In her latest post on the Planetizen blog, Barbara compares two public process meetings, one in an EU country and one in the American South. She describes one meeting:
Just as the lead developer was about to introduce the design team, we heard screaming people storming the entrance. There was visible concern among the attendees, and I believe the first thought of everyone in the room was “Are these people armed?”
A few weeks later, another meeting on another continent:
The PR firms’ intent was to learn what people thought of possible development. Well, you can imagine what people thought—over a three-hour time span we learned that people are angry that they had moved from the city to the county only to find more development coming to the county than was expected in the surrounding cities for the next decade.
How did these public meetings miss the mark? Why did they stoke rather than allay people’s anger? Read Barbara’s post.
Posted in International, Meetings, United States June 26th, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
In a recent interview published on ArchNewsNow.com, Barbara talks about her original reason for writing about public process, and the lessons she learned while working on the book:
When I started the book, I was more interested in testing whether the public process actually homogenizes a design. Does it lower the quality of design? Many landscape designers and architects say yes. But in the end, after speaking with the design professionals in depth and looking at all these case studies, I came to the conclusion that the public process helps design. Perhaps in the old days it was sort of a panacea. You know, “We’ll put it up to the public, we’ll see what they say, and then we’ll do whatever we want.” That’s not true anymore. I think it’s important, especially for designers, to leave behind a project that people feel they have something invested in it. It makes the project more successful.
Posted in Issues, Interviews June 22nd, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
I’ve written long and hard on why it is the designer’s/planner’s role to make public process informative, factual, acceptable, and transparent to the public. But what is the responsibility of the public to get the facts? For a good example of how things should NOT work, here’s the story of what’s happened in my own neighborhood over the past few months.
The neighborhood association officials are not elected by the neighborhood. They appoint their own successors. You can see there is already a problem. Because we are in-town, there are many development pressures surrounding the neighborhood. A few years ago, the association went after a few of the developers, and with some matching grants has proceeded to devise a $4 million plan for “pedestrian and traffic calming.”
I wrote about our ongoing neighborhood brawl in a recent post at Planetizen, but here’s a quick refresher: We’re talking about a lovely old area, adjacent to an Olmsted-designed park, with wide sweeping streets, scenic vistas, and plenty of topography. The “traffic calming” plan will tighten all the streets into one lane, limit parking, and install new speed bumps and larger traffic islands, which they affectionately call “amoebouts.” They did not hire a traffic engineer to design the new streets but relied instead on a variety of donated designs from neighbors.
Association officials had what they thought was a fine idea, found the money to pay for it—or at least a portion of it—-and have become fiercely determined to make it happen. Several neighbors, most of whom are involved in public infrastructure projects for a living (yes, I am one of them), think it’s an extraordinarily bad idea. It is simply too much for no good reason, an overzealous attempt to fix something that does not need fixing. No accidents, no issues, just money burning a hole in the neighborhood association’s pocket.
The association leadership decided that if 75% of property owners approved this plan, the city council would have to cave in and give approval to reconstruct the streets. So the association held public meetings, where the leadership presented only their rosy picture of the traffic plan. They did not disclose such information as how much infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) will need to be replaced or how $4 million will ever be enough to rebuild streets and construct 15 traffic islands. The neighborhood web site tells only their side of the story. If you spoke against the plan, you were simply shouted down or booed off the floor. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Atlanta, Issues June 21st, 2007 by Barbara Faga | No comments
ArchNewsNow.com features an interview with Barbara about the challenges of public process and her book, Designing Public Consensus.
The author of the article, Kenneth Caldwell, offers his assessment of Barbara’s book:
Although it looks like a textbook, it doesn’t read like one. Each case study comes alive with her accessible and engaging narrative. Faga has accomplished something few else have tried: a readable guide through the city planning process. Although she is a principal in a large international planning firm, she has avoided writing a promotional tract; instead, she chose to reveal challenges, missteps, and even mistakes. This is not a coffee-table book. It’s a very human take on how cities get built.
Read the whole article.
Posted in General, Interviews June 18th, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
In her latest post on the Planetizen blog, Barbara discusses how public process has changed since the “good old days.”
Two famous quotes from Robert Moses—“Once you sink that first stake, they’ll never make you pull it up” and “Those who can, build, those who can’t, criticize”— sum up the attitude toward public process in those days. In other words, these guys built their reputations on getting something done. Bacon and Moses did not give much attention or credence to the public’s reaction to a project until it was complete—i.e., too late to matter.
