PARTICIPATORY DESIGN - Cities Programme · understanding and uptake of participatory design. Research Method The research approach chosen was a semi-structured interview with a sample

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACES

Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar

© 2015 UN Global-Compact Cities Programme Melbourne, Australia

Author - Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar

The results of this project can be shared, with recognition of the author and publisher.

Images: All images provided by research participants.

I have dedicated a lot of effort to this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals and organisations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to United Nations Global-Compact Cities Programme and especially Elizabeth Ryan for her guidance, constant supervision and providing necessary information regarding the project, as well as her support in completing the project. I would like to express my gratitude to Robbie Guevara, who help me in the beginning of this journey to shape up this project.

I am grateful for meeting my great friend Sandra Moye. She introduced me to the Cities Programme and gave me ongoing support throughout this research project. ¡Muchísimas gracias!

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to all research participants for sharing their knowledge and experiences with me: Alexandre Apsan Frediani, Belinda Tato, Emma Cohlmeyer, Esben Neander Kristensen, Gisela Méndez, Liz Ogbu, Marisol García, Mike Lydon, Nerkis Kural and Susan Lengyel.

My special thanks to my love Daniel for his unconditional support. I dedicate this project to my beloved sons Yolotl Ochieng and Tanok Onyango.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The idea for this project arose out of Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar’s previous experience as an urban designer in various projects in Mexico. Some of these projects involved extensive liaison with members of the local communities, as well as local government officers. Community participation in those cases was spontaneous and proved to be an excellent approach to obtain community endorsement and support for the projects. By engaging the community, the design team ensured community’s needs were met where possible and negotiated others where technical issues mandated decisions.

From professional experience and through a specialist research internship with the UN Global-Compact Cities Programme, this project came to life as a way to find case studies from international public space projects and learn from them. The aim of this publication is not only to showcase the “good” aspects but also “what did not work as expected”, as a self-reflection by the facilitators interviewed. It is written for the benefit of community leaders, professionals and governments for an improved understanding and uptake of participatory design.

Research MethodThe research approach chosen was a semi-structured interview with a sample of 10 professionals with previous experience in facilitating participatory design. Research planning was done in 2014 and interviews undertaken in 2015. Ten facilitators from Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Mexico, Spain, Turkey, UK, and USA were interviewed about nine projects in Australia, Canada, Chile, Kenya, Mexico, Norway, Paraguay, Turkey and USA. Some of this professionals were sourced through academic papers and others were recommended by research participants.

Key Findings

• Physical space where face-to-face interaction happens is preferred to online engagement.• The use of appropriate language in a specific context is key to successful communication with stakeholders. This suggests that when facilitators communicate with participants, it is preferable to use “you” or “we” rather than “I”.• Facilitation needs to be adaptable to contexts and specific groups of people. Not all approaches and tools for participation work in the same way with everyone.• Visual material is helpful to communicate ideas and act as an effective “ice-breaker” to start the dialogue.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTENTS

Participatory Design for Public Urban Spaces 3

Research Method 4

Case Studies 5

DREAMHAMAR / Belinda Tato 7

ANTOFAGASTA LIMPIA Y CONECTADA / Marisol García 11

URBAN FOREST STRATEGY / Yvonne Lynch 15

TACTICAL URBANISM FOR HAMILTON / Mike Lydon 19

NOW HUNTERS POINT / Liz Ogbu 23

ASUNCION’S PUBLIC LIFE AND PUBLIC SPACE / Esben Neander Kristensen 27

CHANGE BY DESIGN: MASHIMONI / Alexandre Apsan Frediani 31

CHILD ATTRACTION CENTER / Nerkis Kural 35

HUERTAS DEL CURA PARK / Emma Cohlmeyer and Gisela Méndez 39

Where to from here? 44

References 46

Appendix A 48

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACES Image by: Ecosistema Urbano

3PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACES

This publication reports on research, which identifies and analyses tools used in participatory design processes, as well as the role facilitators play in this process. The report is structured as a case study compilation, exploring nine projects from 10 facilitators’ perspectives. It was conducted by Martha Patricia Galán Aguilar in 2014-2015, an architect and urban designer, with support from United Nations Global Compact - Cities Programme, which advocates inclusive and collaborative multidisciplinary approaches to urban challenges.

This research study analysed:- Which participation tools have demonstrated to be more effective taking into account the type of project and characteristics of the stakeholders involved in the design process?- What is the role of the facilitator in the design process, their skills and the processes they follow to implement community input into the final design?

Why Participatory Design?Design Participation is a collaboration between stakeholders such as community, government, businesses and professionals where all actively take part in the design process of a specific project. This design approach gives people acknowledgment for their input and final design aims to meet the main stakeholders’ needs.

The term ‘Design Participation’ first appeared in 1971 as an international conference title. It was the first attempt by the design community to explore user participation in design processes (Lee 2008). Nowadays, the practice of design is changing. It is going beyond creation of things and getting more interested in design experiences, products and processes.

“With the society pacing forward, human beings pay more attention to self-awareness, mental and physical needs. Urban public landscape design should not only consider the harmony with the natural environment, but also needs to pay attention to human physiological and psychological needs, to provide a convenient and pleasant environment, thus to create a harmonious relationship among people, landscape, and nature to achieve a relative balance.” (Gengli 2013)

To be able to achieve what Gengli defines as a balance it is necessary to address the collaboration gap between experts such as psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists and design professionals (Lee 2008). Participation in design requires multidisciplinary teams to facilitate the process, as well as establish continuous professional reflection among designers.

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACES

4 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACES

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with facilitators of participatory designed public urban spaces. Participants were selected based on the following criteria: 1. previous experience in facilitating participatory design workshops; 2. previous experience in designing public urban spaces (temporary and/or permanent); and 3. an interest in sharing their experiences.

The interviews were conducted from Melbourne, either face-to-face or by teleconference. A snowball sampling method was used to access some of the participants for this study. Goodman (1961) defines Snowball Sampling as ‘a random sample of individuals drawn from a given finite population… Each individual in the sample is asked to name a different individual in the population…’.

