Collaborative Consumption: Toward Inclusive Public Participation in Design

  • Published on
    12-Mar-2016

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

DESCRIPTION

As we seek to regenerate postindustrial waterfronts for public use, public involvement in the design decision-making process must be defined. These projects are inherently complex, with large infrastructure components, high cost, and technical constraints. This work explores different models of public participation using case studies from the Copenhagen Harborfront and the Stockholm Waterfront to compare to the current Seattle Waterfront Design Process. The case study comparison demonstrates that more effort is needed to establish the role of local knowledge in decision-making. Drawing connections between the practice of user generated design and research on public participation models, I propose an alternative approach that might help us develop more responsible and responsive strategies for designing with the local community. I argue for the method of collaborative consumptiona sedimentation of user-generated design to shape public placesand I test this method on Pier 48.

Transcript

COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTIONTOWARD INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN Magda HognessCOLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTIONTOWARD INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN Magda HognessContent first published as two separate works; The Civic Waterfront: Public Participation in Urban Megaproject Design and as Pier 48: Collaborative Consumption 2012 by University of Washington The Civic Waterfront :Public Participation in Urban Megaproject DesignA thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban PlanningChair of the Supervisory Committee: Associate Professor Daniel B. Abramson Committee Members: Assistant Professor Gundula Proksch Associate Professor Nancy Rottle 2012 by University of WashingtonPIER 48: Collaborative Consumption A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of ArchitectureCo-Chairs of the Supervisory Committee: Assistant Professor Gundula Proksch Associate Professor Daniel B. Abramson Committee Member: Associate Professor Nancy Rottle 2012 by Magda HognessI dedicate this work to my parents, Zbigniew Celinski and Jolanta Celinska, for their unconditional love, support, and encouragement throughout my entire academic career. 12345 67 8Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16R AT I O N A L I T Y A N D P OW E R I N P U B L I C PA R T I C I PAT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Planning as Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Gathering Valid Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Synthesizing Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H AG E N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Political Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24South Harborfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 9 . 2 1 STO C K H O LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Political Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Slussen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3647. 6 0 S E AT T LE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Political Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Planning Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43The Central Waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Shoreline Alteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Shoreline Fortification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48P U B L I C PA R T I C I PAT I O N D E S I G N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Supporting a Reflective Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55A Civic Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56AU T H E N T I C I T Y + U S E R G E N E R AT E D D E S I G N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Authenticity within the Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Highly Responsive Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Collaborative Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Self Invention of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64M E T H O D O LO GY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Shoreline Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Neighborhood Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Intervention Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N O F P I E R 4 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Design Principals ...............................................................................................................................772016.................................................................................................................................................782022.................................................................................................................................................802030.................................................................................................................................................82Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................88References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 1As a designer I am interested in the movement away from proprietary forms of architectural knowledge towards collective experimentation. Approaching design process with collective experimentation has expansive potential to transform our cities through community building. As design projects, public spaces are well suited to offer such potential. They must address many complex physical and relationship constraints within urban landscapes. More critically, public spaces must also evolve to suit community needs through time. Within the design community, successful public spaces are often measured and described with easy to record observations such as comfortable personal distances, site furniture layout, sight distances for safety, etc. These measures are valuable for comparison, but they do not disclose how these spaces are shaped, adopted and used by communities over time. Although the success of a public space is difficult to measure, one aspect is inarguably true; it must be used. This work began with the intention to research design process and public participation models to identify which models facilitate community growth and empowerment for the long term use of a public space. After considering several project types, I decided to basis my research on urban waterfront projects. Such projects often involve large infrastructure components and complex stakeholder relationships. Seattles ongoing waterfront redevelopment project has such constraints. Shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, Seattles seawall, which provides support to surrounding buildings and infrastructure, was found to be damaged. In the event of a future earthquake, the ability of the seawall to continue to support Seattles downtown is significantly diminished. If sections of the seawall structure were to fail, soils would liquefy and also destabilize the viaduct structure. In response to these environmental threats, the City of Seattle began efforts for the redevelopment of the waterfront. In addition to posing a structural threat, the Alaskan Way Viaduct separates downtown and the waterfront. Due to this visual and physical separation Seattles waterfront space has been isolated and largely unused by the residents. After considering several alternatives, the city council decided to remove the viaduct and replace the highway with a tunnel. To understand the space that will be redeveloped in the future, I began by documenting the viaduct structure. Under the instruction of photographer John Stamets, who generously offered his time and allowed me to borrow a great camera, I spent six months walking, driving, and flying over the viaduct. In order to capture the scale of the viaduct and very different contexts the structure weaved in and out of, I broke down the assignment into three different approaches, each offering a different perspective:1. Pedestrian Perspective2. Vehicular Perspective3. Aerial PerspectiveThe Contex camera I used with a shift lens allowed the perspective to be checked and corrected by shifting the lens upwards or downwards before shooting. This was very useful for obtaining shots with the top and base of the viaduct in a single frame. For the aerial photographs, rather then dangling the Contex camera outside the open door of a helicopter, I used an inexpensive but reliable Canon Rebel camera. For the record, the photographs were taken between September 2010 and February 2011.Cameras + Lenses:Contex 129 Quartz + Carl Zeiss PC-Distagin 2.8/35. Canon EOS Rebel S + Canon Zoom Lens EF 35-80mm 1:4-5.6Film:Kodax 125 PXKodax P3200 TMAXPREFACE2 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N 3PEDESTRIAN PERSPECTIVEThe elevated highway separates downtown and the adjacent waterfront with a visual barrier. In areas north of the ferry terminal, this barrier is reinforced with topography. Alaskan Way and Yesler Way (facing page)Alaskan Way and Marion St. (left)Alaskan Way and Seneca St. (right)4 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NAlaskan Way and the Pike Place Hillclimb Walk (left)Alaskan Way and Lenora Street Walk (right) 5Lenora Street Walk facing North (left)Lenora Street Walk facing South (right)6 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NVEHICULAR PERSPECTIVEThe construction of the viaduct provided transportation access for industry. Although many question the viaduct structure for the pedestrian barrier it creates, the structure does provide drivers an opportunity to view the waterfront daily, as part of their commute. Driving South on the viaduct near Lenora St. (top)Driving South on the viaduct near S Washington St. (bottom) 7Driving South on the viaduct near Pine St. (top)Driving South on the viaduct near S Atlantic St. (bottom)Atop the viaduct structure near S Main St. facing North and South (following facing pages left and right)8 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N 910 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NWalking South on the viaduct near S Main St. (left)Detail of viaduct expansion joint (right) 11Walking North on the viaduct near Seneca off ramp (left)Seneca off ramp (right)12 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N 13Aerial view of Seattle downtown and waterfront (facing page)AERIAL PERSPECTIVEAerial perspectives allow an overall view. From this perspective, the elevated highway system and surrounding connections become visible.Aerial of viaduct structure near Pine St. (left)Aerial of viaduct structure near the Lenora Street Walk (right) 14 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NAerial of viaduct structure near Seneca St. (left) Aerial of viaduct structure near Marion St. (right) 15Aerial of viaduct structure near Yesler Way (left) Aerial of viaduct structure near S Atlantic St. (right) 16 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NPublic participations contribution to the process of design decision-making is often difficult to distinguish from other factors: the influence of a few powerful stakeholders, or the inspired vision of a single designer.1 Complex projects involving large infrastructure components, such as urban waterfronts, involve added pressures of high cost, scale, engineering, and differing expertise. As megaprojects, these large scaled projects cannot sustain an open dialogue between the public and design team as with smaller scaled projects.2 Individual financial and political interest, often limited to short term goals, define megaproject constrains. As a result, the design process frequently discourages public participation to accelerate the design approval process. This work investigates different formal and informal models of public participation in megaprojects, for the purpose of proposing an alternative public participation approach for Seattles Waterfront. Drawing on case study examples, I compare redeveloped sections of the Copenhagen Harborfront and the Stockholm Waterfront to the current Seattle Waterfront design process. The following chapter provides a historic overview of the transition from the exclusively rational planning paradigms to more participatory or community-driven planning paradigms that characterize planning practice in the United States. I then introduce the political context, planning constraints, and site history of each case study, which defines the formal or informal models of public participation used within the design process. I examine Scandinavian waterfronts, rather than other American waterfront examples, for the following reasons: 1. Political heterogeneity; the comparison of public participation models from different political contexts provides a broader framework for understanding public participation issues.2. Historical and cultural ties; demographically, Seattle has a large population of Scandinavians, and a rich history of Scandinavian settlement. By 1910, approximately one-third of Seattles foreign-born residents immigrated from Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland.3 This historical tie can be observed by the number of Scandinavian heritage organizations as well as numerous Scandinavian aesthetic references found in Seattles architecture.3. Precedence in planning; Scandinavian cities are regarded, by Seattles local design and planning community, as balanced in community process and aesthetics. The City of Seattles Planning Department is currently researching Scandinavian methods for many planning strategies, including bicycle and pedestrian policies. The transfer of knowledge between Seattle and Scandinavia is also encouraged in educational. The University of Washingtons College of Bilt Environments facilitates a number of programs and opportunities for travel and exchange. 4. Climate; Scandinavian waterfronts function as cold waterfronts. Located within 12 degrees of latitude from one another, the public space face a common barrier of cold climate and consequently have fluctuating seasonal public use and interest. These attributes allow for a broad comparison of the successes and limitations of each public participation model. 55.40 COPENHAGEN Due to a lack of a comprehensive plan, informal and reactive methods of public participation shaped public space along the Copenhagen harborfront. Beginning in the 1980s, the national state, the local state, and the port authority, developed planning and policy initiatives to create a comprehensive plan for redeveloping Copenhagens waterfront. However these efforts were largely unsuccessful. As a consequence the planning process of Copenhagens harbor development is more flexible to all actors involved; citizen and grassroots movements as well as developer interest. I explore this loose framework with the study of a portion of the south harbor; Kalvebod Brygge and Islands Brygge. 1. For the purposes of this research, I use the term public participation inclusively to include all who are affected by the planning of urban spaces and all who currently use or will, in the future, use urban spaces. 2. Originally coined by Bent Flyvbjerg, megaprojects encompasses extremely large-scale investment projects which attract public attention due to substantial impacts on communities, environment, and budgets. Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. Megaprojects and Risk : An Anatomy of Ambition. United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 5.3. Stuart Eskenazi. Familiar landscape lured Scandinavians. Seattle Times. November 4, 2001. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/seattle_history/articles/scandinavians.html (accessed Aug. 10, 2011)INTRODUCTION 17Cold WaterfrontsThe case study areas are located within 12 degrees of latitude from one another and consequently face a common barrier of cold climate and fluctuating use.59.21 STOCKHOLMSwedish municipalities have extensive authority over local land use and employ a formal and transparent public participation process. Although highly transparent, the public participation process often cannot support citizen involvement beyond tokenism. I examine this formal process in relation to the ongoing design and planning discussion of Slussen, a waterfront frontage linking the historic city, Gamla Stan, to Sdermalm. 47.60 SEATTLESeattles design process is not guided through one single entity, but rather must comply with a number of federal, state, and local regulations. Shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, several groups began separated efforts for the design and planning of the waterfront. I document the past efforts of design and public dialogue and describe in context the ongoing design and planning process.These case study findings provide the foundation for a public participation proposal for the Seattle Waterfront. In the proposal, I pose a set of alternative assumptions that might help us to include diverse sets of knowledge and develop an inclusive creative process. Building upon public participation model research, I explore a self-evolving design process with public participation clearly affecting the decision-making process to ultimately test the influence such a process has on design. Drawing connections between the current practice of interdisciplinary design and research on user-generated design, I argue for a method of collaborative consumptiona sedimentation of user-generated program. As a final product of this work, I test this method on Pier 48 in Seattle and address how user-generated program could inform architecture through a self-evolving design process.RATIONALITY AND POWER IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONIf we define planning as bounded by the profession, and its objective as city-building, then we generate one set of histories. If we define planning as community building, we generate another. If we define planning as the regulation of the physicality sociality, and spatiality of the city, then we produce planning histories that try to make sense of those regulatory practices over time and space. But in emphasizing planning as a regulatory or disciplinary practice, we may miss its transformative possibilities, which in turn may be connected to histories of resistance to specific planning practices and regulatory regimes.Leonie Sandercock, and Peter Lyssiotis. Cosmopolis Ii : Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. London; New York: Continuum, 2003. 40Local KnowledgeStakeholdersPublicFuture usersExpert KnowledgeCity CouncilPlannersArchitectsEngineersTimeFuture usersVision/DesignAestheticsScienceTechnologyPoliticsPublic ParticipationEnvironmental SustainabilityArchitectsCity Council PlannersExpertsPublic ProducersConsumersInfluenceMethodDevelopers 19Engaging the public through participation allows for the possibility to move beyond individual focus and create public space collectively. Although the public participation process is often required in large scale complex projects, the effect on decision-making is often difficult to delineate. In this chapter I describe public participations evolution as a reaction against the rational planning method and the inherent complications of gathering and synthesizing local knowledge in megaprojects.PLANNING AS SOLUTIONAccording to Rationalism, modern planning is founded on objective and scientific methods to determine success. As a discipline dominated by a positivist epistemology, rational planning process privileges scientific and technical knowledge as opposed to local knowledge.1 In this context, technical expertise possesses a strong political legitimacy and even an aura of infallibility, leaving no room for non-expert voices in even fundamental debates about what the public interest is.2This rhetorical use of expert rationality in decision-making can justify non-rational, power-based decisions. This phenomenon became readily apparent during the 1960s when concerns for socially equitable access to the political process led to the critique of rationality, as a comprehensive and exclusive planning approach.3 As technical experts, ideally detached from the realm of politics, planners advised decision-makers with prepared masterplans without promoting particular policy positions. There is an inherent problem with assuming such a role to address complex urban environments; the product of planners workmaster plans with singular and closed-ended solutionsappropriates specific types of knowledge and information in order to define and create a solvable solution. With this solution driven approach, planning misses the benefits of a mutual learning opportunity for the public and the design team. By involving the public in decision-making, social learning can support a self-evolving democratic process. John Friedmann describes social learning as an integral part of four traditions informing current planning practices; the other three being social reform, policy analysis, and social mobilization. Friedmann defines social learning as a proactive approach, commencing with action where practice and learning are construed as correlative processes, so that one process necessarily implies the other.4 Through this self-evolving process, expert and local knowledge inform each other to articulate strategic policy and urban planning activities. It is important to note that as planning departed from a modernist perspective, planners began to use this new belief in public participation to advocate for the discipline of planning itself.5 However legitimizing planning solely by public participation leads to other problems such as the reproduction of power relations.6 In order to counteract such an imbalance of power, I explain how the collection and synthesis of diverse sets of knowledge ensures a mutual learning process.GATHERING VALID KNOWLEDGE In assimilating priories and goals, the way in which knowledge is obtained affects the outcome. During the exchange of information from different actors, a hierarchy of information is produced dependant on the roles and relationships in the design project. In constructing this process it is important to comprehend the full range of knowledges, including what can validated as knowledge, who can contribute knowledge, and most importantly at every point in the design process, which knowledge is excluded. In various stages of the design process, different players have more opportunity to be vocal with their respective opinions. Professional expertise is typically more vocal during the initial stages of clarifying the design constraints and in the final process of supporting the final design outcome. Local knowledge is usually obtained during a public participation phase of design review. The cycle in which information is translated by different players, results info different design constraints and goals which are then satisfied by the final design. The conventional design process often lacks a balance of expert and local knowledge. The exclusion of types of knowledge, whether intentional or incidental, allow power to define reality within the design process. This is largely due to the structure of the process, where experts are paid and given resources to develop a cohesive argument, whereas local knowledge is self-organized by individuals who must volunteer time and resources. In this sense, it is relatively easy to obtain expertise of professionals working alongside a project and rather 1. Sandercock, 41.2. I use the term public interest to denote the peoples general welfare in which the populace as a whole has a stake. 3. Barry Checkoway, Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect. AIP Journal of the American Planning Association 60, no. 2 (1994): 1404. John Friedmann, Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1987. 181.5. David Walters, Designing Community : Charrettes, Master Plans and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2007. 51.6. Flyvbjerb, Rationality and Power, 237The role of public participation in a conventional design process (facing page)In a public design process the design team provides the vision and negotiates the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics. Within this process, public participation is often limited to support the design claims and political interest.20 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O Ndifficult to accurately capture a full range of public opinion. To counteract the inherent imbalance, I argue that the emphasis must be placed on gathering local knowledge. With sensitivity to many types of knowledge, an expert guided process must be reactive to ensure local knowledge is acknowledged in all stages of the decision-making process. This process of exchange is crucial in recognizing the culturally diverse population and respective difference in opinion. Many factors must be addressed in gathering these knowledges in a sensitive and effective manner, including time, cost, technology and environmental resources. A balance must be reached between these factors to guide an equally proactive and responsive process. I argue this balance can be achieved through social learninga process which synthesizes different types of knowledge and resolves the conflict of expert and local knowledge through shared understanding. SYNTHESIZING KNOWLEDGEPublic involvement in a megaproject design process is often watered down to participatory events in which viewpoints from stakeholders are gathered only in the initial stages of design and during final stages of public approval. In a typical megaproject design process the design is a vision of the designer/engineer. The design team negotiates the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics and draws on public participation to support the design claims and political interest. In the public participation process, planners orchestrate public events to allow for the opportunity of communication. This type of information collection does not clarify public participations actual contribution to decision-making. A design process which simply gathers public opinion without synthesis only serves intrinsic purposes. Often public participation is viewed as an intrinsic value in design, a value worthy in and of itself. However, solely viewing public participation as such, disregards the instrumental value of the process and reinforces traditional power relations. Reliance on sole intrinsic value justifies mere public placation. Using Sherry Arnsteins framework for analyzing public participation, the typical procedure of public participation in megaproject design follows informing, consultation and placation processes, all of which are degrees of tokenism.7 Care must be taken to inform the public and synthesize the different types of knowledge available. With the design of public spaces, the task of effective communication between private and public interest is an essential task. How then can the process be transparent to communicate the dialog between both design expertise and public interest? Setting the stage for community design process, the work of Local KnowledgeStakeholdersPublicFuture usersExpert KnowledgeCity CouncilPlannersArchitectsEngineersTimeFuture usersFuture UsersLocal KnowledgeTimeArchitectsEngineersExpert KnowledgePublicStakeholdersCity Council PlannersVision/DesignAestheticsScienceTechnologyPoliticsPublic ParticipationEnvironmental SustainabilityArchitectsCity Council PlannersExpertsPublicProducersConsumersInfluenceMethodTransfer of knowledge within a public design processAt different stages along a public design process, certain groups have more opportunity to be vocal with their respective opinions. In a public design process the design team provides the vision and balances the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics. In this process, public participation is often limited to support the design claims and political interest.7. Sherry R. Arnstein, A Ladder of Citizen Participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, 220.R AT I O N A L I T Y A N D P OW E R I N P U B L I C PA R T I C I PAT I O N 21John Forester during the 1980s defined planning as a method for communication action. As an emerging paradigm the idea of planning as communicative action turns its back on the model of technical rationality and systematic analysis in favor of a more qualitative and interpretive mode of inquiry, seeking to understand the unique and the contextual rather than arriving at general rules for practice.8 Communicative action is a method of reflecting and expressing the public interest. This interactive activity is effective by involving both formal and informal public participation to produce changes within the design process. Actors are always in search of certain economic, or ideological benefits and use organization, strategy, and influence, outside of the formal participation process. However research on public participation focuses mainly on communicative relationships between actors in formal processes, and usually does not study the mechanisms of informal networks. Jean Hiller, a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia has researched formal and informal networks in land-use planning decisions. In formal processes Hiller explains sub-surface interactions appear if one scratches the surface of seemingly democratic, open, and inclusionary planning processes.9 In order to actively affect power relations, the publics and design teams formal and informal interactions must be balanced and transparently communicated. In such an exchange, public participation can then became a central part of the design process and shape the future public space. In the following chapters, I build upon Hillers work by examining the formal and informal modes of public participation models to better understand the challenges and opportunities these different models offer. 8 Citizen Control 7 Delegated Power 6 Partnership 5 Placation 4 Consultation 3 Informing 2 Therapy1 Manipulation Degrees of Citizen Power Degrees of Tokenism NonparticipationArnsteins Ladder of Citizen ParticipationSherry Arnsteins framework illustrates the ranging gradations of citizen participation. Arnstein, Sherry R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, 220.8. Sandercock, 67.9. Jean Hillier, Going round the back? Complex networks and informal action in local planning processes. Environment & Planning A. 32 (1). 2000. 