power to the people? how should we approach community engagement in placemaking?
Power to the people: How should we approach community engagement in placemaking?The notion of community participation is, in this age of continuous urban regeneration, a must-have element of any self-respecting public development. The actual practice of public participation, however, varies widely from scheme to scheme. This variation ranges from tick-box tokenism to organised, effective community leadership. In most cases, it is dependent on the individuals concerned. Strong, effective community leadership is frequently the key to success in community eyes.It was clear from RUDI’s recent debate regarding community engagement that there are many issues to be thrashed out. The outcomes from the debate, featuring a powerful residents organisation, a community planner and a council officer, make interesting reading... Several key issues emerged; all of which require consideration:
RUDI’s debate addressed these points:Thomas Esterine, a resident representative from the successful, and wholly community-led, Angell Town regeneration project in south London, made clear his views on how, and where, community input is needed. See RUDI's overview of Angell Town, with links to extensive Angell Town resources. Nick Wates, a professional involved in setting up community consultation projects, outlined his views on key aspects of achieving successful community buy-in. Carl Carrington, a planning and heritage manager from Blackpool Council outlined the on-the-ground issues faced by local authorities dealing with community engagement. With regard to a recent overview of regeneration and community engagement in London's Tottenham, Carl felt that the Tottenham community was a strong communities, with much potential for engagement. However, he suggested that the local community had been extensively consulted on local development plans; and in fact that it may be ‘all consulted out’. He suggested that:
See RUDI's review of Tottenham's regeneration and community participation for more information. Don’t show us your designs, ask us for a brief first...The Angell Town community programme, begun in 1986 and led by the residents, has been one of the most successful in recent years, winning both Cabe and Building for Life recognition.See the RUDI Angell Town overview for more information on specific aspects of the project Thomas Esterine, a resident representative from the successful, and wholly community-led, Angell Town regeneration project, describes the 1980s incarnation of Angell Town estate as a mass of decks, access walkways, bridges and pedways. ‘We walked in the sky, lived with cockroaches and spent our time avoiding the garages that were a haven for crimes ranging from muggings, drugs and rape.’ There were dangerous alleys and blank walls and corners at every turn. It was designed with ‘cattle in mind’ says Thomas, and with a definite lack of community consultation. The conditions at the time, with a severe shortage affordable social housing after the war, empowered the Local Authorities to deliver the housing that they thought worked. As the original low-rise Angell Town was also considered an exemplar project when built; this provides a striking example of how wrong the professionals can be if left to their own devices. The existing tenants organisation was not effective in representing residents in order to drive change. So, powered by the tireless and dynamic Angell Town resident Dora Boatemah, the Angell Town Community Project (ATCP) was born and registered as a charity and as a limited company. The initial Angell Town Community Project was made up of residents; all lay people with no experience of design or building or community communications. Yet the one thing they did not lack was ideas and knowledge of their homes, neighbours and their collective aspirations. The group lobbied the LA, the Town Hall and MPs. This initial activity brought a breakthrough: a hook up with the Joint Centre for Urban Design at Oxford Brookes University (then Polytechnic). The JCUD, RUDI’s founder and host, worked with the ATCP to draw up a consultation document to take to residents. It had two main areas of focus:
This resulted in a pilot study for the Regeneration of Angell Town, co-ordinated by the JCUD's Ian Bentley and Georgia Butina Watson. Initial feedback and the finding of funding They wanted corner shops, launderettes, community facilities and a hairdresser. The ATCP took the consultation document and used it to attract funding from Europe to set up a pilot project. They chose Burrell Foley Fischer to design the pilot, which consisted of redeveloping 47 flats into street housing in a Georgian style, based on a pattern of streets. Their brief was clear: We don’t want any rubbish. We don’t want social housing design. We want the architects to design UP for us, not down. The 1988 pilot project was successful, although expensive. Its success derived from the fact that it led to the ATCP being advised to bid for funds from the Estate Action funds held by Government, and provided via the Government of London office and the LA jointly. ‘We knew what we wanted; we just needed help with the application, says Thomas. ‘We could talk just fine, it was form-filling that we needed assistance with.’ The bid was successful: ATCL was awarded £67 million in 1988 to carry out a 10-year regeneration programme. ‘What that meant was that we became consultants to the Estate Action Group,’ says Thomas. ‘We could make our decisions about our lives and homes.’ ATCP was the last of the Estate Action fund winners. Where other awardees had brought in consultants in to oversee the design and build process; ACTP said took a different approach. They wished to be their own consultants, and so they did just that. The group’s premise and confidence stemmed form the facts of strong leadership and the belief that they knew best about their own community. They became consultants and selected architects, consultants and advisors. The Burrell Foley Fischer pilot project was very good, says Thomas, but the wider residents wanted five designs from five architects, all different. We were told that this approach would not work, but we were sure that we needed five perspectives. Not everyone wanted the Georgian approach of the pilot project. The group was fully involved in the brief, interview and selection process. The selections ranged from the large, well-known Levitt Bernstein Associates to the then unknown, local Mode 1, chosen by the residents for their design skills. Initial masterplans were done by John Thompson and Partners. Consultation, consultation, consultation: we know our people and spaces The group ‘demanded’ that the architects, who all worked in different areas of the site. held monthly community consultation ‘surgeries’. We didn’t want them to provide ideas on the way that we should live, but that we tell them how we want to live, and give them a detailed brief. 'People make the best architects' was the residents' mantra. At the regular meetings between professionals and the community, the architects took on board the residents’ ideas, many of which were incorporated into the final design. Getting the residents to become involved was hard, says Thomas. ‘It took years. We had to keep at it, work hard and literally drag people to the meeting at first. ‘We convinced them tat they could have say in the outcome of the community, and we worked to help them understand the design ideas and drawings. We facilitated a process of dialogue over the years that was very successful in empowering people. ‘What came out of it was that people had input and their ideas were taken seriously and incorporated into the plans.’ Angell Town is now a stylish, award-winning project that the residents are very proud of. ‘We made the professionals design better,’ says Thomas. ‘We don’t have letters after our names, but we took the initiative and empowered ourselves to create the environment that we all wanted, and that works for us.’ Nick Wates: the background to community planning
Main community planning issues: engagement strategy is key
Principles of community planning
Work on location
Communicate: People can participate far more effectively if information is presented visually rather than in words
Spend money Effective participation processes take time and energy. The costs of building the wrong thing in the wrong place can be astronomical and make the cost of proper community involvement pale into insignificance. Sobudget generously.
There are many other community planning principles:
How do you go about community planning in practice?
Public meetings: politicians like them but only the vociferous participate. This can lead to conflict Questionnaires and surveys: useful for getting views of a representative sample of the population but danger of uninformed comment Suggestion boxes: at point of service, in village shop for instance All have their uses: but there is an ever-expanding range of more creative approaches. Interactive displays: Ways of allowing people to engage in the issues and debate, on their own and in an enjoyable way, by making additions or alterations to pre-prepared exhibits. In China, for example, visitors are encouraged to use 3-D design kiosks to create successful local environments.
Street stalls: Make it possible to secure the views of larger numbers of people than is possible indoors. Particularly useful where the views of people using a particular street or public space are required. They can include interactive displays, models, questionnaires for passers-by, etc
Street theatre:A good way to help people understand the planning process and other people’s viewpoints. Also an enjoyable way to get people working together. In this case, a tenant confronting a powerful architect Gaming: Playing games is a good way to help people understand the planning process and other people’s viewpoints. Also an enjoyable way to get people working together. Board games: Particularly useful at an early stage of any community planning activity or to prepare people for a specific challenge ahead Reconnaissance trips: The direct inspection of the environment being dealt with by mixed teams of local people and technical experts. Used to familiarise everyone with the physical environment and key issues at the start of many community planning processes and to review progress at intervals.
Briefing workshops: ask basic questions
Simple, easy-to-organise working sessions where people work in small groups to identify key issues and possible solutions. Someone from each group presents results back to a plenary session of all the participants. The results are recorded for future use.
Design workshops Hands-on sessions allowing small groups of professionals and non-professionals to work creatively together developing proposals.
Models Very effective tools for getting people involved. Particularly useful for generating interest, presenting ideas and helping people think in three dimensions. Lots of different kinds (explain) Block models made out of wood are good for taking outside events. Flexible models made of cardboard are usually more useful. Making models itself can be useful development process. Art workshops A workshop programme in which local people work with artists and crafts people to design – and often construct – environmental artworks. This can be an end in itself or part of a wider regeneration effort. art workshop. Freeform Community arts projects are particularly useful for helping people express their creativity (and develop skills, a sense of identity and community pride). Ideas competitions A good way of stimulating creative thinking and generating interest and momentum. They can be designed to allow everyone a chance to put forward their ideas. Using technologyThe internet and new technology provide huge scope for new methods of participation. Electronic maps: alowing people to explore an area and make comments at computer terminals. They have immense potential for helping people to visualise proposals and make their views known.