The interview protocol developed for this study was designed to be flexible. However to guide the interview, a set of sample questions were drawn up and forwarded to the interviewees. These provided the participants with an idea of how the interaction would progress and indicated the key areas of interest. These sample questions were divided into four categories: a) Basic description of the project; b) Processes / Tools; c) Drivers; and d) Outcome (see Appendix A).

Interviews began with open-ended questions to encourage interviewees to elaborate. The interviews started by asking the participants to talk about the previous chosen project and when required, additional questions were added. The interviews were recorded and notes taken. The findings were synthesised into core information, highlighting the participatory design process and lessons learnt. These are presented in the following section.

RESEARCH METHOD


PROFESSIONALS109PROJECTS

This section will synthesise information gathered from the interviews by case study (the project participants chose to elaborate about). It contains the following information: name of the project and country; participant’s name, organisation’s name and country where it is based; a brief description of the project; timeline; and participatory approaches and learning classified in approaches that had better outcomes and approaches that did not work as expected.

CASE STUDIES


Norway

Spain

BELINDA TATOEcosistema Urbano

DREAMHAMAR

Image by: Ecosistema Urbano


DREAMHAMARNorway

Spain


What is the project?It is a re-configuration of Stortorget, the main square in Hamar. It is also a journey to re-think public space and Design Participation.

PartnersHamar City, Norway launched a design competition in 2011, asking for creative proposals to reinvigorate Stortorget, the main city square. Once Ecosistema Urbano was granted with the commission of re-designing the main square, part of the team moved temporarily to Hamar.

Ecosistema Urbano is a Madrid based group of architects and urban designers operating within the fields of urbanism, architecture, engineering and sociology.

Target usersResidents of Hamar, Norway.

May

-Au

g 2

011

Eco

sist

em

a U

rban

o e

nte

rs

the

co

mp

etiti

on

Art

in th

e

One

Tho

usa

ndS

qu

are

lau

nche

d

by

Ham

ar K

om

mu

ne. P

relim

inar

y d

esi

gn

Dre

amha

mar

offi

cial

ly b

eg

ins

Te

chno

log

y w

ork

sho

p

pai

ntha

mar

, cre

amha

mar

Pu

blic

sp

ace

and

pe

op

le o

nlin

e

wo

rksh

op

Tact

ical

urb

anis

m o

nlin

e

wo

rksh

op

Cu

ltura

l Ru

cksa

ck d

eci

de

s to

co

nne

ct th

e p

roje

ct to

D

ream

ham

ar

Eu

rop

ean

Uni

vers

itie

s in

volv

ed

in

the

de

sig

n p

roce

ss

Env

ironm

ent

wo

rksh

op

Act

iviti

es

wo

rksh

op

gre

enh

amar

, art

ham

ar

Se

aso

nal s

trat

eg

y w

ork

sho

p

Pe

op

le w

ork

sho

p

His

tory

wo

rksh

op

pla

yham

ar, l

ight

ham

ar

De

sig

n d

eve

lop

me

nt

Se

p 2

011

Se

p 2

011

Se

p 2

011

Se

p–O

ct 2

011

Se

p–O

ct 2

011

Se

p–O

ct 2

011

Se

p–D

ec

2011

Oct

20

11

Oct

20

11

Oct

20

11

Nov

20

11

Nov

20

11

Nov

20

11

De

c 20

11

Jan–

Jun

2012


_______________More information on this project:http://ecosistemaurbano.com/portfolio/dreamhamar/http://www.dreamhamar.org/about/

PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES AND LEARNINGWhat worked well What did not work as expected

Physical Lab – a temporary lab on site where different theme workshops took place, as well as several tactical urbanism interventions.

Online workshops – people from different locations shared their ideas through an online platform.

Drawing – a total of 1300 children participated in drawing their visions for Stortorget, through a partnership with schools.

Facilitator couldn’t recall any of the tools used in this specific project that did not work as expected, but recognised that online techniques may not have the expected participation in places where access to technology is limited.

Drivers to use participatory approachEcosistema Urbano conducted extensive research on the city, its urban structure, people’s everyday life, traditions, habits, culture, interests, environment and context. Ecosistema Urbano then “thought that involving the community would provide a rich and enduring experience for both locals and future users” (Ecosistema Urbano 2013). Their main driver to use a participatory approach was to have a social impact that involves action, social empowerment and ‘planting seeds’.

Where did the participation process take place? • Physical temporary space at the square. • Online platform

Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationGraphic and visual communication and incorporating ludic activities.

OutcomesThis project was successful in constructing the plaza design through participation. It is now in full operation and one of the participants of the participation workshops is now employed by the local government to manage the space.

DREAMHAMARNorway

Spain



Chile

Chile

MARISOL GARCÍACiudad Emergente

ANTOFAGASTA LIMPIA Y CONECTADA

Image by: Ciudad Emergente


ANTOFAGASTA LIMPIA Y CONECTADAChile

Chile


What is the project?It is a plan with an objective to improve life quality in the city through a holistic development vision to convert Antofagasta into an inclusive and innovative city in the long term. Antofagasta Limpia y Conectada is an implementation strategy, which is part of CREO Antofagasta - a strategic planning tool that imagines, builds, evaluates and improves Antofagasta.

PartnersCiudad Emergente is a Lab of Tools and Tactics for Human-Centered Cities. It seeks to improve urban quality of life through social innovation and high impact participatory projects.

Target usersAntofagasta’s residents

De

c 20

13C

iud

ad E

me

rge

nte

is e

ngag

ed

to

the

initi

ativ

e A

nto

fag

asta

Lim

pia

y

Co

nect

ada

Co

llect

ive

cle

anin

g o

f A

nto

fag

asta

‘Tre

e id

eas

’ as

par

t of

a C

ultu

ral

Fe

stiv

al

‘Tre

e id

eas

’ and

su

rvey

s as

p

art o

f ‘E

coci

ne’ e

vent

whe

re

resi

de

nts

shar

ed

pu

blic

sp

ace

w

ith th

eir

neig

hbo

urs

whi

le

wat

chin

g a

mov

ie.