But times change, and many recent projects have gone ahead and sunk that first stake only to have to pull it back up again.
Read Barbara’s post.
Posted in Issues, Skills & Practice May 10th, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
In her first post on the Planetizen blog, Barbara addresses the basic question underlying all public discussions of planning and design projects:
As one of my favorite colleagues says, all anyone ever cares about at any public meeting is “where do I live and where do I park?” Public process, in short, asks people to accept changes to their homes and lives. And people generally do not like change.
Read Barbara’s post.
Posted in Issues, Skills & Practice March 26th, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
We’re asking professionals who deal in public participation what they see as the issues, trends, and helpful techniques.
This response comes from Joan Isaacson, an EDAW senior associate and coordinator of the EDAW Public Participation Collaborative.
What are some issues you’re encountering in your current projects?
Joan Isaacson: Reaching people who typically are not engaged in public dialogue, which accounts for the majority of people. We typically only hear from people representing more polarized positions. I’ve been working to make use of existing community structures—community groups, service organizations, organized athletics, PTAs, umbrella organizations representing religious institutions, environmental justice, labor, etc.—for disseminating information and collecting input. These exisiting community structures already have established membership and communication channels that can be incorporated into a public participation program. Not only can we reach more people, but we also build stronger relationships and partnerships in the process. This generates trust, a key to any consensus-building process.
Posted in Issues, Skills & Practice March 24th, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
Barbara discussed her book and her experiences involving the public in planning and design decisions, in an interview last week on WILL-AM in Urbana, Illinois (University of Illinois). Listen.
Posted in Issues, Interviews March 23rd, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
Planetizen links to an LA Times article, re: the heated discussion in Seattle over how to replace an aging elevated expressway through the heart of downtown. Among the choices are replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a new elevated expressway, fixing the old one, or digging a tunnel. Then there’s the “no and hell no” alternative—use surface streets and transit to move traffic. A mail advisory ballot has been sent to voters, but “no one expects the voters to have the final word on the subject.”
The LA Times:
The saga of the neglected roadway is a textbook example of what many call the “Seattle process,” or the reputed civic inclination here to seek so much public input and listen to so many sides of the an argument that nothing actually gets done.
Is this an issue of “too much” public participation? Perhaps if participation is defined as everyone taking sides and then sticking to their guns. If the whole point of public involvement is to forge a consensus and common vision, then too much participation is just code for “we missed a few steps here.” Rather than too much input, one might call it too little leadership and too little technique. This is, after all, a “multigenerational” decision. Whatever is decided about the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle will have to live with it for a long, long time.
The thoughtful blogger at Carless in Seattle, who has followed the debate closely, notes that putting the issue to a vote among a very divided public may not be the best course.
Voters are not specialists in government, they can not be held accountable for their decisions, and they are rarely prepared to see viewpoints other than their own.
He praises a senator’s proposal—in another district and on another freeway issue—to bring in a mediator to “avoid a political meltdown” and “work with neighborhood groups to reach consensus on the project” (as reported in The Seattle Times).
Posted in Issues, Seattle March 11th, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | 1 comment
Of the many case studies in Designing Public Consensus, one of my favorites is the story of Disney’s public participation Waterloo on the “Hallowed Ground” of the Virginia Piedmont (Chapter 6, “Opposition”). Disney proposed to build a historical theme park, called Disney’s America, on the rolling hills west of the Northern Virginia suburbs. They were shocked to find it heavy going against an interesting coalition of farmers, horse breeders, millionaires, environmentalists, nationally-renowned historians, and well-funded advocacy groups.
This was actually the third development battle to be fought in this scenic area, and the countryside has won every time. Now the fourth battle has been joined by Dominion Virginia Power, which wants to build a 500,000-volt power line (with 177-foot towers) right through the Piedmont. An amusing Washington Post article—”High Voltage, High Tension“—lays out the issues. Two lines tell the story:
Those who propose to bring “progress” to this territory reliably run into resistance of which they never dreamed.
[Dominion’s VP for electric transmission] has heard of the Disney debacle but doesn’t see any connection to the uprising over his power line.
Posted in Northern Virginia, Virginia Piedmont March 7th, 2007 by M.E. Kieffer | No comments