34.One is interested in understanding the ways an ensemble of actorsthe national state, the local state, international organizations, transnational corporations, place entrepreneurs, and community and environmental groups come together to construct processes for social change. The investigation of Copenhagens most recent experiences with waterfront development has found new practices of social regulation. An ensemble of individuals and organizations that are highly intertwined with a broader regime of economic accumulation constructed these new practices, which we call flexible urban governance.Gene Desfor and John Jorgensen. Flexible Urban Governance. The Case of Copenhagens Recent Waterfront Development. European Planning Studies 12, no. 4 (2004): 480.55.40 COPENHAGEN 23Public space along the Copenhagen harborfront was created through informal and reactive methods of public participation due to a lack of comprehensive plan. Although the national state, the local state and the port authority, developed planning and policy initiatives to create a process for redeveloping Copenhagens harborfront, these efforts were largely unsuccessful. The south portion of the harborfront case study, Islands Brygge and Kalvebod Brygge, illustrates the subsequent piecemeal and reactive approaches to development which instigated an informal public participation. In order to understand the development of Islands Brygge and Kalvebod Brygge I first introduce the reactionary planning and political environment which set the framework for future development.POLITICAL CONTEXTThe modern Danish planning system is nationally decentralized and the delegation of responsibility is separated into national, regional and municipal levels. National spatial planning presents strategic goals for major infrastructure, international relations and environmental protection. The county level regional planning is responsible for the future development of the region and guides the use of nature resources, designation of urban areas, and location of large public institutions. Municipal planning determines the future development with legally binding local plans and detailed land use regulations.1 Denmarks law on planning, last revised in 2004 defines the purpose of planning to unite the interests of society in the use of land and assist in protecting nature and the environment so that a sustainable development of society can occurin full respect of the living conditions of man and for the preservation of plantand animal life.2 The law on planning further defines the planning system by ascribing powers and responsibilities to the different political levels. In the past decade, changes of regulations within the Danish political system, and consequently the planning system, followed a direction towards cooperation between the once very separated areas of public and private enterprise. This cooperative approach promoted different values and goals then the Welfare State had worked towards for decadesvalues such as equal access to education, housing, and social services. Gene Desfor and John Jrgensen, professional collaborators and scholars from York University in Toronto, have researched Copenhagens change in political structure from managerialist to entrepreneurialist strategies. They argue that social regulation processes have undergone two major changes which regulated their scale and effectiveness. The initial change occurred with the opening of the policy-making process to civil society which increased mobilization of local political forces for the purpose of securing economic growth.3 The second, and perhaps more influential change to city wide policy, Desfor and Jrgensen describe as a shift from government to governance; from a formalized urban planning system to a project oriented development system.4 1. Enemark, S. Spatial Planning System in Denmark. The Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors. Copenhagen, DK. (2002). 2. 2. Ministry of Environment. Planning Act LBK 883, 2004, Ch. 1, Part 1. 3. Desfor and Jorgensen. 4814. Ibid., 484. PROCESS ACTORS WELFARE GOVERNMENTWELFARE GOVERNANCE Elected officials promoting bureaucratic, holistic and long-term policy instruments with a predefined, functional division of labour between the various administrative bodiesA continuation of a formalized, urban planning systemProject-oriented development which aims for a regeneration of growth A mix of actors and projects initiated by entrepreneurs within the building sector or by public in entrepreneurial activities within various administrative levels. may object to the plan proposal of a neighbouring municipality if the proposal is important for the objecting municipalitys development. Municipalities in Greater Copenhagen may object to municipal plan proposals from any other municipality. The aim is to coordinate local, regional and national interests through dialogue and partnership.greater copenhagen, coastal areas and retail tradeThe Planning Act includes special rules on planning in Greater Copenhagen, coastal areas and retail trade: Planning in Greater Copenhagen is intended to maintain the main principles of the finger city structure (see pp. 1415). Coastal areas are to remain free of development that can be located elsewhere. Planning for retail trade is intended to promote a varied supply of retail shops in town centres.SecToR PLanSThe Ministry of the Environment is preparing water resource plans and Natura 2000 plans in accordance with EU directives that comprise a binding framework for municipal planning. The municipalities will follow up these plans with action plans.The regional councils are preparing regional raw materials plans on the extraction of and the supply of raw materials. This new type of plan is binding for municipal planning.The National Rail Authority is preparing the first national plan for public railway transport in 2007 to describe the national projects and decisions related to the railway network. This will ensure integration between national, regional and local public transport. The municipalities must comply with these plans in municipal planning.The minister for the environment establishes a comprehensive framework for regional spatial development planning and municipal planning through national planning reports, overviews of national interests in municipal planning, national planning directives, dialogue and other means. The Minister ensures through such means as a veto that municipal planning complies with overall national interests.The regional councils prepare regional spatial development plans that describe a vision for the region. This is a new type of strategic plan that captures the overall spatial development of the region and is closely linked with the business development strategy prepared by the regional economic growth forums.The municipal councils summarize their objectives and strategy for development in a municipal plan, which comprises a framework for the detailed local plans and for processing individual cases pursuant to the Planning Act and numerous acts governing other sectors.counTryRegional spatial development plansA vision for the regionnational planningGovernment policy:National planning reportOverview of national interestsPlanning directives: Finger Plan 2007Sector plans:Water resource plansNatura 2000 plansTransport plansmuniCipal plansMunicipal planning strategyRegulating land use in towns and the countrysideloCal plansRegional raw materials planRegional economic growth forumsBusiness development strategyregionmunicipaliTydenmaRksplanning system 2007Danish Planning System (left) Nationally decentralized, the delegation of responsibility is separated into national, regional and municipal levels, where municipal planning determines future development with legally binding local plans and detailed land use regulations.Spatial planning in Denmark, The Ministry of the Environment, 2007. http://www.ouka.fi/tekninen/innourba/publications/Spatial%20planning%20in%20Denmark.pdf (Assessed April 15, 2011)Comparison of Welfare Government and Welfare Governance Attributes (right)Due to changes of regulations in the past decade, the Danish planning system has moved from welfare government to welfare governance. This shift signifies cooperation between the once very separated areas of public and private enterprise. Copenhagen south harborfronts project team and stakeholders (facing page)The diagram illustrates the relationship between the project team and stakeholders and the reactionary planning and political framework.24 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NThe shift to welfare governance along with economic development pressure, escalated the need for quick waterfront development. During the late 1980s and early 1990s the Denmark government placed priority on Copenhagen to become the nations locomotive for economic growth.5 During the period, many ports and harbors throughout Denmark were suffering from the aftermath of economic restructuring and technological change.6 Over the past forty years, the municipality redeveloped Copenhagens harborfront with priorities geared toward economic growth to boost the regions economic output. Anders Lund, Eric Clark , and Hans Andersen, academics within the Copenhagen University and Lund University, have collaboratively researched social and economic geography changes along the Copenhagen harborfront. They found harborfront redevelopment projects were conceptualized in accord with ongoing patterns of economic restructuring. These patterns were: 5. Desfor and Jorgensen. 484.6. Desfor and Jorgensen. 484.7. A. Lund, H. T. Andersen, and E Clark. Creative Copenhagen; Globalization, Urban Governance and Social Change. European Planning Studies. 9, no. 7 (2001) 857. 8. Desfor and Jorgensen. 484. 9. Ibid.10. Ibid.1. Economic growth issues dominate policy priorities2. The public agenda is more outward looking than inward looking in perspective3. The public sector has embraced entrepreneurial forms of organization and behavior. 7As a result of the added pressure and government policy shift, the government focused on redeveloping underutilized harborfront land in a project oriented manner. In piecemeal fashion, various actors with differing spatial and temporal interests, directly influenced the planning process of harborfront development. It is critical to note that the direction toward cooperation between public and private enterprise with a focus on economy, reestablished new structures of power relations which were then translated into planning procedures. PLANNING CONSTRAINTSRecognizing the economic importance of regeneration, the Government of Denmark and the Municipality of Copenhagen undertook a number of initiatives in an attempt to identify waterfront problems and propose possible solutions. However, the majority of these initiatives were disconnected from one another and as a result the effort for creating a comprehensive plan for the harborfront was unsuccessful. In 1987, a discussion within the Danish Parliament commenced the initial large scale formal process; a survey of harborfront conditions.8 The Ministry of Environment was in the process of compiling a survey of the conditions and architectural importance of buildings in the country and had begun focusing on the merit of buildings in Copenhagens harbor. The survey resulted in a freeze on developments in Copenhagens port. In response to these complex issues, the Government of Denmark formed the Copenhagen Harbour Committee with representatives from the Council of Greater Copenhagen, Port Authority of Copenhagen, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Environment, academics, private sector businesses, and union officials. Under a mandate, the committee studied alternative development frameworks for the port areas to identify port boundaries, and to consider financing models for possible development schemes.9The City of Copenhagen declined to have a representative on the committee. Instead the city set their own recommendations for the harborfront in the Copenhagens Municipal Plan. Unsurprisingly, this plan described different goals and values than the Copenhagen Harbour Committee recommended. In addition to this disconnection, timing and lack of coordination between government offices rendered the Municipal Plan ineffective. A few months after the report was made public, the Government of Denmarks announced that the Navy would be moving its facilities from the Inner Harbour vacating 70 hectares (roughly 7,535,000 square feet) of prime harborfront land. This opened the possibility for a range of alternative uses, of which the municipal plan did not address.10 Although the plan did not create a comprehensive plan for the harborfront, one recommendation was eventually realized. The Municipal Plan recommended the establishment of a new organization to manage harborfront developments. The organization would function as a development corporation and form a partnership between the Government of Denmark and the Municipality of Copenhagen. Additionally the Port Authority would have a presence on its Board of Directors. The new development corporation would have considerable financial and regulatory power beyond that of private corporations. For example, the development corporation could issue bonds to finance this 5 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H AG E N 25construction, and revenues gained from increased land values and invested interest would secure and repay the bonds. Such a corporation could improve the harborfront through constructing major harbor projects by having the financial means to undertake cleaning up contaminated soil and ground water. The creation of this organization would reestablish power relations from the public sector into the private sector.11 Pressured by the need to facilitate economic growth, the government undertook the task of creating a development corporation to ensure corporate growth within the harborfront. In 2000, the Denmark government adopted an Act of Parliament which transferred 1.7 billion Danish Kroner (322 million US dollars) of the Port Authority of Copenhagens assets into a publicly owned limited liability corporation, the Port of Copenhagen.12 The government action quickly created a legal dispute. By the nature of the formation, the Port of Copenhagen acted as a private sector organization following profit maximization whereas legally it was to be an arms-length agent of the Government of Denmark.13 Tied in legal disputes, the development corporation failed to progress harborfront development forward. As these legal proceedings became public knowledge and became publicly criticized for profit maximization strategies, the government reacted by creating a new way of planning for the harborfront. Senior politicians created a Vision Group to provide a shared vision and a new discourse for the harborfront development. Raising concerns in their collaborative work about the Vision Group progress, Desfor and Jrgensen argue that the opportunity for local democracy is shortened due to the Vision Group intervention. Although the Vision Group increased stability to urban politics and enabled economic growth to proceed in the midst of political scandal, the new process streamlined the approval process and did not address issues of public access to the harborfront nor long term harborfront economy. Since the rapid physical development of current economically viable companies creates a unbalanced harborfront economy, market fluctuations in these concentrated sectors would have a negative impact on physical harborfront development over time.14 As the Vision Groups strategies provoked criticism, the municipality moved forward with planning strategies. The Greater Copenhagen Region Plan 2005, prepared by the Greater Copenhagen Authority (HUR), provided a development strategy for the Copenhagen harborfront. The Port and City Development Corporation also provided a report in 2007 on urban harborfront development. Despite these plans, a comprehensive plan for the entire harborfront has yet to be created. 11. Bent Flyvbjerg, Rationality and Power. 237.12. Desfor and Jorgensen. 485.13. Ibid.14. Ibid., 494.Principal landowners along Copenhagens waterfront in 1996. As government policy focused on redeveloping underutilized waterfront land in a project oriented manner, various actors, with differing spatial and temporal interests, directly influenced the planning process with piecemeal development.Desfor and Jorgensen. 483.Copenhagens South Harborfront in 1659, 1770,1844, 1906, 2011 (following facing pages left to right) Copenhagens Harborfront was originally comprised of natural salt marshes and was developed for industrial activities. Copenhagen, 1659, http://www.landsarkivetkbh.dkCopenhagen, 1770, http://www.landsarkivetkbh.dkMeyer, Joseph, Copenhagen. 