Wo

rksh

op

s to

pla

n an

d p

rom

ote

tr

ee

pla

ntin

g a

nd r

ecy

clin

g g

rey

wat

er

Pe

rce

ptio

n su

rvey

s as

par

t of

the

P

hoto

-re

cord

He

ritag

e ta

ctic

Oku

pla

za p

art 1

Oku

pla

za p

art 2

Tre

e p

lant

ing

day

Tim

e to

pai

nt ta

ctic

‘Tre

e id

eas

”, su

rvey

s an

d

po

stca

rds

as p

art o

f th

e

Ent

rep

rene

urs

hip

Fai

r

Tim

e to

pla

y ta

ctic

Re

po

rt o

n th

e p

lann

ing

, tac

tic

imp

lem

ent

ed

and

pro

fess

iona

l re

flect

ion

De

c 20

13

Fe

b 2

014

Mar

20

14

Mar

-May

20

14

Ap

r 20

14

Ap

r 20

14

May

20

14

May

20

14

May

20

14

May

20

14

Jun

2014

Au

g 2

014


_______________More information on this project:http://www.ciudademergente.org/es/publicaciones/reportes/http://issuu.com/ciudademergente_cem/docs/130110_reporte_final_malones_del_cr


Drivers to use participatory approachAntofagasta has long standing issues of informality, waste and lack of public space. There was a critical need to engage the community to value their neighbourhood and to be part of efforts to develop the area.

Where did participation process take place? • Physical space on-site

Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationKnowing how to listen and understand what you have been told, and above all to act as a translator of ideas rather than imposing your own ideas.

OutcomesThis project created a clean neighbourhood as its main objective but, more importantly it led to establishing a community atmosphere and diverse entrepreneurship initiatives in Antofagasta.

ANTOFAGASTA LIMPIA Y CONECTADAChile

Chile


Arbol de ideas (Tree ideas) - divided by themes, participants get to write their ideas on the space to be designed and hang them on the ‘tree’.

Maps - people engage to them and give their opinion and the territorial information gathered was valuable.

Territorial interventions (tactics in public space) - which attracted many to participate (that not always did so) and facilitated partnerships established with a broader network and community, like schools.

Use of certain language - it can lead to miscommunication if facilitator does not understand the local context


Australia

Australia

YVONNE LYNCHCity of Melbourne

URBAN FOREST STRATEGY

Image by: City of Melbourne


URBAN FOREST STRATEGYAustralia

Australia

YVONNE LYNCH*City of Melbourne

What is the project?Melbourne’s urban forest is a critical element of the city’s fabric, liveability and cultural heritage. Melbourne has long been regarded as Australia’s ‘garden city’, however more than a decade of drought combined with the impact of severe water restrictions has left the city’s urban forest in a state of unprecedented decline.

In 2011, City of Melbourne initiated a four year Public Engagement and Community Planning program to design an Urban Forest Strategy to respond to these challenges. The Urban Forest Strategy puts forward the vision to develop the City of Melbourne to become a ‘city within a forest’. It has a target of doubling the City’s tree canopy cover to provide multiple benefits including, increasing the health and wellbeing of the community and cooling the city’s summertime temperatures.

PartnersCity of Melbourne is the capital city of the Australian state of Victoria. It is the second most populous city in Australia with over four million people living in the greater geographical area.

Target usersMunicipality’s residents, workers and visitors.

2012

2011

-20

12

Urb

an F

ore

st S

trat

eg

y e

ndo

rse

d

by

Co

unc

il

Co

mm

uni

ty w

as c

ons

ulte

d o

n th

e d

eve

lop

me

nt o

f th

e U

rban

Fo

rest

Str

ate

gy

Urb

an F

ore

st P

reci

nct P

lans

w

ere

dev

elo

pe

d f

or

Car

lton,

S

ou

th Y

arra

, Eas

t Me

lbo

urn

e a

nd

the

ce

ntra

l city

Pu

blic

wo

rksh

op

he

ld in

Car

lton

Pu

blic

wo

rksh

op

he

ld in

Eas

t M

elb

ou

rne

Pu

blic

wo

rksh

op

he

ld in

So

uth

Ya

rra

Pu

blic

wo

rksh

op

he

ld in

CB

D

Pu

blic

wo

rksh

op

he

ld in

No

rth

&

We

st M

elb

ou

rne

Pu

blic

wo

rksh

op

he

ld in

D

ock

land

s

Pu

blic

wo

rksh

op

he

ld in

K

ens

ing

ton

& F

lem

ing

ton

Urb

an F

ore

st P

reci

nct P

lans

w

ere

dev

elo

pe

d f

or

No

rth

&

We

st M

elb

ou

rne

, Ke

nsin

gto

n an

d D

ock

land

s

Co

mm

uni

ty e

ngag

em

ent

to

dev

elo

p P

arkv

ille

pre

cinc

t pla

n

Co

mm

uni

ty e

ngag

em

ent

to

dev

elo

p S

ou

thb

ank

and

F

ishe

rman

s B

end

pre

cinc

t pla

ns

Par

kvill

e, S

ou

thb

ank

and

Fis

herm

ans

Be

nd c

om

mu

nity

eng

age

me

nt

sum

mar

y re

po

rt p

ub

lishe

d

Par

kvill

e, S

ou

thb

ank

and

Fis

herm

ans

Be

nd p

reci

nct p

lans

ava

ilab

le f

or

com

mu

nity

fe

ed

bac

k

Fin

al P

arkv

ille

, So

uth

ban

k an

d

Fis

herm

ans

Be

nd p

reci

nct p

lans

p

ub

lishe

d

2012

-20

13

Mar

20

13

Ap

r 20

13

Ap

r 20

13

May

20

13

Oct

20

13

Fe

b 2

014

Mar

20

14

2013

-20

14

Mar

20

15

Ap

r-M

ay 2

015

May

-Ju

n 20

15

Jul 2

015

De

c 20

15


*Originally interviewed Susan Lengyel who was a contractor at the time.

