Comments on: Is Your City Design-Centered or Place-Centered?

By: Continuing the Conversation: Towards an Architecture of Place | PLANNINGCANUK

Tue, 08 May 2012 12:26:51 +0000

[...] to enliven it on a day-to-day basis (themselves) are most likely to do so. Another commenter, Gil, makes this case quite [...]

By: Continuing the Conversation: Towards an Architecture of Place « Project for Public Spaces - Placemaking for Communities

Wed, 02 May 2012 16:13:06 +0000

[...] the past couple of months, we have written several times about the need to move toward an Architecture of Place, creating design that makes people feel [...]

By: Toward an Architecture of Place: “The Best Design is Built Around People” « Project for Public Spaces - Placemaking for Communities

Wed, 02 May 2012 16:09:50 +0000

[...] (52) Related Articles // Is Your City Design-Centered or Place-Centered?Toward an Architecture of Place: Moving Beyond Iconic to ExtraordinaryDiscovering Common Ground [...]

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:13:00 +0000

That is a wonderful compliment coming from you Fred. Thank you.
Going to DC May 16 for grant presentation to NAR for the pilot project for the Lansing region. Will need to find another $40,000 to make it happen; know any wealthy social experiment entrepreneurs. Got in a bit of an argument yesterday with an academic planner type at MSU(they attended the Lansing event). Asked him for an endorsement of the pilot and he told me I was too far out in the forefront of placemaking; that government needed to provide the framework and proper training first in order to assure that things would work. I responded that this was a chicken and egg argument; that doing nothing was unacceptable and failure of different “seedlings” was ok. Don’t think I’ll get his endorsement. Walked away from the meeting after it was over, mad and upset. Then remembered he was a planner and I shouldn’t be surprised. Just part of the mindset.

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:13:00 +0000

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:43:00 +0000

I think getting to excellence or extraordinary takes a combination of both community inspired ideas and aspirations and designers that see the richness and depth of what people are expressing. Unfortunately many designers see themselves as delivering their genius rather than uplifting the ideas coming from communities

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:43:00 +0000

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:38:00 +0000

Gil,
You are so connected to reality of what people are saying without knowing what to say. We see it everywhere and as people wake up and get out of jail, they see a future very different that what we have done in the past.

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:38:00 +0000

By: Gil

Gil — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:42:00 +0000

The world that exists. Those places where the planners, the engineers, the architects, and those that rely heavily on them in making decisions, have had their shot and produced what they have produced. Now those that by necessity interact with it daily deserve their shot; at how to organically define at the neighborhood level those improvements and activities that they feel improve their opportunity for social activity and interaction, that contribute to the local sense of livability, on the street. At the end of the day it is people’s perceptions of how great, or not so great, their places are that matters most.
Soul of the Community’s work has taken a huge step in validating this concept of “community attachment”. I have yet to attend a public hearing on a proposed project where anything resembling “community attachment” has emerged in the dialogue that emanates from the planners, or engineers, or architects, or those that interpret the rules(zoning, building and use restrictions, etc). I am not issuing a blanket condemnation of those who by training are preoccupied with the form, only pointing out that an understanding of the use of such form is not something well taught or understood in those disciplines. Nor should any of these wells of expertise assume that they know better than those who must interact with it daily. Therein lies much of the problem.

By: Neal Gorenflo

Neal Gorenflo — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:52:00 +0000

San Francisco is taking a place-centered approach with their re-development of the central Market area / Tenderloin. There’s something special brewing their with long time community groups, art nonprofits, social enterprise coworking spaces, food trucks, art markets, and social media companies like Twitter in the mix. It appears that whatever happens will be especially social and agile (popups, etc.).

-Neal

By: Cindy Frewen @urbanverse

Cindy Frewen @urbanverse — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:13:00 +0000

hello Grant – you are right, I know a different city than you based on wealth. it’s an economic paradigm, perhaps the worst scenario for creating fair access and “good cities.” Two shifts – one is changing decision making about cities. The other shift is a move to quality of life issues, like walkability, access to services, education, well-being, and balanced lifestyles from economic growth as the measuring stick.

What will it take to change? Crisis, collapse? or will we wake up first?

By: Grant

Grant — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:41:00 +0000

The fundamental question is: “what is a good city?” People differ in their values and beliefs of what a good place is, what it looks like, and who lives there. The history of urban planning and architecture are filled with attempts at creating different visions of the good city. If stakeholders measure it as maximum price per square foot, you’re going to have a different answer than asking someone who can’t afford to live there.

By: Richardkooyman

Richardkooyman — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:12:00 +0000

Ethan,
Thanks for taking the time to personally reply. The bottom line is that someone or some group has to eventually decide. For all the problems inherent in a one designer or one team designed approached a place- centered approach has it’s own set of problems.
Recently I was able to hear Ann Markusen and and Anne Gadwa speak on their commissioned Creative Placemaking study and when asked how or who would measure the aesthetic success of creative placemaking projects Anne Gadwa’s response was that she didn’t think aesthetics played that important a role. That attitude concerns me as does your assumption that intellectualism somehow hinders good design and that answers can be found in a “common” knowledge. I guess it all comes down to who you define as “common” and whose ideas you choose to include.
I don’t disagree with your hall of shame. I’m just suggesting we could also make a list of great successful projects that would have never been made had your “place-centered approached” been used.

