www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.1-9

Let me start by making a comparison.

Imagine going to a bar and ordering a meal. I mean: literally just telling the waiter that you would like to eat something. The waiter will be at a loss as to what is expected of him. In fact, you haven’t told him anything useful.

The waiter will start asking you questions, in order to translate your statement, into a more specific request for a dish that will suit you

It is a general principle, that if you want something and you are not going to provide it for yourself, you will at the very least be required to explain to the person you’re asking to do it for you exactly what it is you want. This notion is applicable to any kind of order, and more specifically also to architecture.

By architecture, I mean any and all spatial interventions undertaken by man, each project starts with a clear description of what is needed. Or, even better, a precise description of the problem.

Finding solutions to solve the accommodation problems of today’s ever growing society is much more complex, and growing even more complex every

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.2-9

day.

The end result of any spatial intervention is, moreover, nothing like a daily occurrence that is digested in a matter of hours

It will, on the contrary, always have irrevocable consequences to society and may have an impact that will be felt for years, for centuries even. No matter what kind of structure a commission for a new architectural project may be for, the space or surface it will occupy already has a designated function and fortunately by now in democratic societies we are aware,

that whatever we undertake to do, the new destination will have an impact on the

existing situation. The new intervention will restructure the environment and will either make the old location more or less attractive. Any building project, will to some extent determine social life and the relations between those within the boundaries of any given territory and those on the outside.

If this territory concerns only the living arrangements of just one person, and is being arranged according to the instructions of this sole occupant, the responsibility for the result will be shared by this person

who should clearly inform the architect of his wishes and the architect, who should do anything in his power to make sure he understands what it is this one person requires. Dom Van Der laan has stated that ‘providing shelter’ is architecture’s primal mission.

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.3-9

In other words: this is about the relation between outside and inside. Whoever says ‘outside’,

also says other people. This indicates that

even the most highly individual commission will entail a relation with the outside world. The way the architect shapes this relation may become decisive in terms of the relation the user will have with this outside world.

Regarding urban planning, the same ground rules apply. In these cases,

the client will often be someone designated by the system. By ‘system’, I mean any form of administrative authority a society has decided to delegate as its representative. The way the system addresses the architect will determine the end result.

How does the system address the architect?

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.4-9

Is the architect presented with a problem and expected to respond by proposing an analysis of all the possibilities?

Or is he presented with a solution or a model, and expected only to design a stylish decoration? So the real question is:

how do we, as a society, tackle problems and put our community’s knowhow and knowledge, as well as the specialist skills of its technicians to good use in order to solve them?

All too often, just the thinnest slice of society is involved:

Just a couple of political tenors, who either lend their ear to a whispered solution or restrict the arena for the creative process to the safety of their office. All too often, solutions are conceived

as a matter of treating symptoms instead of focusing on the causes of the disease, the real problems. Treating symptoms is by definition a short-term solution

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.5-9

Any architectural process that does not start from an analysis of the problem will by definition come up with an answer that is insufficiently clear. This is why a real architect will, as soon as he receives a commission, start making a correct, comprehensive assessment of the problem. The system, often doesn’t operate starting from the objective of seeking to solve problems. From a political point of view, it may be interesting to concentrate on symptoms because political power is linked with the existence of a problem In some cases, just one solution to a complex question is selected, one solution, regarded by just one target group as the best one, and then the architect

have to make sure it looks good enough to distract attention from the content of the problem and direct it to the form of the solution. In my opinion the architect

has an obligation to gather the elements that influence a design. Adopting a diagnostician's approach to his patient, the architect should cultivate an inquisitive attitude and look beyond the obvious, thereby avoiding a seemingly "heroic" treatment of symptoms. I’d be the last to contend that good design cannot help create a more agreeable organization of society. At the same time we should never allow ourselves to become blinded by the beauty of an attractive design. Decorative design does not reflect the quality or the ethical aspects of function.