_______________More information on this project:http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/nature


Drivers to use participatory approachThe Lord Mayor’s leadership was a driver for the participator approach. He acknowledged that there are few political, budget or policy decisions that must deliver for people in 100 years, therefore the community really needed to be fully involved.

Where did participation process take place? • Physical space • Online platform

Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationWhere reported to be good community engagement skills and strategic development planning where the team set clear goals, targets and measurable variables.

OutcomesParticipation process still on-going, therefore no outcomes have been identified as yet, apart from successfully engage with stakeholders and diverse community members.

URBAN FOREST STRATEGYAustralia

Australia

YVONE LYNCH*City of Melbourne

Community workshops - a number of community workshops were undertaken, ranging from co-design workshops through to development of precinct plans. These were always successful in attracting a considerable number of attendants.

Online tools - this was the first time City of Melbourne used an online platform and it was so successful it has now been transformed into Participate Melbourne for all projects that the municipality runs.

Transparency in provision of information and long term timeframes.

Levels of engagement by children and young people were lower than expected.


Canada

USA

MIKE LYDONThe Street Plans Collaborative

TACTICAL URBANISM FOR HAMILTON

Image by: The Street Plans Collaborative


TACTICAL URBANISM FOR HAMILTON19

Ap

rilTa

ctic

al U

rban

ism

Wo

rksh

op

Inte

rve

ntio

ns #

1 an

d #

3

The

Sp

ect

ato

r p

ub

lishe

s Ta

ctic

al

Urb

anis

m w

ork

sho

p a

rtic

le

Le

ctu

re o

n Ta

ctic

al U

rban

ism

Inte

rve

ntio

n #

4

City

of

Ham

ilto

n ‘C

rack

dow

n’

Rai

se th

e H

amm

er

sum

mar

ise

s Ta

ctic

al U

rban

ism

Le

ctu

re

City

of

Ham

ilto

n /

HB

SA

me

etin

g

City

of

Ham

ilto

n ag

ree

s to

“pilo

t”

app

roac

h to

str

eet

imp

rove

me

nts

City

of

Ham

ilto

n ag

ree

s to

inst

all

bu

mp

-ou

ts a

t He

rkim

er

and

Lo

cke

str

eet

s

City

of

Ham

ilto

n b

eg

ins

pai

ntin

g

new

pe

de

stria

n cr

oss

ing

and

te

mp

ora

ry b

um

p-o

uts

at

He

rkim

er

and

Lo

cke

str

eet

s

30 A

pr

- 1

May

1 M

ay

2 M

ay

5 M

ay

7 M

ay

8 M

ay

14 M

ay

19 M

ay

23 M

ay

28 M

ay

Canada

USA

MIKE LYDON The Street Plans Collaborative

What is the project?Using Tactical Urbanism, the Hamilton project commenced in April 2013. The Hamilton/Burlington Society of Architects (HBSA) invited Mike Lydon as a keynote speaker and as facilitator for a tactical urbanism workshop. During the workshops, sites with a specific urban problematic were identified. With these sites the various stakeholders proposed solutions and Herkimer and Locke streets was one of the sites with a more successful outcome. From a tactical urbanism intervention temporary plastic hazard cones were placed in strategic locations to improve street crossings.

PartnersHamilton/Burlington Society of Architects (HBSA) is comprised of members and affiliates from the local architecture community. The HBSA represents the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) locally, providing communication, public relations and professional development for its members.

The Street Plans Collaborative is an urban planning, design and research-advocacy firm.

Target usersLocal residents of Hamilton, specifically residents directly affected by five road intersections identified as unsafe for pedestrians.


TACTICAL URBANISM FOR HAMILTON

_______________More information on this project:www.streetplans.orghttp://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urbanism-hamilton_report_f


Drivers to use participatory approachArchitects knew there was an issue but residents were not aware of it. Street Plans Collaborative was brought in to teach participatory skills.

Where did participation process take place? • Physical space

Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationGuide participants very closely.

OutcomesAfter temporary interventions, and even authorities attempts to remove them, local authorities acknowledged the need for permanent actions to improve pedestrian crossings and undertook necessary works to do so. Since the first intervention at Locke and Herkimer Streets in Hamilton, the City has gone on to improve more than 100+ intersections using a temporary to permanent approach. Moreover, the municipality recently adopted a new policy allowing for citizens to develop urban interventions.

Canada

USA

MIKE LYDONThe Street Plans Collaborative

Making photomontages – with the help of cut-outs from photos, participants can visualise their ideas in a clear manner.

Models – with simple materials like carton, paper and colour markers, participants were able to communicate their ideas in 3D to other participants and have a better understanding of the space.

Analyse photos of examples in other places – this helped participants to understand different materials, their sources, cost and how to use them.

Facilitator could not recall any of the tools used in this specific project that did not work as expected.


USA

USA

LIZ OGBULIZOGBU

NOW HUNTERS POINT

Image by: Anne Hamersky


NOW HUNTERS POINTUSA

USA

LIZ OGBULIZ OGBU

What is the project?NOW_hunters point was created as part of a plan to revitalise the site of a former PG&E power plant in the Bayview Hunters Point neighbourhood of San Francisco.

PartnersLIZ OGBU A designer, urbanist, and social innovator, Liz is an expert on sustainable design and spatial innovation in challenged urban environments globally. She is founder and principal of Studio O, an innovation firm that works with communities in need to use the power design to deliver deep social impact.

envelope A+D is an architectural firm based in San Francisco It is a collaborative design group inclusive of outside disciplines and individuals.

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company, incorporated in California in 1905, is one of the largest combination natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. Based in San Francisco, the company is a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation.

Target usersSan Francisco’s Bayview Hunters Point neighbourhood is incredibly diverse. It is historically an African-American community and has an active industrial workforce, an artist community, and a growing middle class community among others.

