc




Situating charrettes - from theory to practice….

Charrette processes moving to the mainstream…engagement at the heart of the process

Take up of charrettes reflects way stakeholder engagement now the mainstream language (and practice) of public policy, management consultancy, public relations, and business strategic planning and CSR.“Engagement is the process of exchanging information, listening to and learning from stakeholders - with the goal of building understanding and trust on issues of mutual Interest. http://www.sustainability.com/researchandadvocacy/program_article.asp?id=1194

“Community Engagement or Community Action: Choosing Not to Play the Game” James Martin Whelan and Kristen Lyons, Journal of Environmental Politics, (2005) pp596-610, No 14

http://www.sustainability.com/researchandadvocacy/program_article.asp?id=1194






Situating charrettes and the mainstreaming of engagement

Increasing the democracy of design?The language of engagement now permeates public policy but is this a form of incorporation? Does it reflect real shifts in power? Can the practice of charrettes move us beyond this?

Engagement through charrette practice

Charrettes as part of the ‘palette’ of engagement methods in urbanism practice

Now 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

But what exactly is an urban design and planning charrette?Some working definitions

Definition from The Town Paper

“A charrette is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers and others collaborate on a vision for development. It provides a forum for ideas and offers the unique advantage of giving immediate feedback to the designers. More importantly, it allows everyone who participates to be a mutual author of the plan.”http://www.tndtownpaper.com/what_is_charrette.htm

An alternative charrette definition from Kingston University, Department of Landscape Architecture, 2009

“Design Charrette - Typically a collaborative session in which a group of designers drafts a solution to a design problem. While the structure of a charrette varies, depending on the design problem and the individuals 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 then presents its work to the full group as material for future dialogue. Such charrettes serve as a way of quickly generating a design solution while integrating the aptitudes and interests of a diverse group of people.”

http://www.tndtownpaper.com/what_is_charrette.htm


Defining the urban design and planning charrette

An historical note

“The term "charrette" is derived from the French word for "little cart." In Paris during the 19th century, professors at the Ecole de Beaux Arts circulated with little carts to collect final drawings from their students. Students would jump on the "charrette" to put finishing touches on their presentation minutes before the deadline.”




The urban design and planning charrette: structure

How the charrette is organised

“The charrette is located near the project site. The team of design experts and consultants sets up 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 and updates to the plan are presented periodically.”




The urban design and planning charrette: process

The 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 all aspects of design. Third, since the input of all the players is gathered at one event, it is possible to avoid the prolonged discussions that typically delay conventional planning projects. Finally, the finished result is produced more efficiently and cost-effectively because the process is collaborative.”




The urban design and planning charrette: process

NCI system demonstrates useful points about good charrette practice

“Phase 1 - Careful stakeholder research and analysis guards against mishandling key parties who, if overlooked, may become project blockers. The early public kick-off workshop creates trust and educates a community

Phase 2 - The multiple-day charrette maximizes the opportunities for members of the public to participate – day or night, weekday or weekend. Multiple-days provide the design team time to work through concepts with key stakeholders and to respond to the unexpected

Phase 3 - The post-charrette phase provides a safety net for engaging those who may have missed the charrette. Follow-up public meetings provide another chance for stakeholders to participate in a design feedback loop”

http://www.charretteinstitute.org/projects/community-planning.html



The urban design and planning charrette: engagement

The charrette’s engagement aspects

“Charrettes are organized to encourage the participation of all. That includes everyone who is interested in the making of a development: the developer, business interests, government officials, interested residents, and activists. Ultimately, the purpose of the charrette is to give all the participants enough information to make good decisions during the planning process.”