Video soapbox: A slightly bizarre high-tech way of allowing members of the public to broadcast their opinions on video screens erected in public places. Working togetherAction planning events Carefully structured events that allow all those affected to work creatively together to produce plans of action. A general term for these is action planning events. They can be used at any stage of the development process and provide an alternative to reliance on bureaucratic planning which is based on people sending bits of paper to each other. There is a family of different kinds of action planning event - some can last for an hour, others for several weeks. Community planning forums Simple to organise at short notice. Open, multipurpose events lasting a few hours. A three-stage format - involving interactive displays, a debate (shown here) and informal workshop groups - is designed to secure information, generate ideas and create interaction between interest groups with a minimum of advance planning. Key components: Slogan summarising overall purpose; venue; time; date; statement of objectives and perhaps some background information; map of area with venue marked; name of organisers. Very useful for testing the water and getting things moving without making any great commitment. Planning days: format
People are usually personally invited to ensure a spread of stakeholders. Here we see workshop sessions - people working in groups around tables. In a plenary session, groups report back on their work. Planning weekend A more elaborate, but highly effective, way of generating momentum for change and getting all parties involved in producing a plan of action for a site, neighbourhood or city. The event is spread over four or five days with a very carefully constructed timetable. Planning days
A more disciplined format for getting the key parties to work creatively together to devise and explore options for a site, neighbourhood or city. People are usually personally invited to ensure a spread of stakeholders. On the final evening a presentation - often using slides - to a public meeting, of the proposals arrived at, usually in the form of a report. An alternative is to display material developed during the weekend around the walls and have people present different aspects of it. Open house event Allowing those promoting development initiatives to present them to a wider public and secure reactions in an informal manner. Less structured than a workshop and more informal than a traditional exhibition. More permanent structures for sustaining community involvement. User groups The creation or strengthening of user groups is a key element of most community planning. They act as clients in championing the views of those who will use the end product and keep the momentum going. Development trusts and partnerships Development trusts provide a mechanism for communities to undertake regeneration and development projects themselves. They make it possible to achieve the long-term sustained effort that is needed to evolve a community’s own plans and put them into action. Development trusts are just one type of partnership that can harness the various strengths of the public private and voluntary sectors Architecture and planning centres: Architecture centre, Hackney Places set up to help people understand, and engage in, the design of local buildings and the built environment. They will normally have a range of models and other exhibits and can become focal points for local environmental initiatives and public debate. Community design centres Places where communities can get affordable technical help to plan and manage their environment. The environmental equivalent of health centres - (invaluable for helping local people design and implement environmental projects, particularly in poor communities.) Ideally every neighbourhood should have some of neighbourhood planning office, but they are particularly valuable in rundown areas or where there is a lot of building activity. Creating an involvement strategy
Combining the methods The methods described above can each be effective in their own right. But it is when they are combined together creatively that community planning becomes a truly powerful force for positive and sustainable change. Scenario one: Local neighbourhood initiative Local people in a rundown neighbourhood and agencies working with them take the initiative to speed up the regeneration process. This scenario applies to any area where there are a number of institutional landowners and agencies operating and where local people want to break through inertia and improve the environment and quality of life.
So often the difficulty is getting all the various landowners and agencies to agree on a development strategy that is both visionary and based on what local people want. Without such agreement, development takes place in a mundane and piecemeal fashion, if at all, the most important local needs may not be addressed and opportunities offered by the natural environment are missed. At worst, new initiatives may be destroyed by vandalism and crime. Scenario two: Derelict site re-use An initiative to make use of a derelict urban site in public ownership. Timescale assumes relatively simple option adopted such as a pocket park. A building would take longer to construct. An initiative to make use of a derelict area of land in public ownership. Such land exists everywhere, usually attracting rubbish and having a depressing effect on the local neighbourhood. Often, sites are left vacant for many years. Alternatively, local authorities may carry out some landscaping or sell the land to the private sector for development. The scenario here shows how a popular use for the site can be generated and implemented, starting off with an ideas competition. The initiative can be taken by anyone; a local authority, regeneration agency, community group individual or urban design studio at a school of architecture or planning.
Scenario three: Village revival A village community takes steps to protect the traditional character and develop new facilities.
More examples and information is available on the website, www.communityplanning.net This is based on the Community Planning Handbook, and we are looking for ways of developing this further. Thanks to RUDI event partners BURA; communityplanning.net; Angell Town Community Project | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