De

c 20

13In

terv

iew

s w

ith k

ey s

take

hold

ers

in

the

co

mm

uni

ty

Ear

ly In

terv

ent

ion,

incl

ud

ing

L

iste

ning

Bo

oth

and

ge

nera

l site

im

pro

vem

ent

s.

End

of

Su

mm

er

Mov

ie N

ight

On-

go

ing

co

mm

uni

ty e

vent

s

Mar

-May

20

14

May

20

14

Au

g 2

014


_______________More information on this project:http://lizogbu.com/portfolio_page/now-hunters-point/http://nowhunterspoint.org


Drivers to use participatory approachIn 2006, a community initiative led the closure of the power plant and its owner worked with the community to undertake remediation of the site. Following this previous community involvement, PG&E invited LIZOGBU and envelope A+D to collaborate in the conversion of the former power plant site into a public space for the neighbourhood.


Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationThe facilitator views empathy as a very important skill, as well as forming partnerships with community members to achieve participation.

Outcomes24 events, 28 stories recorded and archived, 52 local youth and 8 local residents hired, 6 stories edited and shared back with the community and 12 local vendors hired.

NOW HUNTERS POINTUSA

USA

LIZ OGBULIZOGBU

Listening Booth – recorded interviews were undertaken with key community members on their vision of the neighbourhood and specifically for Hunters Point.

Not having frequent follow up communications – when no follow-up communications were done after a community engagement event, the community lost trust in the facilitators and the project.


Paraguay

Denmark

ESBEN NEANDER KRISTENSENGehl Architects

ASUNCION’S PUBLIC LIFE AND PUBLIC SPACE

Image by: Gehl Architects


ASUNCION’S PUBLIC LIFE AND PUBLIC SPACEParaguay

Denmark


What is the project?The project is a study on public space and the public life of the City of Asuncion; it is about re-examining its public spaces and transportation network. The study analysed the pedestrian, leisure, bicycle, transit and vehicular patterns in several areas of the city, with the aim of designing a pilot intervention that can demonstrate improvements to these patterns, especially in the pedestrian experience. The strategy Gehl Architects followed was to run workshops with volunteers to teach them how to document human activity in public space followed by going on site to document human activity. Gehl Architects then analysed the statistics and produced a report with recommendations to improve public space.

PartnersGehl Architects is an urban design practice that is internationally recognised with the headquarters in Denmark.

Municipalidad de Asuncion is the local government authority in Asuncion, the capital city of Paraguay.

Inter-American Development Bank is the main source of multilateral financing in Latin America. It provides solutions to development challenges and support in the key areas of the region.

Target usersCity of Asuncion’s residents

Au

g 2

014

Pu

blic

Sp

ace

Pu

blic

Life

stu

dy

with

in f

ocu

s ar

eas

Qu

antit

ativ

e a

naly

sis

on

the

use

rs

in p

ub

lic s

pac

e a

nd it

s re

latio

n w

ith th

e c

urr

ent

op

en

spac

e

cond

itio

ns

Ide

ntify

key

pu

blic

sp

ace

issu

es

and

dev

elo

pm

ent

Re

po

rt a

nd r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns

with

pilo

t pro

ject

s

Se

p-O

ct 2

014

Nov

20

14

Oct

20

15


_______________More information on this project:http://gehlarchitects.comhttp://www.iadb.org/en/countries/paraguay/paraguay-and-the-idb,1039.html


Drivers to use participatory approachGehl Architects undertook an extensive pedestrian movement and cars counting to understand the space. This process requires involvement from locals.


Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationKnowing when to be open.

OutcomesGehl Architects produced a recommendation report for Asuncion’s authorities and the Inter-American Development Bank has allocated funding to undertake streetscapes upgrades to improve public life in the city.

ASUNCION’S PUBLIC LIFE AND PUBLIC SPACEParaguay

Denmark


Presenting scenarios - this helps the audience to unlock their minds and creativity

The biggest challenge was the changing conditions of the related projects in the downtown area of Asunción, necessitating several changes to study area and methods throughout the process.


Kenya

UK

ALEXANDRE APSAN FREDIANIArchitecture Sans Frontières

CHANGE BY DESIGN: MASHIMONI

Image by: Architecture Sans Frontières


CHANGE BY DESIGN: MASHIMONI Kenya

UK

ALEXANDRE APSAN FREDIANI Architecture Sans Frontières

What is the project?It is an action research workshop for a slum upgrade in Mashimoni, Mathare Valley, Kenya.

PartnersArchitecture Sans Frontières UK Through exhibitions, talks and events, outreach, international workshops and UK workshops ASF-UK explores and engages in complex issues concerning development. ASF-UK uses ‘participation’ as the primary methodology for achieving a more equitable and fair existence for everybody.

Pamoja Trust is a local NGO that has been working for over 15 years in supporting slum dwellers in Kenya to resist forced evictions and fight for their right to adequate housing.

UN-HABITAT is the United Nations programme working towards a better urban future. Its mission is to promote socially and environmentally sustainable human settlements and development and achieve adequate shelter for all.

Target usersMashimoni’s residents, grassroots organisations and NGOs active in the neighbourhood.

Jun

2011

City

vis

it an

d s

ymp

osi

um

with

ov

er

120

par

ticip

ants

incl

ud

ing

in

tern

atio

nal a

nd lo

cal w

ork

sho

p

par

ticip

ants

, lo

cal p

ract

itio

ners

, p

olic

y m

ake

rs, a

cad

em

ics,

UN

-H

abita

t sta

ff a

nd s

lum

dw

elle

rs’

org

anis

atio

ns.

Par

ticip

ants

we

re d

ivid

ed

in th

ree

g

rou

ps

and

ass

igne

d a

diff

ere

nt

top

ic: I

nstit

utio

nal,

Co

mm

uni

ty

and

Dw

elli

ng; a

nd w

ork

ed

du

ring

o

ne w

ee

k u

sing

diff

ere

nt to

ols

.