Issues from any sector are aired, explored and tested – “live”

Parallel, not serial, engagement – those contributing hear multiple perspectives

All inputs are recorded, how they are processed is auditable – understand why, and why not

Perspectives are actively sought, not reactively received



The urban design and planning charrette: a design refinement process

Feedback loops…

The urban design and planning charrette: refinement process

Image from Maudsley Hospital Charrette process in UK, 2008. Run by Bill Lennertz using NCI principleshttp://www.maudsleyredesign.co.uk/about.html

Feedback loops in detail…

http://www.maudsleyredesign.co.uk/about.html






Examples of charrette practice in the UK and abroad

Not all charrettes are exactly the same in approach

Some examples…

National Charrette Institute in US - provides a “proven, flexible, three-step framework that can be customized for your project.” http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html

The Centre for Sustainable Communities at University of Hertfordshire conducts an ongoing program offering entire range of NCI training, specifically adapted for practice in the UK, including local case studies. http://www.intbau.org/news.htm#NCIEU0909

Prince’s Foundation undertakes a number of significant scale Enquiry by Design processes which are analagous to charrettes http://www.princes-foundation.org/index.php?id=33

INTBAU and partners charrettes in places including Norway, Romania and Cuba - has developed and run a range of charrettes which have pioneered the use of concurrent planning courses and social surveys

http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html

http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html

http://www.intbau.org/news.htm

http://www.intbau.org/news.htm

http://www.princes-foundation.org/index.php?id=33


Enquiries by Design

Prince’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 a new or revived community. …The EbD is usually staged over five days and varies according to the size and complexity of the site. The outcome is a vision that unifies everyone involved in the development, including those who will eventually give planning permission. This intense five-day workshop is normally preceded by one or more two-day scoping workshops, to gather technical information, conduct a thorough physical analysis of the site and its surroundings and produce a Pattern Book - a study of nearby villages, towns and neighbourhoods which identifies prevalent local spatial types which should be drawn upon for the design of the new development.”




EbD examples: Crewkerne, South Somerset

EbD Examples: Landarcy, Wales

EbD engagement on design: North Baddesley and Romsey, Hampshire

Charrette practice examples: INTBAU, CEU and partners, Åfjord, Central Norway, 2009

Charrette practice examples: Åfjord Central Norway, 2009

Charrette practice examples: Åfjord, Central Norway, 2009

Charrette practice examples: Brokelandsheia, Central Norway, 2009

Charrette practice examples: INTBAU and partners, Petrova, Maramures, Transylvania, 2008

Charrette practice examples: INTBAU and partners, Laslea, Transylvania, 2003

Charrette practice examples: Făgăraș Atelier de Urbanism, Carpathian region of Transylvania, 2012

http://atelierdeurbanism.wordpress.com/


















UK charrette examples: The Hertfordshire Charrette - Establishing The Most Sustainable Design Options For Hertfordshire

The (now abandoned) East of England Plan included government targets for an additional 82,300 homes in Hertfordshire. As with other regions, the core issues facing the county are the standard of existing housing and the requirement for further homes and development. The Hertfordshire Charrette was a collaborative exercise involving the University of Hertfordshire, BRE, Turnberry Consulting and urban designers, DPZ. Held in June/July 2008, the main focus of the charrette was the future growth of the county and how this could be carried out in the most sustainable manner possible.

http://www.building4change.com/page.jsp?id=74





UK charrette examples: The Hertfordshire Charrette - Establishing The Most Sustainable Design Options For Hertfordshire

There were a number of workshops attended by designers, planners, councillors, business owners and the general public to discuss views and visions for the best way forward. These sessions provided an ideal platform to address the social and environmental issues relating to development whilst shaping strategies which respond to Hertfordshire's character and landscape. BRE provided an on-going sustainability assessment of the key workshop outputs using the GreenPrint sustainability framework.

UK charrette examples: The Old Hatfield Charrette

UK charrette examples: Deptford Creekside charrette, London, 2008

“The charrette process should set a precedent for future consultations on redevelopment and regeneration for Creekside and other areas. The key being that it is employed at the start of the design process when minds are open, rather than consultation at the end of a design process when minds are closed and battle lines drawn. These proposals were put together by a multidisciplinary team of 26, who worked for six long days, held six public meetings, held one to ones and smaller group meetings and engaged with at least 350 stakeholders. The team met with passionate engagement, optimism, despair, anger and joy. There is still time to think about Creekside 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 place we urge you to read this document and to take note of its ideas”