1844, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, http://www.davidrumsey.com, Copenhagen, 1906, http://www.landsarkivetkbh.Copenhagen, 2011, Google Earth26 27SOUTH HARBORFRONT Historically Copenhagens harbor areas have been constructed for industrial and port activities with the intention of separating these industrial activities from surrounding neighborhoods. In 1901, Port Services constructed a 3034 ft (925 meters) quay infrastructure paving over the natural salt marshes which composed the region.15 Similar to other working waterfronts, as manufacturing industries relocated, new opportunities for use of these spaces were realized. Due to the lack of a comprehensive plan for the harborfront, various actors and different interests affected the harborfront development. 15. Havneparkens historie. Kobenhavns Kommune. http://www.kk.dk/Erhverv/TilladelserOgBevillinger/VejeOgPladser/arrangementer/Pladsguide/IslandsBryggeHavneparken/ParkensHistorie.aspx. (Assessed April 22, 2011) 28 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N"Creation of Islands Brygge Park (left)Islands Brygge was initially created in 1984 with the mobilization of several hundred residents.Source: Zalewski, Barbara. 2004. Islands brygge: fra skepsis til succes. [s.l.]: Nostra. 134Harbor Baths (right) This popular design by PLOT architects has made it possible for residents and visitors to go for a swim in the city center Source: Copenhagen Harbour Bath / PLOT, ArchDaily, http://www.archdaily.com/11216/copenhagen-harbour-bath-plot/ (assessed Feb. 22, 2011) Islands Brygge is a former dockland area which used cooperative, participative and communicative forms of informal participation to form public space. Beginning in the 1970s, the residents of Islands Brygge communicated that the housing densities were very high and that the area needed a park. When the municipality failed to provide the amenity, a local grassroots movement conceived the first plans to transform the dockland into a park. In the spring of 1984, several hundred residents laid out a provisional park, as a happening. After the event, 1 hectare (107,639 square feet) was temporarily granted to the Islands Brygge Local Council for the park. Initially created with the residents empowerment and mobilization, subsequent development of the public space remained concurrent with citizen vision. In 1993, the Roads and Parks Department decided to grant the money to complete the park and provide permanent design solutions. In response, the neighborhood council established a fund to support the park and by 1995, the park was extended with an additional 2.8 hectares (301,389 square ft) of harborfront space through the combined efforts of the neighborhood council and the Road and Parks Department.16 The Islands Brygge park incorporates accessibility, safety and programmatic flexibility into the public space. Over time the partnership continues and additional amenities have been built such as the Harbour Bathsa popular design which has made it possible for residents and visitors to go for a swim in the city center into Copenhagens clean harbor waters.17 Instigated with a collective group effort empowered through high degrees of citizen power, Islands Brygge is a successful example of a community combining common interest and becoming empowered through the creation of a public space. Elinor Ostrom, an American political economist and Nobel Prize laureate has written about the political framework and social change. In her work on behavior and theory of collective action, she presents the argument that within communities, individuals who are caught in social dilemmas are likely to innovate institutional structure by developing a system of informal social controls.18 In the Islands Brygge case, the governments lack of action allowed for this type of social innovation. Using informal public participation, the residents of Islands brygge were able to successfully develop city interest in providing supplemental funding toward their project. As the park continued to expand, citizens combined efforts with the Roads and Parks Department, creating a neighborhood council. Through this process citizens established a partnership and continued to direct the design outcome of their park. Across the harbor, Kalvebod Brygge is a largely fragmented development on a narrow strip of central harborfront land once owned by the city. The pressure on the city as the locomotive of growth, directed development toward economic interests. In order to provide economic incentive for private development within the city as development of Copenhagen was expanding outwardly, the Danish parliament passed laws to create the another urban development corporation restadsselskabet, [restaden]. In the early 1990s, the City sold ownership to the restaden Development Corporation to finance the construction of the a new Metro rail link.19 The restaden corporation then 16. Havneparkens historie. 17. Ibid.18. Elinor Ostrom, A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Review 92(1) 1998. 119. Desfor and Jorgensen. 486.5 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H AG E N 29Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipCitizen ControlDelegated PowerPartnershipPlacationConsultationInformingTherapyManipulation1984 Several hundred residents laid out a provisional park1978 Plans to transform the area into a park was conceived by local grassroots 1995 The park was extended with an additional 2.8 hectares1993 Parks Department completes the park as a permanent feature2003 Harbor Baths constructed 1993 Neighborhood establishes park councilFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipPublic Participation in the Islands Brygge development process The public participation analysis diagram compares the design process timeline and public participation events which shaped the design processes. As the diagram suggests, the creation of the Island Brygge park was instigated with a collective group effort empowered through high degrees of citizen power. Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipCitizen ControlDelegated PowerPartnershipPlacationConsultationInformingTherapyManipulation1984 Several hundred residents laid out a provisional park1978 Plans to transform the area into a park was conceived by local grassroots 1995 The park was extended with an additional 2.8 hectares1993 Parks Department completes the park as a permanent feature2003 Harbor Baths constructed 1993 Neighborhood establishes park councilFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship30 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O Nsubdivided the land sold the pieces to private developers, who developed the land with little to no public participation. By the mid-1990s individual developers had constructed a North American style shopping centre, a hotel complex and other large office buildings which aesthetically and contextually created a public outcry. Unreflective of the city center building structure, these buildings walled off the public harborfront from the rest of the city. 20Public access to the harborfront is being reconfigured onto Kalvebod Brygge site. Islands Brygges success is in process of being grafted across the harbor. JDS architects, the same architects who had collaborated as PLOT architects on the Harbor Baths project, currently propose a new design promising a larger spectrum of public activities and better connections to city areas such as the central train station and Trivoli, Copenhagens famous city amusement park.21 Although the strong public response instigated a retrofit of public space to be completed in 2012, the public participation process only involved degrees of tokenism; informing, consultation and placation. Kalvebod Brygge is an example of market driven development with little to no public participation. Landowners and developers pursued their interests, as they perceived them. The political environment and planning process of Copenhagens harbor development is open and flexible to citizen and grassroots movements, although also more susceptible to developer interest. The lack of comprehensive plan for the haborfront created reactive process of public participation, as shown by the simplified participation cycles of the sites. This lack of formal plan provided the opportunity for citizens to form their own informal process of cooperative, participative, and communicative methods of decision-making for the Islands Brygge public space. On the other side of the harbor, economic interest fueled the development of Kalvebod Brygge and created an undesired outcome with reactive public participation. It is critical to note that this negative experience has had a larger impact. It has become a catalyst for questioning market-driven development for all of Copenhagens harborfront.22Kalvebod Brygge (left) Present Kalvebod Brygge is a largely fragmented development along the shore of the harbor adjacent to downtown. : Morning in the Habour, Copenhagen Eye, 2010, copenhageneye.blogspot.com/2010/07/morning-in-habour.html (assessed Feb. 22, 2011)Kalvebod Brygge proposed development (right) As part of a proposal to reconnect the Kalvebod Brygge to the city, JDS architects propose a new design which promises a larger spectrum of public activities.Copenhagen construction and development, Skyscraper City, http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=415393&page=296 (assessed April 8, 2011)20. Desfor and Jorgensen. 486.21. Kalvebod Brygge Architecture News Plus. http://www.architecturenewsplus.com/projects/783 (assessed April 22, 2011)22. Desfor and Jorgensen. 486.5 5 . 4 0 C O P E N H AG E N 31Citizen ControlDelegated PowerPartnershipPlacationConsultationInformingTherapyManipulation2010 New design of public waterfront space by JDS and KlaFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipThe buildings along Kalvebod Brygge raised a public outcry 2001 Formation of the Vision GroupDesign Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormalInformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship1990: The City of Copenhagen transferred ownership of land to the restaden Corporation Public Participation in the Kalvebod Brygge development process. The diagram compares major public participation events with the design process, and shows the strong reactive process of informal public participation against the formal development process. Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipCitizen ControlDelegated PowerPartnershipPlacationConsultationInformingTherapyManipulation1984 Several hundred residents laid out a provisional park1978 Plans to transform the area into a park was conceived by local grassroots 1995 The park was extended with an additional 2.8 hectares1993 Parks Department completes the park as a permanent feature2003 Harbor Baths constructed 1993 Neighborhood establishes park councilFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship59.21 STOCKHOLMScandinavians, who like other people around the world have experienced the construction of one megaproject after another during the past decade, have coined a term to describe the lack in megaproject decision-making of accustomed transparency and involvement of civil society: democracy deficitBent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 5. 33Scandinavians, who like other people around the world have experienced the construction of one megaproject after another during the past decade, have coined a term to describe the lack in megaproject decision-making of accustomed transparency and involvement of civil society: democracy deficitBent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 5.Swedish municipalities have great authority over local land use and control over planning development. Planning approval is dictated through a very systematic process of project development. This formal approach will be illustrated through the study of the Slussen Urban Redesign Project, a proposed major multi-use destination and transportation hub located on the northern edge of Stockholms Sdermalm island anticipated to start construction in 2013 and finish in 2020. In order to understand the formalized process of public participation currently underway with the ongoing planning and design discussion of Slussen, I examine Stockholms political context and highly organized planning structure.POLITICAL CONTEXTHistorically, Sweden has a long tradition of strong government involvement and master planning. In the late 1980s, philosophical and political approaches to planning shifted from specific stipulations to general guidelines. The former state Planning Law, Byggnatslag, gave specific open space standards for distance, area, and design. The new state Planning Law, Planbildlegt, is philosophical in content but also requires municipalities to produce a comprehensive plan.1 The comprehensive plan provides guidance for decisions on land use and the development or preservation of the built environment. The municipal document also must address reported national interest. Paul Wilkinson, a political science academic, has written about this change in policy and how it influences planning. In this approach, individual municipalities were given the power to examine their own current use and set their own standards, which represents a swing away from nation-wide standards and norms of all kinds; it is more philosophical than directive and gives much more local autonomy to municipalities, for example, in setting their own open space standards. This may create a problem for some municipalities, particularly Stockholm which is faced with strong pressures to re-zone, in its next municipal master plan, some existing open spaces into industrial and residential uses; the outcome will not be known for some time.2 Along with a more flexible plan, the strong pressure to rezone influences land use and development decision-making. It also produces a climate where confrontations are inevitable, and as Flyvbjerg distills in open confrontations rationality yields to power.3 This preposition is reflective of Stockholms planning approaches to development.Economic interest strongly influences development within Stockholm. Thomas Hall, a professor of Art History at Stockholm University, has focused his research on the history of architecture and urban design, particularly in Stockholm, revealing the actors and interests behind decision-making. Hall summaries the main factor in Stockholm planning as a fundamental agreement between the Social Democrats and the non-socialist parties that Stockholm should be given priority, and that investments in the capital are necessary for Swedens future. The crucial differences are not found inside Stockholm City Hall, but between Stockholm County and the provinces. The shifts of majority in the city and county of Stockholm are spectacular events which do not play the decisive part the actors would like us to believe in order that they can muster their forces.4 Nationally and regionally, Stockholm is given strong national interest and priority in capital investments, which in turn creates development pressure for Stockholm to generate an economic viable investment for Sweden. Under such pressure, the city of Stockholm has self proclaimed the title of Northern Europes most business friendly city. This initiative is reflected in the city documents, such as the annual report. The City shall attract businesses and visitors by investing in tourism and improving its position as an event city. The City shall be a professional, efficient partner for business by creating simple, straightforward procedures for building permit applications and various permits.5 In order to accommodate for business development, the city is seeking ways to shorten the application and approval process of development permitting. Similar to Copenhagen, this change reflects short term political interest over long term public interest. A rapid project approval process leads to rapid physical development of currently economically viable companies, which creates an unbalanced waterfront economy in the long term. It is critical to also note that a rapid project approval process shortens the publics commenting process and can be used as a method to control public participation. 