All

the

thre

e g

rou

ps

we

re

bro

ug

ht b

ack

to w

ork

tog

ethe

r an

d d

eve

lop

ed

a g

ame

: ‘P

ort

folio

o

f O

ptio

ns’.

Jun

2011

2 w

ee

ks

Jul 2

011



Drivers to use participatory approachMashimoni is a slum in Nairobi. In order to undertake upgrades a series of tensions were found between individual priorities and needs, and those of the collective. Through participatory design undertaken, stakeholders were able to analyse their issues and solutions at three different scales: institutional, neighbourhood and dwelling, and then link them together.

Where did participation process take place? • Physical space, in designated sites but also walking tours around Mashimoni.

Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationFacilitation of this project was successful because of its multidisciplinary team, comprising architects, social scientists and planners, which brought:• Visual skills: thinking through a space design,• Social understanding and skills to engage the community,• Planning vision of all scales of development: dwelling, neighbourhood and municipal levels.• Social diversity in the team, and social change was the unifying vision.

OutcomesThis project led to recommendations for changes on planning regulations as well as examples for innovations of participatory practices.

CHANGE BY DESIGN: MASHIMONI Kenya

UK

ALEXANDRE APSAN FREDIANI Architecture Sans Frontières

Interviews by drawing during interviews - residents were asked to draw and comment on their drawings. At the same time, facilitators were taking notes on what was being explained to them.

Life stories - drawing a timeline stating where residents used to live, and capturing milestones in residents’ lives.

Models - were use to explore a dream dwelling but also at an urban scale to identify issues.

The limited timeframe and large size of the neighbourhood compromised the possibility of having a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of the locality and engaging with its relationship with city wide processes.

_______________More information on this project:https://www.scribd.com/doc/75033019/Change-by-Design-Building-Communities-Through-Participatory-Designhttp://www.asfparticipate.org


Turkey

Turkey

NERKIS KURALMiddle East Technical University

CHILD ATTRACTION CENTER

Image by: Nerkis Kural


CHILD ATTRACTION CENTERTurkey

Turkey


What is the project?It is a project that won a competition hosted by the World Bank. It was presented as an experimental project for demonstrating the role architects can play as stakeholders in shaping urban environments while valuing local experience. The project is an open air centre for children, where they can participate in different activities and interact with their peers, as well as adults in Ankara, Turkey.

PartnersBasic Design Studio, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bilkent University is the first private university in Turkey

World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world.

Target usersChildren, parents, teachers and visitors of Ankara

End

20

04

Re

sear

ch d

esi

gn

Wo

rksh

op

s w

ith th

e c

om

mu

nity

Re

po

rt s

ub

mitt

ed

to W

orl

d B

ank

200

5

June

20

06



Drivers to use participatory approachThe design team proposed the project as an innovative open and semi-open spaces as a learning environment for under-priveleged children in a low-income area. The objective was to help them be integrated to urban living with the support of urbanites of Ankara that have skills in music, drawing, literature, etc. and would be volunteering to share these with the children in an informal environment they would come and go. Novel also because it was planned to be built by recycled and reused materials and objects chosen by the children themselves from a second hand yard of the city.

Where did participation process take place? • Physical space: school library, on site and the city’s junkyard.

Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationTeam members were successful in relating with the children in a clear and sincere manner. They also spent time with children in a friendly social environment by sharing refreshments and picnics with them.

OutcomesConcept design was developed with children’s input and the municipality undertook site cleaning. Unfortunately no construction was undertaken due to two main factors: lack of funding and failure to engage with adults in the participatory process.

CHILD ATTRACTION CENTERTurkey

Turkey


Drawing and model making – children were provided with materials for drawing and model making to express their ideas of what needed to happen in the space.

Site visits – these allowed children to relate their drawings and models with the real space.

Not involving adults in the participatory process – Lack of engagement with parents and other members of the community meant that the project did not reach the endorsement expected to bring the project to life.

_______________More information on this project:Kural, N. et al. (2006) “A Participatory Process: Defining Urban Public Space for Children in a Squatter Settlement”, Children and Young People in Everyday Environment, unpublished paper, Multidisciplinary Seminar. Rennes University 2 , Haute Bretagne, France.

Kural, N. et al. (2010) “Un Processus Participatif: Concevoir un Espace Public Urbain Pour Enfants Dans un Bidonville”, Enfants et Jeunes dans les Espaces du Quotidien, Isabel Danic et al ed. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Haute Bretagne, France, 247-262.


Mexico

CanadaMexico

EMMA COHLMEYERGISELA MÉNDEZSustainable Cities InternationalGobierno de Colima

HUERTAS DEL CURA PARK

Image by: Emma Cohlmeyer


HUERTAS DEL CURA PARKMexico

Canada Mexico

EMMA COHLMEYER GISELA MÉNDEZSustainable Cities International Gobierno de Colima

What is the project?It is an historical park that had been abandoned. The park was re-designed with a grant from the “Programa de rescate de espacios públicos” (Public space recovery program).

PartnersInstituto de Planeacion para el Municipio de Colima (Planning Institute for the City of Colima)

Sustainable Cities International (SCI) is a registered non-profit based in Vancouver, Canada. With a core team of directors, volunteers and a network of international associates, SCI works with cities around the world to bring about change towards urban sustainability. SCI focuses on building human capacity within cities so that innovation and change can occur.

Target usersCommunity surrounding the historical park Huertas del Cura.