A prosthetic leg may be beautifully made but however beautiful it may be it will never lead us to think that using land mines is not such a bad thing… In other words: If the functional solution is useless, the design will only cause confusion. Imagine a function like Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.6-9

Would the ethical question it raises be less urgent if the compound was an example of ‘cool’ architecture? I know I’m pushing it a bit, but I want to be very clear on this: Building design is good design only if it supports an ethically function. Sometimes

the architect is far removed from the initial problem definition. For instance in the case of a public private partnership, when a large building consortium will often hire architects just to design the building decoration.

In such cases, the advisory committees surveying the projects on behalf of the authorities are decisive.

In 2005 in Flanders,

stRaten-generaal opposed a huge highway project that would encourage international traffic to drive right through the centre of the town of Antwerp.

Afterwards, when the project was put on hold, the members of the architectural jury admitted that they never liked the functional project either, but just selected the best-looking design solution. After all, that was what the government,

the system, had commissioned them to do: just to judge the gift-wrapping.

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.7-9

Society, has authorised those architects to decide not just on form but because society puts its trust in their authority on functionality as well as form.

I remind myself that within the word aesthetic, the word ethic resounds. Or that without the word ethic you can’t write the word aesthetic. Given the degree of complexity we’re having to contend with today, in most cases finding a solution is teamwork. You need the best designers but also those people who are best able to listen for what society wants. In this team

a real architect will be the director of an orchestra able to create an equilibrium

between all these disciplines to allow every team member to fulfil his role, in order to contribute to the best possible end result. You are always building in this world, in a community.

Real architecture is never restricting itself to just designing a space for a client. it will always endeavour to add something positive to the public space.

Consultation between people who approach public space from several different points of view is essential to achieve a successful, widely supported project goal. The community in general, and even the next-door neighbours all are partners in this process.

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.8-9

Dependent on the nature of the problem, And the nature of the potential solutions, it is advisable to allow these partners to participate in the thinking at the start, during, or at the end of the procedure. This participation can take many forms.

Fundamental to successful participation in each and every case are transparency and the ensuing trust. Trust means that all partners accept that they each have their own viewpoint regarding the problem and also accept that their objectives may differ. I may be putting it strongly, but it is the complexity

and the creative process intended to deal with this complexity that leads to unique, new solutions which succeed in making this one place special in comparison with all others. A participation procedure is essentially about people,

so it is also about human contact. Participation on paper is only a reflection of what you have understood, translated into words you hope your reader will understand as you intended. In a real dialogue, consisting of words and nods, winks, explanations and comprehension, partners will reach understanding much sooner and there is a higher probability that each partner’s empathy with all the other partners’ objectives will rapidly increase. “Peter”, you are thinking, You will never be able to do this for large projects with thousands of participants. Well, no, obviously in such cases you will have to meet with a limited number of people.

That’s why each participation process is

www.stratengeneraal.be – Pan European eParticipation Network 2012 –p.9-9

tailor-made. You can work with sub-groups. And continuous direct communication isn’t always necessary. Each project has its own participation trajectory. Recognising this will only enhance the research process. To me,

the essence of participation is learning. Learning skills and being prepared to learn All participants, I stress, all the participants including the system’s representatives, must be prepared to recognise in the course of any participation process that it is a process in which, as knowledge keeps progressing, to an ever growing number of participants it will become clear which is the most obvious solution. In conclusion: in my opinion architecture is successful only if it is also cooperative. I mean

architecture which flows from an analysis of the problems, which have to be submitted to broad research, as should the relevant opportunities. Also, that the consequences of a project are never underestimated, the

project is executed by means of a constructive procedure, the concept of equality of opinions is respected, and the procedural scenario is tailor-made to fit the problem and its potential solutions. Cooperative architecture is spatial planning by way of a learning participation process.

Sometimes the result will look spectacular and sometimes

it will provide a modest solution that effaces itself to blend into its surroundings, perfecting the art of being inconspicuous by its sheer simplicity.