1. Paul Wilkinson, Urban Open Space Planning in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Leisure Studies 7, no. 3 (1988): 282. 2. Wilkinson, 4.3. Flyvbjerg, Rationality and Power : Democracy in Practice. 2374. Thomas Hall and Martin Rrby. 2009. Stockholm: the making of a metropolis. London: Routledge. 2045. City of Stockholm, Annual Report, City Executive Office, 2009, 32.Slussen project team and stakeholders (facing page)The diagram illustrates the relationship between the project team, stakeholders, and the formal planning framework for the proposed site development. 34 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NSwedish Planning System (left)The Swedish planning system is centralized. The comprehensive plan provides guidance for decisions on land use and development or preservation. City of Stockholm Organization (right)The City of Stockholm has a substantial amount of human resources including 101 members of City Council, the Citys supreme decision-making body, and over 42,000 employees. With this amount of resources, the project approval and public participation process is systematic and formally organized. Source: City of Stockholm, Annual Report, 12.12 admin istrat ion report 2009 including capital costs, profit-centre results and the City Executive Boards technical adjustments. The goal was that accuracy in the second four-month report should deviate from actual outcome by max. +/- 1 per cent. This goal has been partly met as the result was + 1.5 per cent.Description of overall municipal operations According to recommendation 8.2 from the Council for Municipal Accounting, the administration report should include a description of the units included in overall municipal operations. In this report, legal entities are classified as:Group companies with a decisive or significant influence. Commission companies such as other co-owned companies and municipal contracts respectively.City of stockholmmunicipal Groupthe City's operationsDistrict Council of Rinkeby-KistaDistrict Council of Spnga-Tensta District Council of Hsselby-VllingbyDistrict Council of Bromma District Council of KungsholmenDistrict Council of NorrmalmDistrict Council of stermalmDistrict Council of SdermalmDistrict Council of Enskede-rsta-VantrDistrict Council of SkarpnckDistrict Council of Farsta District Council of lvsj District Council of Hgersten-LiljeholmenDistrict Council of SkrholmenDevelopment CommitteeReal Estate CommitteeSports CommitteeCulture CommitteeCemeteries CommitteeEnvironmental and Health CommitteeGeneral Services CommitteeSocial Services and Labour Market CommitteeCity Planning and Building Control CommitteeTraffic and Waste Management CommitteeEducation CommitteeElection CommitteeElderly Services CommitteeStockholm Public Trustees CommitteeCity Council, etc.City Audit OfficeAB Svenska BostderAB FamiljebostderAB StockholmshemStockholms Stads Bostadsfrmedling ABSkolfastigheter i Stockholm ABS:t Erik MarkutvecklingMicasa Fastigheter i Stockholm ABStockholm Vatten ABStockholms Hamn ABAB StokabStockholms Stads Parkerings ABStockholm Globe Arena Fastigheter ABStockholms Stadsteater ABS:t Eriks Frskrings ABStockholm Business Region ABS:t Erik Livfrskring ABStockholms stads Utrednings- och Statistikkontor ABSRAB (5 %)Storstockholms Brandfrsvar, SSBFMssfastigheter i Stockholm AB (50.4 %)AB Fortum Vrme Holding, co-owned with the City of Stockholm (49.9 %)Stockholms Terminal AB (20 %)Some municipal matters are handled by a legal entity other than the City. Below is a specifica-tion of which business areas are handled in this manner, at what cost, and the percentage of the City's expenses for the business area. In total, the City paid SEK 12.1 billion for the contractsPolitical activity and joint administration, SEK 29.4 million, 0.3 %Care for individuals and families, SEK 751.9 million, 20.8 %Infrastructure, urban environment, protection, SEK 1,010.1 million, 60.1 %Preschool operations and care for school-children, SEK 2,143.6 million, 36.9 %Education, SEK 3,067.7 million, 34.9 %Care for the elderly, SEK 3,302.3 million, 52.3 %Care for the disabled, SEK 1,132.9 million, 43.2 %Leisure and culture/general leisure activities, SEK 168 million, 11.3 %Business, trade and industry and housing, SEK 540.5 million, 51.3 %Other operations, special initiatives, SEK 0.4 million, 1.3 %the City's companiesstockholms stadshus aB parent companymunicipal associationsLimited companies outside stockholms stadshus aBCo-owned companies with no significant influence municipal contractsmunicipal commission companiesNational Directive:The MinistryCounty LevelRegional planningMunicipality level Municipality Local planning planning25mi 50mi 125miComprehensive PlanLegally bindingDetailed Development Plan Legally bindingBuilding Permit5 9 . 2 1 STO C K H O LM 356. City of Stockholm, Annual Report, 32.7. City of Stockholm, Stockholm City Plan, The City Planning Administration, 2009, 3.8. Ibid., 4.9. Plan Process, City of Stockholm. Planning http://www.stockholm.se/TrafikStadsplanering/Stadsplanering/Planprocessen/ (accessed May 1, 2011).PLANNING CONSTRAINTSOften referred to as a planning monopoly, the City of Stockholm has a great deal of power and control over development. This is largely due to the substantial amount of resources the city has at its disposal, which includes a City Council composed of 101 members and over 42,000 city employees.6 It should come to no surprise that with this amount of human resources, the project approval and public participation process is systematic and formally organized. Stockholms current master plan, adopted in 1999, marked a significant change to Stockholms urban development priorities. The 1999 Stockholm City Plan sought to renew and redefine existing neighborhoods and older harbor industrial areas as mixed-use neighborhoods, a way of building the city inwards.7 By 2030, Stockholm expects the population will increase by 200,000 new people.8 Housing, commercial uses and infrastructure including waterfront public space is currently being planned to provide additional space for the growing population. In 2007, the City Planning Department began the process of preparing a draft master plan focused on strategic, implementation and environment-oriented approaches.8 The process of updating Stockholms master plan is characterized by dialogue and interaction of many departments and companies.In order to clarify the process for organization between city departments and companies, the development of projects are dictated in great detail including three specified opportunities for public comment.1. Exploratory of Land: The preliminary exploratory study investigates the conditions for the proposal.2. Start Phase: The planning process start is decided by the City Planning, outlining the foreseeable issues to be addressed and scheduling3. Program Phase: In an application the program states the goals and points outright. There is an opportunity for close residents and stakeholders to make comments during exhibition and/or a open house event.4. Planning Phase: A detailed plan proposal with a consultation plan, similar to program consultation.5. Exhibition Stage: After the final plan proposal is clarified, it is exhibited for a minimum of three weeks. At this stage, this is the final opportunity to comment on the proposal otherwise the right of appeal is lost.6. Approval / Adoption: City Planning Committee must approve adoption. Larger project must also be approved by City Council.7. Appeal: Upon adoption, the plan may be appealed by the County Board, which could then be appealed to the government.8. Res judicata: If the plan is not subject to appeal or the appeals are rejected the plan implementation can begin.9The development permitting process produces a formalized method of public participation. I will use the case study of Slussen to illustrate this relationship between the highly organized and systematic planning and political approaches involved in the design process. Stockholms Slussen in 1700, 1771,1844, 1926, 2011 (following facing pages left to right) The waterfront frontage structure linking the historic city Gamla Stan to Sdermalm, has been rebuilt three times since the 17th century. Its current form was constructed in 1935.Homann, Johann Baptisit, 1700, Stockholm City Archives, http://www.stockholmskallan.seBrolin Jonas, Stockholm Stad, 1771, Stockholm City Archives, Meyer, Joseph, Stochholm. 1844, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, http://www.davidrumsey.com, Krakau, Carl-Ottto, 1926 Stockholm, 1926, http://www.stockholmskallan.se/ Google. (2011) Google Earth36 37SLUSSENHistorically, the lock has been an important junction for transportation and commerce. Slussen is composed of a complex series of bridges, boat locks, pedestrian walkways and an underground bus and subway transit station. The structure has been rebuilt three times since the 17th century, and the current form was constructed in 1935.1010. Slussens history City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Om-projektet/Bakgrund/Slussens-historia (accessed May 8, 2011).38 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N"Once considered a modern architectural marvel, the infrastructure is currently in need of extensive repair. To maintain safety and reduce the risk of injury, between 5 and 10 tons of surface concrete is removed and repaired annually.11 In the long range, there is also a flood risk due to higher levels of water caused by global warming. In response to high maintenance cost and flooding risks, the City of Stockholm has decided to demolish the lock and build a new infrastructure facility. Thus far the design development of Slussen has followed a complicated and controversial process. The locks future has been discussed for several years beginning with an idea competition held in the early 1990s, which did not lead to any formal proposals. In 2001, another competition was held and Nyrn, Tyrns, ELU architects was announced as the winner. Two alternatives were studied and analyzed; a reconstruction of the current structure and a new alternative. Over a time period of three months both proposals were displayed to the public and interested parties had the opportunity to make comments. Ultimately the City Planning Board elected to move forward with Nyrns proposal in December of 2007. The same year, city officials addressed the Slussen renewal as part of Stockholms Vision 2030. However, Nyrns proposal was not approved by the majority of politicians. In May 2008, City Planning Mayor Michael Sderlund announced a new competition with five different architectural firms, shortly before he unexpectedly announced his resignation. Mayor Kristina Axen Olin also resigned during the same time period. Two of the citys leading politicians consequently relinquished the responsibility for the finance and urban affairs of the project which had jumped from an estimated 4 billion SEK (625 million US dollars)to an estimated 8 billion SEK (1.3 billion US dollars).12Nevertheless, the project proceeded forward to a selection of architect phase, where the public had the opportunity to comment. Beginning on October 24, 2008 the five design proposals from Ateliers Jean Nouvel and Habiter Autrement, BIG, Foster + Partners and Mountain Architects, Wingrdh Architects and the previously selected architect, Nyrn Architects were displayed for four months. During the exhibition period, the 920 people submitted comments; nearly 140 commented in favor of Nyrns proposal, 140 for Foster + Partners proposal, 120 for Nouvels proposal, 90 select BIGs proposal and 10 for Wingrdhs proposal.13 Others suggested that the various proposals should be combined. After a multistage interview process and design competition, Foster and Partners was selected by the Land Planning Board, City Planning and Transport and Waste Management Committee in May of 2009. The main concept of the Foster and Partners original urban design is to create a modern civic urban quarter, providing new public spaces and buildings, an accessible quayside, and pedestrian and cycle routes in addition to the transportation and lock infrastructure. In addition to a new design for public space, the proposal is part of the economic incentive for the area. The plan would provide the city significant income approximately 10 percent of the cost.14 After the time and financial constraints were reviewed and approved by City Council, the Foster + Partners composed a consultation plan. As part of the formal public participation process, the plan was presented on June 10, 2010. During the event, nearly 10,000 people visited the projects Fosters design proposal Axonometric view (left) Perspective view (right)As a part of the project the proposal includes a new park, square, and two new private buildings which will have ground floor public spaces below the office functions. Foster + Partners Enters Competition To Design Pedestrian Bridge In Slussen 2008, ArchiCentral, http://www.archicentral.com (accessed May 8, 2011).11. Technical life, City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/In-English/Technical-life1/ (accessed May 8, 2011).12. Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after? Stadsbyggnad , Swedish Municipal-Industrial Society No. 5 2010 http://www.stadsbyggnad.org/2010/10/slussen-%E2%80%93-en-saga-utan-lyckligt-slut/ (accessed May 1, 2011).13. Project Milestones, City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Om-projektet/Bakgrund/Projektets-milstolpar/ (accessed May 8, 2011).14. Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after?5 9 . 2 1 STO C K H O LM 39Godknt dokument - Katrin Berkefelt. Stadsbyggnadskontoret Stockholm. 2010-05-27. Dnr 2005-08976showroom and 1,200 comments were submitted. Approximately 1,100 of these comments submitted by individuals and 100 comments submitted by stakeholders. The high levels of public participation portray the publics commitment to the site. Although, these comments relate to a wide range of issues, the most repeated public concern focused on private development impacts on views and proximity to water. Although very formalized, public commenting is very transparent and accessible. The City Planning Office complied all of the public comments, including each authors name, as a publicly posted pdf online. The formal public commenting process, however, did not satisfy full representation of public opinion. On February 20, 2011 hundreds of residents gathered to protest against Slussens plan as undemocratic due to the sale of several parcels and new addition of buildings. Architect Ola Andersson, a protestor criticized the step towards a city ruled by technocrats in which the public area is reduced to a question about traffic engineering.15 Beyond the technical implications of the design constraints, the redesign of Slussen is an economic and long term cultural issue. Although Fosters design is characterized as economic, the Swedish Municipal Rating criticized the proceedings sharply by giving the city its next to lowest scores. The criticism is based on the selling of assets to private enterprise as a short term economic strategy which would not translate to be a sustainable long term economic policy. 16The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments although key elements of the proposal remain the same, the design still includes two new private buildings. This final proposal was exhibited, with representatives from the project on hand to answer questions, 15. Bernt Lindgren, Slussens future at risk http://www.slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:slussens-framtid&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011).16. Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after?Public CommentComments from residents, businesses and individuals are publicly posted online and available for anyone to download.Documents on the Lock http://www.slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=206&Itemid=98 (accessed May 8, 2011).40 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N17. Lindgren. before the plan was approved by City Council in 2011.17When compared to Copenhagen, Stockholms formal process follows a highly guided process. Although this highly organized process is transparent, it is insufficient in producing citizen participation above the levels of tokenism. As the design process progressed from a collective group effort to a sole proprietorship design, the methods of public participation followed degrees of tokenism; informing, consultation, and placation. The 2011 protest event demonstrated that the guided formal public participation process did allow for an adequate representation of public opinion. With such a vocal and interested public, a partnership would be possible to form. Such a partnership could move the process beyond degrees of tokenism toward citizen empowerment.Public ProtestHundreds of residents gathered to protest against Slussens plan on February 20, 2011Bernt Lindgren, Liberty City, http://www.slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=251:frihetens-plats&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011). 2001 Competition was held2004 Nyrn, Tyrns, ELU architects was announced as the winner May 2008 Mayor Sderlund announced a new competition 2007 City officials addressed Slussen in Stockholms Vision 20302007 A program consultations annalyed different options2009 The City decided upon the design by Foster + Partners October 2008 Five design proposals were displayed for 4 months February 20, 2011 Residents protested against the plan June 10, 2010 Consultation plan presented for public comment Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipMay 2011 The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments Public Participation ProcessManipulationTherapyInformingConsultationPlacationPartnershipDelegated PowerCitizen Control5 9 . 2 1 STO C K H O LM 41 2001 Competition was held2004 Nyrn, Tyrns, ELU architects was announced as the winner May 2008 Mayor Sderlund announced a new competition 2007 City officials addressed Slussen in Stockholms Vision 20302007 A program consultations annalyed different options2009 The City decided upon the design by Foster + Partners October 2008 Five design proposals were displayed for 4 months February 20, 2011 Residents protested against the plan June 10, 2010 Consultation plan presented for public comment Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipMay 2011 The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments Public Participation ProcessManipulationTherapyInformingConsultationPlacationPartnershipDelegated PowerCitizen Control 2001 Competition was held2004 Nyrn, Tyrns, ELU architects was announced as the winner May 2008 Mayor Sderlund announced a new competition 2007 City officials addressed Slussen in Stockholms Vision 20302007 A program consultations annalyed different options2009 The City decided upon the design by Foster + Partners October 2008 Five design proposals were displayed for 4 months February 20, 2011 Residents protested against the plan June 10, 2010 Consultation plan presented for public comment Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipMay 2011 The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments Public Participation ProcessManipulationTherapyInformingConsultationPlacationPartnershipDelegated PowerCitizen ControlPublic Participation in the Slussen development process. The diagram compares the Slussen design process and the formalized public participation process.Sea Level RiseEarthquakeViaduct RemovedCity of Seattle:Owns and Maintains SeawallU.S. Army Corps of Engineers are studying alternatives Seattle Department of TransportationSeawall Scientific Habitat Enhancement Study examining opportunities for marine wildlife diversity surrounding the seawallCentral Waterfront ProjectSeawall Stakeholder GroupCentral Waterfront Stakeholder GroupCity HallDamage to Seawall Wood StructureElliott Bay Seawall Project47.60 SEATTLEIn contemporary theory, a technological ecology replaces poetic dwelling; an overly aestheticized attitude displaces the power of symbolic content; parodic historicism replaces history and tradition; nostalgic regionalism opposes contemporary modernity; a fundamentalist nature movement displaces art and cultural representation; and the uncritical dogmatism of different camps replaces critical dialogue.Corner, James. A Discourse on Theory I: Sounding the Depths Origins, Theory, and Representation. Landscape journal 9, no. 2 (1990): 75. 43Shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, the city of Seattle began several separated efforts for the design and planning of the waterfront.This chapter relates the past efforts of formal public dialogue to the ongoing design process and public participation strategies.POLITICAL CONTEXTIn the United States, the value of the right to own private property is reflected in all facets of the physical environment including planning, zoning, infrastructure and government services. As a result parcel ownership is diverse and complicated. Within this political framework, planning is created on the local level through municipal plans and regional plans. However urban development must also comply with a number of federal, state, and local regulations.PLANNING CONSTRAINTSSimilar to Copenhagen, the Port of Seattle is suffering through consequences of economic restructuring and technological change. The City of Seattle recognizes this need of renewing economic vitality and addresses waterfront revitalization in the comprehensive plan as a matter of statewide significance, encouraging the construction of economically viable marine uses to meet the needs of waterborne commerce and facilitate the revitalization of downtowns waterfront.1 As with Stockholms Slussen project, costs are expensive and environmental and social implications are numerous. As a result of its complexity, the project must comply with a number of federal, state, and local regulations. Locally, the planning constraints of the seawall must comply with the City of Seattles developing land use plans. Additionally the US Corp of Engineers has identified a federal interest in storm damage reduction and related ecosystem restoration as well as compliance with the following federal regulations:1. City of Seattle, Toward a Sustainable Seattle, Seattle Comprehensive Plan, January 2005, 882. US Corps of Engineers. Elliott Bay, Washington. Shore Protection and Storm Damage Reduction Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis August 2003. 103. Lawrence Vale and Sam Bass Warner. 2001. Imaging the city: continuing struggles and new directions. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. xxiii. National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act Clean Water Act Rivers and Harbors Act Endangered Species Act Coastal Zone Management Act Clean Air Act Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Executive Order 12898 Action for Addressing Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ER 200-2-2, Procedures for Implementing National Environmental Policy Act ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook2Large scale public space funded through taxpayer support faces additional challenges. Within such projects, as opposed to typical client and designer relationships, design roles are renegotiated to not only produce images to convey design intentions, but more critically, to create specific branding and image generation for conveying competence. These communicated images are crucial in gaining public support to finance the project in the design phase, as well as after construction, to create a drive for public use. Vale and Warner, urban designers and academics, specifically call planners and designers to become more image conscious with their claim that cities are no longer built; they are imaged.3 As protagonists of the promise of image-making, Vale and Warner argue for using media and medias physical influence to our advantage in creating spaces. However, using the influence of media to our advantage creates another set of challenges. I discuss these challenges in context to Seattle Central Waterfront Project, a proposed redevelopment of 9 acres of waterfront lands located on the western edge of downtown Seattle. Seattles waterfront in 1890, 1924, 1946, 1980, 2011 (following facing pages left to right) The Seattle shoreline was originally composed of 3,763 acres of mudflats, marshes, and freshwater riparian community. Anderson, City of Seattle and Environs. 1890, David Rumsey Historical Map CollectionRand McNally and Company. Seattle, 1924, David Rumsey Historical Map CollectionAerial survey of Seattle,1946 Seattle, south of N/NE 85th St. 1 : 12,000Rand McNally and Company,.Seattle, 1980Seattle, 2011, Google EarthSeattle Waterfronts project team and structure (facing page)The diagram illustrates the relationship between the project team and the planning framework for the project development.44 45THE CENTRAL WATERFRONTOriginally composed of mudflats, the waterfront has been incrementally extended for development. The current need to rebuilt the seawall and viaduct became an urgent issue after damage was found from the 2001 Nisqually Quake.46 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NSHORELINE ALTERATIONHuman shoreline alteration initially began with pioneer settlement and the opening of Yesler Lumber Mill in 1852.4 During the time, pioneers began recontouring the original shoreline, filling the original lagoon with excess sawdust from the mill. This marked the beginning of the approach to cut and fill the landscape to overcome spatial restriction as opposed to working with the original topography. During the late 19th century, Seattles population rapidly grew from 3,500 in 1880 to nearly 45,000 in 1890.5 Although the population grew, the commercial strip was confined spatially to much of the same physical space as the original shoreline. This spatial constraint changed after the Great Seattle Fire in 1889, which consumed the majority of the buildings from the shoreline to 3rd Avenue. The destruction offered an unprecedented opportunity to reconfigure the landscape. After the fire, Seattle City Council decided to regrade the area in order to expand beyond the commercial island and relieve chronic flooding. James Street was raised 18 feet at First Avenue and 38 feet at Second Avenue while Yesler, Washington, Jackson and Main were all raised similar amounts from 6 feet to 18 feet.6 The city council also replated the area and widened First Avenue to 84 feet. Second and Third Avenue were also widened from 24 feet to 90 feet.7 The original street level still exists today and can be accessed through the Pioneer Square Underground Tour.Perhaps the most drastic shoreline alteration occurred with an incomplete canal project in 1895. During the time, Eugene Semple, a former Seattle in 1882The photograph shows a less altered shoreline from Dearborn Street and Twelfth Avenue SouthProsch Seattle Views Album, Vol. 2, c1870-1910, University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division. 4. Mildred Tanner Andrews. 2005. Pioneer Square: Seattles oldest neighborhood. Seattle: Pioneer Square Community Association in association with University of Washington Press. 75. Ibid., 12.6. Andrews, 19.7. Ibid., 42.P I E R 4 8 47state governor, began constructing a canal project from Elliot Bay through Beacon Hill to Lake Washington. The soil from the proposed canal project was intended to fill in the tide flats of current South Downtown in order to resell the land for profit. Ten months into the project, with nearly 100 acres of tide flats filled, Thomas Burke derailed the project.8 Burke had his own plans to build a canal north of downtown. As a result of Burkes efforts, Semplers canal was never built, although, his landfill extended the perimeter of South Pioneer Square to present Georgetown. Another major shoreline shift occurred with the Jackson Hill Regrade from 1907 to 1908. City Engineer R. H. Thompson created a master plan to level Seattles topography, with the idea that business and commerce required level ground. Beginning with Jackson Street, workers pumped high-pressure water to remove 85 feet from the steep hill to the mudflats. Street grades were lowered from 15 to 5 percent.9 By 1910 R.H. Thomson created additional plans to regrade downtown. Second, Third and Fourth Avenue were lowered to 5 percent maximum grade.10 Over the course of two decades, the landscape of the original Seattle settlement had been altered significantly. During this time more than 2,000 acres of land were formed by lling tidal wetlands, mudflats, and beaches along the waterfront and south of Seattle.11 This approach to cut and fill the landscape to overcome spatial restriction was a massive undertaking. Mildred Andrews, a historian specializing in Northwest history states historians have likened the amount of dirt shifted from the Seattle hills to the tide flats to another technological marvel of the erathe digging of the Panama Canal.12Semples Canal Initial Dredging and Tideline Reclamation from 1895-1897 Although Semples Canal was never constructed, nearly 100 acres of mudflats were filled, extending the perimeter of South Pioneer Square to present Georgetown. Berner, 13.8. Andrews., 479. Ibid.10. Richard Berner, Seattle 1900-1920: from boomtown, urban turbulence, to restoration. Seattle, Wash: Charles Press. 1991, 1448 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NSHORELINE FORTIFICATIONThe approach to cut and fill the landscape had significant impacts. After the massive amount of soil was shifted, the soil needed to be stabilized for future construction projects. In order to address this need, the Elliott Bay Seawall was constructed to support waterfront building structures and transportation infrastructure. Initially constructed in 1916 with unreinforced concrete, the gravity wall stabilized soil and served as a protective wall against the wind driven storm waves of the Puget Sound.13 Over the past century the seawall has had three main alterations. Much of the original 1916 concrete gravity wall was replaced in 1934, 1964, and 1987 by two different types of structure. Both types are pile-supporting reliving platforms constructed from untreated timber, concrete, and steel, however, one type of seawall is taller and wider since it is located in deeper water levels. The entire seawall is filled with loose liquefiable material composed of mainly sand and small amounts of gravel and clay.14 Due to the corrosive water environment, the seawall has sustained damage from marine bores, which critically altered the structural integrity of the timber supports.15 This corrosion was first observed in 1947. The most extensive damage is along the deeper seawall type, where corrosive water tides produced holes in the steel sheet pile.16 This area was reconstructed and in 1956, a cathodic protection system was also installed to reduce the rate of corrosion. However, corrosion continued and additional voids were discovered and repaired in 1962, 1974, and 1979. A 1982 site condition survey revealed more damage to the timber supports and in 1985, the timber-relieving platform was rebuilt and replaced with an ekki wood facing structure.17The shallow seawall was thought to be immune against the corrosion. Since the seawall is shorter, a mudline barrier exists between the soil fill and seawater, which protects the structure. However, damage to this type of structure was also found in 2001, and further geoprobe View of 2nd Avenue during regrade work. (top left) After the Great Seattle Fire, 2nd Avenue was regraded to expand beyond the commercial island and relieve chronic flooding. Source: James Lee, Northern View of 2nd Avenue from Yesler Way showing regrade work, (photograph) c1894, University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division. Seattle Photograph Collection. Aerial of Seawall reconstruction during 1934 (top right)Sections of the 1916 concrete gravity seawall have been replaced in 1934, 1964, and 1987.Source: A circa 1934 aerial of the waterfront (photograph) c1934, Seattle Now & Then: the Pike Pier Fishing Fleet. http://pauldorpat.com/seattle-now-and-then/seattle-now-then-the-pike-pier-fishing-fleet/(accessed Feburary 8 2012.)11. Andrews, 74.12. Ibid., 10613. Federal Highway Administration, Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. July 2011. 