Fe

b 2

010

Re

sear

ch a

nd p

lann

ing

fo

r L

as

Hu

ert

as p

roje

ct b

eg

ins

Ide

ntify

par

ticip

ato

ry s

trat

eg

ies

Invi

te s

take

hold

ers

Co

mm

uni

ty m

eet

ing

s, v

isio

ning

w

ork

sho

ps

and

co

mm

uni

ty

eve

nts

take

pla

ce in

the

par

k

Tra

nsla

tion

of

ide

as a

nd v

isio

n fo

r th

e p

ark

into

tech

nica

l dra

win

gs

and

arc

hite

ctu

ral s

ub

mis

sio

ns

Co

ord

inat

ion

with

loca

l g

ove

rnm

ent

and

fe

de

ral f

und

ing

p

rog

ram

to c

onfi

rm fi

nal d

esi

gn

Co

nstr

uct

ion

of

first

pha

se

be

gin

s

‘Cre

atio

n o

f co

mm

uni

ty m

ura

l

Co

nstr

uct

ion

of

first

pha

se

com

ple

te

Co

nstr

uct

ion

of

rem

aini

ng

pha

ses

Mar

20

10

Ap

r 20

10

Ap

r- A

ug

20

10

Au

g –

De

c 20

10

De

c 20

10-

Fe

b 2

011

Fe

b 2

011

Ap

r 20

11

Ap

r 20

11

Ap

r 20

11-

Ap

r 20

12



Drivers to use participatory approachThis approach facilitates the development of a sense of ownership and pride in the community, social cohesion and integration as well as highlighting the importance of public participation in municipal planning and politics. Residents, neighbours, community leaders, local youth and children are directly involved in the process, from the outset to project implementation.

Where did participation process take place? • Physical space, a designated meeting place and on site.

Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationGood listening skills. The facilitator stated that most of the community members did not feel intimidated by her (being a professional) because Spanish is her second language. Community members seemed to feel that they could express themselves more confidently because of this and that they would not be judged.


CanadaMexico

EMMA COHLMEYERGISELA MÉNDEZSustainable Cities InternationalGobierno de Colima

EMMA COHLMEYER

Brainstorming with maps - with the aid of maps, locate issues, dreams, and visions of the site and start imagining solutions.

Site visits and meetings on-site - being on site helps everyone to have a better understanding of the space.

Meetings with large groups or too many meetings - having large groups intimidates some of the participants and does not allow for everyone to express their thoughts. If there are too many meetings, participants cannot commit to all of them and people start losing interest.


_______________More information on this project:http://sustainablecities.net/our-work/sustainability-projects/how-we-work/participatory-planning/item/23-los-huertas-del-cura-a-community-park-designed-by-and-for-the-peoplehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIjmAaAHoFwhttp://ipco.gob.mx/index.php/servicios-y-programas/53-parque-las-huertas-del-cura


Facilitator’s skills that enabled participationFacilitator identifies the following skills and characteristics that enabled successful participation:•Empathy•Capability to express ideas clearly and acknowledging through language used that the community is the expert, for example when presenting the design it is important to say “you propose…” instead of “I propose…”, given that your role as a designer is to interpret communities’ inputs and not implement your own ideas.•Model the participatory strategies during the process, according to needs as they arise.•Emotional intelligence

OutcomesThis project was successfully constructed and embraced by the community. It also worked as a model to replicate in other parks within the municipality and the participation methodology has been showcased in diverse forums around Mexico.

Visionary maps – while on site working on stakeholders, vision and locate them on maps. It is the best data gathering technique as it has a high level of accuracy and understanding of the space, for both facilitators and stakeholders.

Presenting the plan in a non-participatory way - it was very important to recognise the plan as being ‘ours’ – developed by the community, not only the technical team. This requires a different thinking for most trained professionals.


Canada Mexico

EMMA COHLMEYER GISELA MÉNDEZSustainable Cities International Gobierno de Colima

GISELA MÉNDEZ

43PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACESImage by: Emma Cohlmeyer


This extensive research effort has demonstrated that public space and its design complexities represent an opportunity for design participation, both in the design process and its implementation. Implementing participatory approaches in public space projects promotes and ensures community involvement in decision-making and overcomes the commonly experienced disconnect between communities and their representatives in government.

Participation also benefits all parties involved. It guaranties transparency in the community-government dialogue, creates community cohesion, enables voices to be heard, ensures long lasting projects and develops a strong sense of ownership among communities.

Even though participation is sometimes not an easy process, it improves quality in decisions made and makes decision-making processes more democratic. Participation is also the best way to facilitate a common understanding of objectives, identify issues and solutions and develop implementation strategies.

It is hoped that the practices and learnings from the nine case studies presented in this publication help community members, professionals and governments to better understand design participation and promote its use in their neighbourhoods, cities and countries.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

45PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACESImage by: Architecture Sans Frontières


Ahn, H.-C. (2007). Design Tools and Three Steps in Participatory Design Processes: A Proposal for Better Communications among Residents and Experts, based on a Case Project of Neighbourhood Park in Seoul, Korea. 6th Conference of the Pacific Rim Community Design Network, Quanzhou, Fujian, China.

Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. USA, Oxford University Press.

APA, C. M. (2013). Guía Práctica para la Participación Communitaria en Parques Públicos de Bolsillo. Mexico City.

Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I. (2012). “Spaces for participatory creativity.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 8(2-3): 105-126.

Carmona, M. e. a. (2003). Public spaces, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. USA, Architectural Press.

Clark, A. e. a. (2008). “Learning to see: lessons from a participatory observation research project in public spaces.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12(4): 345-360.

Crewe, K. (2001). “The Quality of Participatory Design: The Effects of Citizen Input on the Design of the Boston Southwest Corridor.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67(4): 437-455.

D’hondt, F. (2003). Visioning as Participatory Planning Tool Learning from Kosovo Practices. Kosobo, UN-HABITAT.

Dubbleling, M., Bracalenti, L., Lagorio, L. (2009) “Participatori design of public spaces for Urban agriculture, Rosario, Argentina.” Open House International 34, 36-49.

Dunne, J. (2011). “Design Knowledge Extraction A Community-Based Approach to Public Open Space Designin Mexico City.” Architectural Engineering and Design Management 3(3): 160-168.

Ecosistema Urbano (2012), Dreamhamar, a network design process for collectively reimagining public space, Lugadero, Madrid, Spain.

Forlano, L., Mathew, A. (2014). “From Design Fiction to Design Friction: Speculative and Participatory Design ofValues-Embedded Urban Technology.” Journal of Urban Technology 21(4): 7-24.

