2. Organised by Husam Al Waer
Professor of Environmental Geoscience Dean of the
School of the Environment
3. public life
economic
leverage
efficiencies
resources
collaboration
Managing change
Symposium 1:
Masterplanning process under current conditions
Observations:
• Context: people and place matter
• Clarity: what is the strategic intent?
• Client: what is the role of the end user?
• Collaboration: how are people involved?
• Change: it is a constant
Issues:
• Engagement by design: how ?
• Charrette: status?
Conditionmaking and priorities
Masterplanning process
4. Community Charrettes
How they are made, where they fit
Tensions:
• Authenticity: ‘theatre’ or open process?
• Context: style driven or place driven?
• Status: fit statutory plans or separate?
• Impact: Fast design, slow delivery?
Propositions: responding to place by design
• Collaboration [Robinson]
• Practice [Parham]
• Policy [Thompson]
Symposium 2:
The practice of community charrette design in the UK
Engagement
Real time
decisions?
Speed
Concentrated
resources?
priorities
Informing masterplanning process
5. Presentations:
• Pragmatism of Charettes-
UoD research: Hina
Hinari
• Knowledge-dialogue-
place: Sandy Robinson
• Practice of Community
Charettes: Susan Parham
• Place frameworks-
learning from charettes:
David Thompson
6. 1
Pragmatism of Charrette
Views from stakeholders
Hina Hirani
MSc, B.Arch (Hons), RIBA, RIAS
hina.hirani@gmail.com
26th October 2012
The Practice of Community Charrettes Design in the UK (Symposium)
7. Whom did I interview?
• Those involved in
delivery of the project
(private interests)
• Those who determine
the context (public
interests)
• Directly affected - local
community
• Indirectly affected depending
upon the context (wider
community / interest groups)
• Academics (charrette &
planning discipline)
• Media & campaign
groups
• Users / clients for other
projects
Group 2:
Affect the project
Group 3:
Affected by the project
Group 1:
Experts / Independents
2
25 interviews in total across 3 groups
8. What did I ask?
3
Open ended discussions lasting between 30 to 90 minutes
9. What did I learn about charrette?
4
Strong view from most stakeholders on Charrette being better at
understanding the need of end user than conventional planning process
Theme
1
Theme
2
Theme
3
Theme
4
Theme
5
Stakeholder engagement and ‘feedback loops’
Collaboration between stakeholders
Vision and outcomes
Accelerated timescale for dealing with complex issues
Leadership, knowledge and skill-set
Group 1&2 believed ‘it is well plugged into the community. It provides opportunity to increase
stakeholders engagement ‘. While Group 3 felt ‘it's a great show and we’ve been listened but we
have not been included in the decision-making process’. Thus the feedback loop isn’t closed.
‘It is a vehicle for collaboration between decision-makers, communities and
professionals’. Working collaboratively helps all interested parties to understand and
support a project's rationale.
charrette is very effective and focused approach which increases probability for
implementation. ‘it also promotes trust between citizens and government through
the building of long-term community goodwill’.
Mixed views due to the complex process. ‘fast track process tends to miss important
issues within the time frame if pre-charrette stage is not done properly’.
‘If we need to mainstream this approach in planning system, it requires skilled facilitator with
a good leadership to run event successfully’.
10. What’s necessary for change?
4
hina.hirani@gmail.com
Capability, engagement, leadership, trust, staying power
Thank you
‘For making places for people’…….as concluded in
symposium 1-Masterplanning Process’
11. Key questions
Geddes Institute: Community Charettes
Engagement
What does pragmatic collaboration to guide
change in places look like?
12. Speed
What is the role of design in changing
places?
Engagement
What does pragmatic collaboration to
manage change in places look like?
Key questions
Geddes Institute: Community Charettes
13. Organised by Husam Al Waer
Learning lessons from the practice of charrettes from
Norway to Transylvania and beyond
Notas del editor
Thank you very much for giving me a chance to present: Background I am an Architect, have recently completed MSc with specialisation in Charrette.Today I am going to present a part of my research, key findings from the interviews with practitioners of community design and charrettesPresentation will be just under 10mins, divided in two parts:First part: providing background information i.e. whom did I interview and what did I ask?Second part: summary of findings from the interviews. The issues align with the key questions asked in Symposium 1 ‘Master Planning Process’.
Part 1: whom did I interview? Can divide stakeholder in a few different ways for the purpose of this study in three broad categories based on their influence. This is merely to demonstrate spread of views. [Describe three groups] The interviewees experiences covered broad range, most SSCI charrette, EbD, other community based planning practices. IN TOTAL 25 INTERVIEWS FROM 3 GROUPS COVERING BROAD RANGE OF VIEWS
Continuing with part 1: what did I ask? Simple open ended questions, following conversational approach lasting between 30 to 90 minutes.Why? Primarily to understand drivers and motives behind their involvement in charrette/charrette like community practiceHow? To understand mechanism/procedure of charrette. This covered broad range of discussion from engagement, collaboration, feedback, project management to leadership.What? Predominantly focusing on end outcome for the community, results and lessons learned.
What did I learn?Findings- positive and negative views depend on the groups and an individual’s perception on a particular question/scenario. But overall feedback was very positive for charrette compare to the conventional planning process.Stakeholder engagement and feedback loop – mixed views, Group 1&2 believed‘charrette provides opportunity to increase stakeholders engagement and bring community on board’. Focused on producing a feasible plan with minimal rework’. While Group 3 felt ‘great show during the charrette event and we’ve been listened but we have not been included in the decision-making process’. Thus the feedback loop isn’t closed and in some projects they felt ‘we don’t know anything after charrette event and whether this event would make any difference to their town’. The views varied from project to project.Collaboration between stakeholders – Finding were very positive across all 3 groups, ‘much better collaboration compare to the conventional planning process. Charrette is a vehicle for collaboration between decision-makers, communities and professionals. Working collaboratively helps all interested parties to understand and support a project's rationale’. Vision and outcomes – charrette is very effective and focused approach which increases probability for implementation. The experts views ‘it also promotes trust between citizens and government through the building of long-term community goodwill’.Accelerated timescale and complexity – This was a very important question as charrette is all about time-compressed work sessions. Majority believed that 5-7 days are good enough to create the momentum to work collaboratively. But some of the experts from group 1, views were mixed due to the complex process. ‘fast track process tends to miss out important issues within the time frame if pre-charrette stage is not done properly. Thus pre-charrette and post-charrette work need full energy, time and resources to make the process successful. Leadership, knowledge and skill-set – This had very interesting views as charrette-like event need a good leader. For example, SSCI exemplar projects were led by Duany who has charismatic personality, very good leader and a great listener with well experienced team. ‘If we need to mainstream this approach in planning system, it requires skilled facilitator with a good leadership to run event smoothly. Plus it should be well resourced not just during the event but pre and post charrette process to make it successful’.Overall great feedback from all stakeholders on charrette being better understanding the need of the end user, fast track design and planning. However key questions have been around the delivery post-charrette or as some would call it ‘charrette hangover’.