Quote from charrette report by Design for London www.creeksidecharrette.org

http://www.creeksidecharrette.org

http://www.creeksidecharrette.org

UK charrette examples: Elsick Charrette, Scotland, 2008

‘Mini charrette’ processHanbury Hall, Inner East London, 2010

Using charrette principles – including design ‘feedback loops’ in a ‘squeezed’ one day or half day format

Other charrette style examples: Railway Street Masterplan, Brierfield, Pendle, UK (Urbed)

Critique of charrettes as a design and engagement process

Key strengths of the charrette process

Saves time and money, Increases probability for implementation, promotes trust between communities, developers and government, results in the best sustainable design

Argued weaknesses

Use of single type of process - does not use the wider range of engagement processes that might be suitable for participatory planning

Role of charrette facilitator - can be manipulator/maintain too much control

Bond, S. and Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2007) Public participation and New Urbanism: a conflicting agenda? Planning Theory and Practice 8(4):pp. 449-472. 2007 http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3833/

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3833/




The urban design and planning engagement process: public policy under Labour

In 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. Referenced charrettes, “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 active citizenship and give people more say over local services.

Planning is already one of the most democratic processes with the majority of decisions taken by elected local councillors. But too often decisions become contentious because of the perceived lack of public involvement in decisions that leave under represented groups frustrated and disenchanted.

The planning empowerment grants announced today will help tackle this sense of injustice by encouraging councils to secure greater legitimacy for decisions by placing some power in the hands of local communities generating a vibrant, engaged and healthier local democracy.”

http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/planningandbuilding/1006771

The urban design and planning engagement process: public policy now – Localism Bill and beyond

Roll forward to 2012 and charrettes have received positive mention in Planning Advice Note 3 on Community Engagement (Scottish Government) and in the new Localism Bill. National Planning Policy Framework suggests strong role for design and engagement in planning and development process:

“The draft Framework sets out nationally important issues and leaves other matters for local councils and communities to decide themselves. So communities can plan to meet their needs, without the Government always getting in the way and telling them what to do”. Those bringing forward development are “expected to play their part by recognising and responding to the needs of communities”. (Draft NPPF, 2011: 5).

“Developers will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve design proposals that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate good engagement with the community in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.” (Draft National Planning Policy Framework, 2011: 34)

The urban design and planning engagement process: National Planning Policy Framework

Framework makes the point that timely engagement can mean less opposition to a proposed development and offer opportunities for communities to play a bigger part in place shaping in future.

‘Front loading’ of the process is consistently advocated to make sure issues are ironed out with communities before planning applications are made.

Framework stresses the need for early engagement between developers and councils, as well as between developers and surrounding communities and statutory agencies.

“Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties. Good quality pre-application discussion enables better coordination between public and private resources and improved outcomes to the community.” (National Planning Policy Framework, 2011: 21)

The urban design and planning engagement process: related policy aspects

Local planning authorities in England have been invited by the government to apply for grants under the Neighbourhood Planning Front Runners scheme. The grants are being used to help local planning authorities gain insight into how the provisions for neighbourhood planning are likely to work in practice following Commencement of the Localism Bill. Councils are being expected to undertake a planning project in close collaboration with an established community group or parish council in a manner similar to that envisaged in the Localism Act, or, in business areas, with a local business organisation.

Also a new role for local communities through Neighbourhood Plans to, identify opportunities to give planning permissions through Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/neighbourhoodplanningvanguards/




The urban design and planning engagement process: responses to present governmental position

Not everyone convinced by this – and there are implications for sustainable design and placemaking outcomes and process of getting there:

"Economic growth is generally set to trump the aspirations of local communities expressed in local and neighbourhood plans. The relationship between the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the primacy of locally-led development plans is not clear”. (RTPI)

Are development proposals agreed on the basis of ‘the presumption’ likely to cause ongoing conflicts with local groups that undermine rather than support the planning process? (CSC)

The Scottish Government Planning Note 3 andSustainable Communities Charrette Series (SCCI)

The urban design and planning engagement process: Scottish Government Planning Advice Note 3 2010

“Whatever the circumstances, it is important that all stakeholders know the extent to which they can be involved in planning decisions, taking into account the practical limits of the process and the constraints within which it operates. For instance, while development plans will set out the planning authority's policies and proposals, whether development will actually occur on a piece of land will also depend on subsequent regulatory processes, such as the need for planning consent, and a host of other factors including the landowner's aspirations for the site”.