Gengli, L. (2013). Open space: Urban Public Landscape Design. Hong Kong, Send Points.

Goodman, L. (1961). “Snowball Sampling.” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32(1): 148-170.Hasirci, D. e. a. “A Participatory Process: Defining Urban Public Space for Children in a Squatter Settlement.”

Herrington, S. (2009). On Landscape. USA, Routledge.

REFERENCES


REFERENCES

Hussain, S. (2010). “Empowering marginalised children in developing countries through participatory design processes.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 6(2): 99-117.

Iltus, S., Hart, R. “Participatory Planning and Design of Recreational Spaces with Children.” Arch. & Behav. 10(4): 361-370.

Kita, S. K. (2011). Facilitator Manual. web. S. K. Kita.

Klok, J. V. (2013). Participatory Design and Public Space Catalyst for Community Development. Master of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph.

Kural, N. et al. (2006) “A Participatory Process: Defining Urban Public Space for Children in a Squatter Settlement”, Children and Young People in Everyday Environment, unpublished paper, Multidisciplinary Seminar. Rennes University 2 , Haute Bretagne, France.

Kural, N. et al. (2010) “Un Processus Participatif: Concevoir un Espace Public Urbain Pour Enfants Dans un Bidonville”, Enfants et Jeunes dans les Espaces du Quotidien, Isabel Danic et al ed. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Haute Bretagne, France, 247-262.

Lee, Y. (2008). “Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 4(1): 31-50.

Loebach, J. (2011). “The Magical Park of Aviacion: Lessons from a participatory design project with the children of Aviacion, Peru.”: 1-9.

Manzini, E., Rizzo, F. (2011). “Small projects/large changes: Participatory design as an open participated process.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 7(3-4): 199-215.

Medina Ramírez, S., Veloz Rosas, J. Manual de Participación en Políticas de Movilidad y desarrollo urbano. ITDP.

Mehta, V. (2013). “Evaluating Public Space.” Journal of Urban Design 19(1): 53-88.

Montes Ruiz, A. P. (2013). Activaciones Urbanas para la Apropiación del Espacio Público. San José, Costa Rica, UN-HABITAT. 978-92-1-132547-8.

Nielsen, J., Chistiansen, N. (2000). “Mindtape: A Tool for Reflection in Participatory Desgin.” 309-313.

Palich, N., Edmonds, A. (2013) “Social sustainability: creating places and participatory processes that perform well for people.” 78.

Rayner, J. P., Rayner M.T., Laidlaw, A.C. “Children’s participation in designing landscapes - examples from Melbourne, Australia.” 1-19.


Rebstock, M. e. a. (2011). Methodology Plan for good planning and designing of urban open spaces. UrbSpace-Project.

Romero, G., Mesías, R. (1999). Participación, planeamiento y diseño del hábitat popular. CYTED. Mexico City, Grupo Erre: 205.

Romero, G. et. al. (2004). La participación en el diseño urbano y arquitectónico en la producción social del hábitat. CYTED: 122.

Sanders, E., Brandt, E., Binder, T. (2010). “A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design.” 195-198.

Schadewitz, N. (2009). “Design patterns for cross-cultural collaboration.” International Journal of Design 3(3): 37-53.

Stevens, H. K. (2010). Participatory Design for Community Planning and Development: Tools to Collect, Synthesise, and Use Local Knowledge in Decision-Making Processes. Master of Consumer and Applied Sciences in Design Studies, Uneversity of Otago.

Svendsen, E. (2013). Storyline and Design: How Civic Stewardship Shapes Urban Design in New York City. Resilience in Ecology and Urban Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities. S. S. B. M. Dordrecht. USA.

UN-HABITAT (2013). 53 UN-HABITAT Model Projects. Time to think urban. Nairobi, Kenya.

UN-HABITAT (2013). The relevance of street patterns and public space in urban areas. Nairobi, Kenya.

UN-HABITAT (2013). Streets as Public Spaces and Drivers of Urban Prosperity. Nairobi, Kenya.

Verstrate, L. and L. Karsten (2011). “The Creation of Play Spaces in Twentieth-century Amsterdam: From an Intervention of Civil Actors to a Public Policy.” Landscape Research 85-109.

Verstrate, L., Karsten, L. (2011). “The Creation of Play Spaces in Twentieth-century Amsterdam: From an Intervention of Civil Actors to a Public Policy.” Landscape Research 85-109.

REFERENCES

49PARTICIPATORY DESIGN FOR PUBLIC URBAN SPACESImage by: Ecosistema Urbano


APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

A. BASIC DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

1. What is the name of the project and where is located (Country and city)?

2. Description of the project Type (i.e. park, square, plaza, etc.) Location in the urban context Size in square meters Target users

B. PROCESSES / TOOLS

1. What was your role as facilitator during the design process?

2. What participation tools were/are used during design?

3. How did you analyse the inputs from the community?

4. How did you translate your analysis into the final design?

5. From the tools you used/use, which ones do you think gave the best outcome and why?

6. From the tools you used/use, which ones do you think did not work as planned and why?

7. Where did/does participation facilitation takes place? Is it a physical space? Is it an online platform?

8. What financing model did you use to undertake participation in design?

9. What are the skills you have to make participation happening?


10. How long did/does the entire participation process and final design take to be completed? Date when the initiative stared Dates when workshops and/or other participation tools stared and ended Time it took you to analyse inputs from the community Time is took you to translate your analysis into the final design

C. DRIVERS

1. Who had the initiative for this project?

2. Who was/is involved during design and decision-making process?

3. What kind of institution leads the participation process?

D. OUTCOME

1. What was the outcome of the participatory design process you undertook?

2. How do/did you measure the success of the project?

3. Are there any photos and/or graphic material that you would like to share of the participation process and the final design?If so, please sent them to [email protected]

Documents

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN - Cities Programme · understanding and uptake of participatory design. Research Method The research approach chosen was a semi-structured interview with a sample