By: Richardkooyman

Richardkooyman — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:12:00 +0000

By: Alex URBACT

Alex URBACT — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:51:00 +0000

Great
comparison between designed-centered and place-centered urban projects !
On the same issue, one of URBACT projects called HOPUS has gathered 5 European
partners on how to influence new housing developments towards a more
sustainable housing offer : http://urbact.eu/en/projects/quality-sustainable-living/hopus/our-project/

By: Ethan Kent

Ethan Kent — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:14:00 +0000

Richard,

Thanks for this articulate overview of some of the common perceptions of our message.

There is definitely an anti-intellectualism intention of this message in favor of a common sense that facilities more inspired and creative action on the part of all those shaping the public realm. We also think that the design-centered approach is intellectually flawed in its narrow focus.

We’d agree that many “creative”, “stakeholder”-focused planning efforts is still not really empowering people or change. We have found that that when such a process focuses on Place, with various facilitation processes and tools that we have proven, that people do start to have some power, responsibility and creative capacity that did not previously exist.

Unfortunately most starchitect projects and many design-centered spaces have had the goal of being “neat, clean and empty” and have succeeded. See our Hall of Shame.

We never say “community-based design” or suggest that communities should be doing design. We need to, and can, draw more on the skilled practitioners though a place-centered approach. We really appreciate Gehry’s pavilion, and all of his buildings, we just think that they can also be combined with good Placemaking. Gehry’s Millenium Park pavilion is probably his design that works best as a public space.

The role of designers, architects and artists will become more authentically valuable and valued in a place-centered approach. Through a focus on place they will be able to more proactively and holistically shape more of the world than is currently allowed by the design-centered approach that is mostly compatible with isolated, high-end icons that currently limit their creative outlets and impact.

By: Richardkooyman

Richardkooyman — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:06:00 +0000

I worry that with our urgent desire to improve our communities that organizations like PPS are putting to much emphasis on “people” as having the answers and in doing so are instigating a type of anti intellectualism.

It’s a fad today to say that everyone is ‘creative’ or to use terms like ’stakeholders’ as if by doing so we are now all empowered to make the changes society needs. The reality is that not everyone is equipped or even cares to be creative and real stakeholders are still those that hold the purse strings of projects.

I find the chart above to be filled with vague assumptions and revisionistic history. What design driven projects hasn’t considered their project ”an important node in a larger system”? Name one design based project that you accuse as having it’s goal being a place that is ” neat, clean, and empty”? I live in Chicago where Frank Gehry would be considered by many to be the “lone genius” (he would say he partnered with many others) of his amazingly successful Millennium Park Pavillion. Could a “community based design” have produced something as good?

We can certainly agree that there have been many place projects that have failed throughout history. But we need to look at those cases individually to understand the reason they did rather than to simply cast a blanket of suspicion over being a designer or an architect or an artist.

Community based designing isn’t as easy or as automatic a solution as you eagerly suggest.

By: Cindy Frewen @urbanverse

Cindy Frewen @urbanverse — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:20:00 +0000

Some fundamental questions asked here – how do you understand where you live and relate to, engage with it? how do we imagine and build cities? Or rather, how do we make cities? What are the roles of and relationships between experts and citizens? what is beauty? I deeply understand this frustration and yet can’t make design the complete fall guy. Detached flat uninspired out-of- touch design, agree, that’s a serious problem. When integrated and understanding place and people, design can mean thoughtfully imagined, beautiful, remarkable, moving. Think of the High Line in NYC. There’s a balance to be reached between engagement and expression, every day lived-in cities and larger initiatives – only when those initiatives energize and bring new meaning, access, representation, soulfulness to place. In other words, they too are community-based and the community calls for an infusion of inspiration. Maybe the first column is disconnected design, or ego-centric, not people-based, ecological, deeply connected to place. We need to plan ahead, collectively, and we also need to adjust and adapt, tinker and improve.

We need place- and people-centric design. Other than my qualms calling design all bad, these two columns make a significant point. I live in Kansas City, a hybrid, where Crossroads and River Market are place based, grassroots, emergent, and downtown is more planned, top down, grand initiatives. Some schemes do not even try to connect, extraordinarily short sighted, an “oasis” mentality instead of a fabric.

Thanks for this one, PPS, a thoughtful list. Design can help place, if we understand the need to be relevant and connected.

Cindy @urbanverse

By: The Overhead Wire

The Overhead Wire — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:04:00 +0000

I think San Francisco is place centered for the most part. The Victorian and Edwardian design rules all. But more than that we’re reactionary. When there is an open piece of land, often times people don’t think it should be anything. It’s kind of crazy, especially with housing costs so high.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:58:00 +0000

Thanks for emphasizing what is too often lost in the architectural community–building a community isn’t about an architectural firm building a monument to itself. It’s more important to look at existing strengths, stakeholder and resident preferences, and immediate and obvious needs than it is to excel in a design exercise.