Being clear about terms used

“The term 'consultation' is used to mean the dynamic process of dialogue between individuals or groups, based on a genuine exchange of views and, normally, with the objective of influencing decisions, policies or programmes of action.

The terms 'engagement' and 'involvement' are generally interchangeable and are taken to mean the establishment of effective relationships with individuals or groups.

Participation is everything that enables people to influence the decisions and get involved in the actions that affect their lives. In the context of this document engagement is, in effect, giving people a genuine opportunity to have a say on a development plan or proposal which affects them; listening to what they say and reaching a decision in an open and transparent way taking account of all views expressed”


Principles of community engagement

1.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 is where 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 - for example societal groups (based on race, faith, ethnicity, disability, age, gender or sexual orientation), members of sports clubs and heritage or cultural groups. Each community will have different desires and needs which have to be balanced against the desires and needs of others”.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/08/30094454/3




Community Engagement in Planning

“Effective engagement with the public can lead to better plans, better decisions and more satisfactory outcomes and can help to avoid delays in the planning process. It also improves confidence in the fairness of the planning system.

The Scottish Government expects engagement with the public to be meaningful and to occur from the earliest stages in the planning process to enable community views to be reflected in development plans and development proposals.

Minimum requirements for consultation and engagement in the planning system are established through legislation. Advice on community engagement in the planning system, linked to the National Standards for Community Engagement, is provided in PAN 81 Community Engagement.


How the process is expected to work

Everyone has the right to comment on any planning application which is being considered by a planning authority. Legitimate public concern or support expressed on a relevant planning matter should be a consideration in planning decisions.

Planning authorities must ensure that communities are given the opportunity to get involved in the preparation of development plans. Planning authorities and developers should ensure appropriate and proportionate steps are taken to engage with communities when planning policies and guidance are being developed, when development 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 available opportunities for engaging constructively with developers and planning authorities.

Close working with communities can help to identify and overcome sensitivities or concerns associated with new development. Liaison committees can have a role in offering communities greater involvement in the operation of mineral extraction sites and other similar developments.

The urban design and planning engagement process: Scottish Government Charrette Series

As part of the Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative (SSCI), a Charrette Series was held between 1 and 25 March 2010. The SSCI Charrette Series provided a unique and innovative opportunity for Scotland to develop new approaches to sustainable planning while enabling a new level of public engagement in the place-making process.

A 'charrette' is an interactive and intensive multi-disciplinary event that engages local people with experts to develop designs for their community. It is a hands-on approach where ideas are translated into plans and drawings.

The urban design and planning engagement process: Scottish Government Charrette SeriesThe charrettes developed designs for three of the SSCI exemplar projects at: Ladyfield, Dumfries; Lochgelly, Fife; and Grandhome, Aberdeen. This involved a series of intense design workshops lead by the internationally acclaimed designer, Andres Duany, each engaging with key stakeholders to deliver community masterplans and a vision of vibrant future communities.

The events featured large, public presentations, encouraging the views of local communities to help formulate the visions, as well as several specific meetings for special interest groups within each of the sites' local areas. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/AandP/Projects/SSCI/SSCICharretteSeries

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/AandP/Projects/SSCI/SSCICharretteSeries






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? (Supported by 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 in given 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 new airports and heavy rail? etc)Waste and pollution (nuclear waste, air pollution etc…)

The urban design and planning engagement process: Can charrettes work at the ‘big bits of kit’ scale?

Infrastructure Planning Commission

The Infrastructure Planning Commission is the independent body that examines applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects. These are the large projects that support the economy and vital public services, including railways, large wind farms, power stations, reservoirs, harbours, airports and sewage treatment works.

“With pressure on the UK’s ageing energy and transport infrastructures mounting, is it time to put projects of national importance ahead of local concerns? Or does this bypass our democratic right to object?”

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects

Dr Susan [email protected]

Charrettes lecture dundee_2

Technology

Transcript of Charrettes lecture dundee_2