87.14. Andrews 106.15. Elliott Bay Seawall Project, City of Seattle Department of Transportation, http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/seawall.htm (Assessed October 15, 2010)16. US Corps of Engineers, Elliott Bay, Washington. Shore Protection and Storm Damage Reduction, Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis August 2003, 617. Ibid., 7Great Seattle Fire FillSawdust fillLiquefiable soilNon-liquefiable soilViaduct Viaduct structureSeawall structureSeawallTunnelPier 48Section of the Seattle Waterfront (bottom) The section illustrates layers of human alteration, major constructed projects and the future tunnel structure.47. 6 0 S E AT T LE 49explorations revealed damage to the dock. In the event of an earthquake, the ability of the seawall to continue to provide support to surrounding buildings and infrastructure is increasingly diminished. The structure is predicted to have a 1 in 10 chance of failure from an earthquake in the next 10 years.18 If sections of the seawall structure were to fail, soils would liquefy and also destabilize the Alaskan Way Viaduct structure. This risk is the major driver for the current reconstruction of the seawall and adjacent viaduct.To address the urgency of the seawall, the waterfront redevelopment has been divided into two projects with varying timelines; the Elliot Bay Seawall, and the Central Waterfront Plan. The Central Waterfront design team will design the public space vision and transportation expertise. The Elliott Bay Seawall Project team will provide engineering services and environmental habitat design expertise, due to be completed in 2016 before the Central Waterfront Plan is completed.19 The City of Seattle decided that is not essential for final plans for the waterfront redevelopment to be complete in order to move forward with the construction of the seawall project, since the seawall should be designed to accommodate and work with a variety of Seattle waterfront design options. In order to produce an integrated process, the two different design teams must work collaboratively, especially to gain consensus in spending taxpayer finances for the project. Since the earthquake event, the City of Seattle has informed the public with formal outreach strategies. Shortly after the preparation of a background report, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) held several forums in 2003, educating the public about the need for rebuilding the viaduct. The first of several waterfront public forums introduced the project and encouraged designers, neighborhood advocates, and stakeholders to become involved. During the meeting, commissioners facilitated a role playing workshop to gather local knowledge about waterfront values and perceived barriers. Approximately 200 attended the event.20 Several months later, city staff facilitated discussion groups on the topics of transportation, urban design, natural environment and ecology, economic development, and neighborhood/community. Composed of technical experts and key stakeholders, the groups met 13 times over the course of two months and advised the city on key issues, challenges, and opportunities.21 During this time, Allied Arts, an arts advocacy organization that had in the past worked to save the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square, held a month long design collaborative with various members of the Seattle design community, including a dozen of UW students. Allied Arts guided design teams with these constraints to prioritize the waterfront as a destination instead of a transportation corridor: The Alaskan Way Viaduct will be removed All pass-through-Seattle traffic will travel below the surface Pedestrian experience will take priority over vehicular activity on the surface of the waterfront.22Several members of the Planning and Design Commission also outreached to high school students, and created a class at a local public high school, Center School, focusing on youth use of the waterfront. Students presented their reports at the second waterfront public forum, held in November of 2003.23 At the meeting commissioners facilitated an interactive session on the priorities generated at the initial public forum and the findings of the various discussion groups. This interactive session identified common priorities between the expert knowledge from discussion groups with the broader local perspectives from the role playing session. The following priorities guided the framework principles and design parameters for the 2004 Waterfront Charrette: 18. US Corps of Engineers, 7.19. Elliott Bay Seawall Project20. Department of Planning and Development. Mayors Recommendations: Seattle Central Waterfront Concept Plan. City of Seattle. 2006. 6.21. Ibid.22. David Yeaworth, Waterfront Design Collaborative: Introduction, Allied Arts, http://www.alliedarts-seattle.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=27 (Assessed August 15, 2011)23. Department of Planning and Development. Mayors Recommendations: Seattle Central Waterfront Concept Plan. 7.24. Ibid.25. Ibid., 8. Identify visionary ideas. Expand the list of considered Provide creative input Educate people Gauge public opinion.24 Three hundred designers, planners, artists, and citizens from five countries, created twenty two schemes for the waterfront. Approximately 600 people attended the presentation of charrette results in April of 2004.25 Following the charrette, city staff began drafting the Waterfront Concept Plan, which later formed the basis of the Mayors Recommended Objectives and Strategies. In July of 2004, a Waterfront Advisory 50 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O Nteam formed to advise city staff in the drafting of the Concept Plan. The plan was publicly presented at an open house in February of 2005 where approximately 200 people attended.26 One year later, an updated plan was presented to an audience of approximately 150 people.27 It is critical to note that public attendance conveys public interest and perceived inclusivity. The charrette presentation, which allowed community members to contribute ideas and offer design solutions had three times the attendance of either open house meeting. For several years, the design and public process tapered due to a debate on traffic alternatives for the viaduct. After five years of discussion, the City of Seattle declared to move forward with the tunnel option in 2010. Later that year, the Seattle Department of Transportation publicly announced James Corner Field Operations as the chosen design team for the waterfront project.James Corner is both a practitioner as well as an academic. In both realms of work, Corner often focuses on representation, phenomenology, and hermeneutics of design. Corner has strong convictions toward image-making, viewing drawing and representation. Tracing the changing perspectives on representation, Corner proposes in his academic work, that the turn of the 18th century led to a major shift in representation where symbolic expression was replaced not only by the autonomy of instrumental representation grounded in scientism, but also by an aesthetic representation grounded in the fallacies of taste.28 Against the excessive technological approach to design, as well as the purely autonomous aesthetic driven approach, Corner calls to fellow landscape architects to develop a cohesive theory. In order to develop this theory, Corner uses the image itself for constructing visions, as a method of creating an informative hybridized image. Landscape and image are inseparable. Without image there is no such thing as landscape only unmediated environment.29 Corners statement reiterates Vale and Warner sentiment that cities today are imaged. However, Vale and Warner expand the realm of imaging to be much more open and translatable to other disciplines. To a greater extent than ever before places no longer simply have images; they are continually being imaged (and reimaged) often in ways that are highly self-conscious and highly contentious.30 The challenge of imaging lies then lies in becoming aware of what the image will itself manifest, and how in the future it might be reimaged. Since James Corner aligns himself directly to the image-making, his process of image-making becomes critical to analyze. Posed against the traditional view of planning as overly institutionalized, Corner advocates for a process of inventive mediation in order to develop alternatives to the conventional master plan.31 Addressing the design needs within the public participation process, Corner voices his concern with the current model lacking distinct hierarchy. Without kings, autocratic presidents, singular corporate leaders, or similarly single minded clients with power and authority, it is very difficult to produce significantly innovative work. The kind of ad-hoc, inclustionist populism that passes as participatory public process today typically leads to dull projects bland politics, and general cultural interia32 Counteracting the inclustionist populism approach, Corner describes his own design process extensively, as temporal orchestration.33 He argues for landscape and ecology as methods appropriate in addressing messy and complex realities. The dualities of large scale organization and open relationship structure become open-ended. Corners designs are a platform from which new types of urban life can evolve.In a more qualitative and interpretive approach to design, disciplines outside of design can also use storytelling as a method of communication. With sensitivity to this type of process, James Corner Field Operations collaborates with Tomato, a collective group of graphic artists, designers, musicians and writers. The firm works with branding activities such as hosting workshops, publishing, exhibiting, live performances and public speaking, working with clients in the areas of advertising, architecture, fashion, public installations, music, television, film, and graphic design. Tomato strength is founded on the generation of storytelling as symbiosis between idea-making and world marking.34 The firm has successfully generated an approach to aiding the image generating process, and publishes regularly upon the branding process. Working collaboratively with Field Operations, as well as other architects, Tomato strengthens design imaging by adding a story, which communicates to audiences and has successfully facilitated the creation of highly regarded built projects.As image makers and storytellers, Field Operations and Tomato addressed the Seattle Public on February 17, 2010.35 Visual images were shown by Corner, explaining the Seattle context and future potential opportunities. Visual Media supported approaches for consensus 26. Department of Planning and Development. Mayors Recommendations: Seattle Central Waterfront Concept Plan. 7.27. Ibid.28. Corner, James. A Discourse on Theory I: Sounding the Depths Origins, Theory, and Representation. Landscape Journal 9, no. 2 (1990): 68.29. Corner, James. Recovering Landscape : Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.153.30. Lawrence Vale and Sam Bass Warner. xv.31. Corner, James. Field Operations. Architectural Design 69, no. 7-8 (1999): 53.32. Corner, James. Not Unlike Life Itself: Landscape Strategy Now. Harvard Design Magazine 2004, no. 21 (2004): 32.33. Corner, James. Field Operations. 53.34. Warwicker, John. 2008. The floating world: Ukiyoe [a tomato project]. Gttingen: Steidl Mack. 23435. Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium February 17th, 2011 http://waterfrontseattle.org/ (accessed March 18, 2011).47. 6 0 S E AT T LE 51design by utilizing social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and web surveys. However during the public event, public participation roles remained conventional. The process of gathering public and stakeholder consensus was illustrated in a graphic which animated different groups working collaboratively, yet had minimal information as to how this process would work. Although the typical public process has the opportunity to guide the reconstruction of the waterfront, this is another solution driven approach, which appropriates specific types of knowledge and information in order to define and create a solvable solution. The questions posed in the first public meeting, Where do you Questions posed to the public in the first public meeting (bottom)The public was given to opportunity to voice their opinion by marking their responses with dots on large posters.Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium February 17th, 2011 First public meeting presentation (top)Visual media presented by Corner supported the idea of consensus building.Source: Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium February 17th, 201152 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O Nmost want to be on the waterfront?, What activates would most attract you to the waterfront?, are valid strategies for gathering information. However, these questions produce answers for specific solutions and miss the benefits of responding to new ideas.During the second public meeting, Corner presented three design concepts as well as a quick win concept of installing temporary hot tub on piers 62/63. The idea raised positive and negative discussion. Although there might be some question as to whether or not this concept is the right event for the waterfront, the event does create incentive to learn more about waterfront and provides a reason for the public to test the function of the site prior to the final design. Such a discourse is critical for the waterfront since the waterfront space has been largely unused by residents due to physical boundaries which have historically disconnected the waterfront from downtown. Corners preliminary design offers solutions to topography and pedestrian access. Corners design process does offer community outreach through public meetings, however this outreach is limited in gathering opinion outside of stakeholders and experts involved in the process. This is crucial to address. Seattles waterfront has been largely unused by residents due to physical man-made boundaries. The design process must address how to create a major community connection and commitment, or it risks creating space simply for tourist use.Compared to the other case studies, the Seattle design process is similar to Stockholm. As with Stockholm, guided formal public participation process risks not obtaining an adequate representation of public opinion. The City of Seattle has kept the public informed through formal outreach strategies for the generation of goals and values for the urban waterfront. However the translation of these goals to a design solution is a process of distilling down ideas, rather then an open evolving process. There has also been a large gap in time within the process with the debate of the tunnel alternative. As a result, the past planning public outreach strategies for the waterfront is disconnected from the current process and the dialogue providing public ownership to the process must be regenerated. Events such as Corners quick wins should be expanded on and invested in to obtain perspectives and views from a diverse range of the population aside from the active constituents already involved. In seeking to involve the local public into the decision-making of the design process, how might the conventional megaproject design process change? In assimilating priories and goals, the way in which knowledge is obtained affects the outcome. More effort must be undertaken to obtain perspectives, formally and informally, from a diverse range of the population. With sensitivity to many types of knowledge, expertise is still regarded as valid, however it must be reflective of local knowledge to ensure it is also given an important role. An approach which seeks to develop and capture multiple perspectives as a self-informing process, would frame a much different problem.Early Wins (left)As part of the second public presentation, Corner proposed the concept of installing temporary hot tub on piers 62/63Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium May 19th, 2011Corners Preliminary Design (right)Presented at the second public meeting, the design strategy offers pedestrian access to topography barriers. James Corner: reconnect people to the waterfront Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce. http://www.djc.com/news/ae/12029581.html. 2001 Competition was held2004 Nyrn, Tyrns, ELU architects was announced as the winner May 2008 Mayor Sderlund announced a new competition 2007 City officials addressed Slussen in Stockholms Vision 20302007 A program consultations annalyed different options2009 The City decided upon the design by Foster + Partners October 2008 Five design proposals were displayed for 4 months February 20, 2011 Residents protested against the plan June 10, 2010 Consultation plan presented for public comment Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipMay 2011 The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments Public Participation ProcessManipulationTherapyInformingConsultationPlacationPartnershipDelegated PowerCitizen Control47. 6 0 S E AT T LE 53Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipJune 2003 Waterfront Forum 1 September and October, 2003 Waterfront Discussion GroupsNovember 7, 2003 Waterfront Forum 2September 15, 2010 Presentations by Shortlisted Design Firms July 26, 2006 Mayor Unveils Waterfront PlansFeb 1, 2006 Waterfront Open HouseJuly 8, 2005 Waterfront Partners Group Public Working SessionJune 21-23, 2005 Waterfront Open HousesFeb. 9, 2005 Waterfront Concept Plan Open HouseApril 7, 2004 Charette Presentation & ExhibitFebruary 27-28, 2004 Visioning CharretteMay 19, 2011 Presentation of Initial design directions February 17, 2011 James Corner Kick-off eventPublic Participation ProcessManipulationTherapyInformingConsultationPlacationPartnershipDelegated PowerCitizen ControlPublic Participation Analysis for Seattle. The City of Seattle has kept the public informed through formal outreach strategies similar to the formal process of Stockholm. As with Stockholm, a guided formal public participation process risks not obtaining an adequate representation of public opinion. 2001 Competition was held2004 Nyrn, Tyrns, ELU architects was announced as the winner May 2008 Mayor Sderlund announced a new competition 2007 City officials addressed Slussen in Stockholms Vision 20302007 A program consultations annalyed different options2009 The City decided upon the design by Foster + Partners October 2008 Five design proposals were displayed for 4 months February 20, 2011 Residents protested against the plan June 10, 2010 Consultation plan presented for public comment Design Process ActivityDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipMay 2011 The final plan proposal is said to address the public comments Public Participation ProcessManipulationTherapyInformingConsultationPlacationPartnershipDelegated PowerCitizen ControlLocal KnowledgeStakeholdersPublicFuture usersExpert KnowledgeCity CouncilPlannersArchitectsEngineersTimeVision/DesignAestheticsScienceTechnologyPolitics Public ParticipationEnvironmental SustainabilityArchitectsCity Council PlannersExpertsPublic DevelopersLocal KnowledgeStakeholdersPublicFuture usersExpert KnowledgeCity CouncilPlannersArchitectsEngineersTimeFuture usersVision/DesignAestheticsScienceTechnologyPoliticsPublic ParticipationEnvironmental SustainabilityArchitectsCity Council PlannersExpertsPublic ProducersConsumersInfluenceMethodDevelopersPUBLIC PARTICIPATION DESIGNThe waterfront calls for an open mind. In major cities that were once or are still world ports, from Rotterdam to Yokohama to New York, the call is especially intense. Still flowing with the give-and -take of goods, people, and cultures, todays most successful waterfronts offer the experience and articulate the values of an open society, in which ideas are exchanges freely, transparent transactions are valued, and people are free to come and go.Raymond Gastil, Beyond the Edge : New Yorks New Waterfront. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002. 55Local KnowledgeStakeholdersPublicFuture usersExpert KnowledgeCity CouncilPlannersArchitectsEngineersTimeVision/DesignAestheticsScienceTechnologyPolitics Public ParticipationEnvironmental SustainabilityArchitectsCity Council PlannersExpertsPublic DevelopersWaterfronts are more complex than simply post-industrial spaces requiring a spatio-temporal fix that responds to changes in economy and capitalist crises.1 As civic spaces, they require a different strategy for regeneration; a strategy which is not solely focused on the rebranding of a space for new opportunities of economy or aesthetics. Rather the focus should be redirected on crafting an evolving public activity for the purpose of long term space inhabitation and ownership. The following chapter builds upon past waterfront planning efforts and James Corners concept of quick wins to establish a self-evolving form of public participation.SUPPORTING A REFLECTIVE PROCESSPublic place contains public memory, and within this collection of memory, there is power. Dolores Hayden, a professor and urban historian, defines the power of place as the power of ordinary urban landscapes to nurture citizens public memory, to encompass shared time in the form of shared territory.2 Although the power of place can engage and solicit public participation, it is largely unused within planning and public participation. Lynne Manzo has researched this gap within the planning discipline. While planners enthusiastically pursued issues of participation and other social dynamics in planning, the study of the nature and role of place meaning and attachment were left largely to environmental and community psychologists.3 This disconnection between planners and psychologists, is also transferable to other disciplines and the way in which we view the design of public spaces in general. Manzo calls for a collaboration of the disciplines to progress forward with an ecological perspective, which would engage the multiple levels of the individual, group, organization, community, city, region and society for analysis.4 In a typical megaproject design process the design is a vision of the designer/engineer. The design team negotiates the values of the environment, ecology and aesthetics into a design solution. Public involvement within this process is often limited to participatory planning events where viewpoints from stakeholders are gathered in between design iterationsusually in initial phases of information gathering or much later in the process for public approval. Information collection in the initial phases of the process may or may not contribute to decision-making. Recognizing the power of place within the design process can guide initial excitement and provide a foundation for public participation to form mutual, social learning. Through social learning, public participation and design process are mutually strengthened to collectively articulate strategic planning activities.Public participation approaches can be defined as reactive, guiding or reflective processes. Historically, public spaces were created by nearby 1. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press: Oxford (2005) 66.2. Hayden, Dolores The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History 1093. Manzo, L. C. Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20, no. 4 (2006): 3364. Ibid. 336.Initial Design ProcessSeconary Design ProcessDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship Reactive Processes Guiding Processes Reflective ProcessesTypes of public participation models (left)Public participation approaches can be defined as reactive, guiding or reflective processes. Grey areas mark public participation activity. White arrow denotes time. Comparison of the case studies (right)Copenhagens Islands Brygge and Kalvebod Brygge can be characterized as reactive public participation design processes, whereas Stockholm and Seattle can be defined as guiding processes. Initial Design ProcessSeconary Design ProcessDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship Reactive Processes Guiding Processes Reflective ProcessesInitial Design ProcessSeconary Design ProcessDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship Reactive Processes Guiding Processes Reflective ProcessesInitial Design ProcessSeconary Design ProcessDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship Reactive Processes Guiding Processes Reflective ProcessesInitial Design ProcessSeconary Design ProcessDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship Reactive Processes Guiding Processes Reflective ProcessesInitial Design ProcessSeconary Design ProcessDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship Reactive Processes Guiding Processes Reflective ProcessesInitial Design ProcessSeconary Design ProcessDegrees of Public ParticipationMajor Public Participation EventsFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole ProprietorshipFormal InformalCollective Group EffortSole Proprietorship Reactive Processes Guiding Processes Reflective ProcessesIslands Brygge Kalvebod BryggeSlussen SeattleProducers and consumers of public space (facing page)The power of place can employed to mobilize community members to become the producers of public space56 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O Ncommunities, supporting their needs through informal processes similar to Copenhagens Harborfront. These communities used localized knowledge and the power of place in public space creation. It is critical to note that the same reactive process also created undesired spaces. With a purely reactionary approach, comprehensive vision or direction would become difficult to assemble. Without direction, the process risks the reproduction of unbalanced power relations. This however could be avoided with the collection of diverse sets of knowledge. Through a formal and guided process, Stockholm attempts address the publics needs within the design process. However, a guided process may not address all of the publics concerns, and the rigidity of this formal process and lack of distinct hierarchy can lead to project delays and controversies. The City of Seattle planning process also follows a guided process. In order to facilitate the best opportunity for both a public participation and Corners role, the process should be redirected as a reflective process, one of mutual learning and balance. The following proposal facilitates a self-evolving process for developing new possibilities of public space design while simultaneously empowering the community. A CIVIC ASSEMBLYOverviewPublic participation transforms the design process as an active part of physical design. Perspectives and views from a diverse range of public are obtained through a temporary design intervention capturing both the formal and informal modes of participation. This event establishes a cyclical process, which claims ownership over the design process and strengthens social networks for future participation. OrganizationIn order to organize the event, a community outreach committee is formed to publicly announce the event and invite the public to participate. After a social media and public marketing campaign, the committee organizes the public participants into seven groups based on James Corners interpretation of waterfront districts. Groups are strategically composed to build upon existing spatial relationships and address potential conflict of spacial uses. For example, the Ferry Terminal Team is composed of residents, local commuters, stakeholders, businesses, and organizations within the district as well as technical transportation experts; representatives from the Port of Seattle and Washington State Ferries. The groups are formed two months in advance to allow for discussion and planning and perhaps prefabrication of materials. Simple constraints help maintain flexible design intention and a cohesive installation for the exhibition. Each of the seven groups is given an equal amount of base resources. The supplied materials are simple: Sheets of plywood are supplied for prefabrication purposes. Vegetation is rented/borrowed from local nurseries to allow for the temporary installation. Paint allows for complex visions to be drawn onto the site, claiming the area. After the event, the paint will serve as a reminder to the ideas and allow for waterfront visitors to engage the markings informally. Additional objects and materials are welcome with group support.The event offers citizen control and interpretation of the design process temporarily. The user-generated design builds on the power of place and public memory to create incentive for others to engage the site. During the event, participants are given the opportunities to offer ideas and build community relationships. Participants engage their creativity in a spatial way, offering a different approach from typical public consultation. Over a period of four days, a temporary installation of ideas is constructed and exhibited on the waterfront. Set into existing events held on the waterfront, the event draws residents and visitors to participate in assembly of structures or through informal observation. Seattle residents, waterfront business owners and tenants, design professionals, organizations, technical experts, and youth representatives from local schools install their collaborative work and display their ideas for the public comment. The temporary waterfront installation 5. Corner, James. Not Unlike Life Itself: Landscape Strategy Now. Harvard Design Magazine 2004, no. 21 (2004): 32.P U B L I C PA R T I C I PAT I O N D E S I G N 57Installation group teams (bottom)Teams are composed to build upon existing spatial relationships and address potential conflict of spacial uses.Pioneer Square ResidentsWest Seattle ResidentsInternational District ResidentsSouth Seattle ResidentsMuckleshoot TribeDuwamish TribeSeattle Parks Foundation4CultureArt Walk AttendersPioneer Square Presevation BoardArtistsPIONEER SQUAREFERRY TERMINALIsland ResidentsWDOTSDOTFeet FirstKing County Metro RidersWashington State Ferries Alaskan Way DriversCascade Bicycle ClubSquamish TribeWaterfront Edge NeighborsBusinessesSeattle Chamber of CommerceDowntown Seattle AssociationSeattle Art MuseumSeattle Public LibrariesSeattle Convention CenterVisitors BureauTouristsTHE COMMERCIAL PIERSTHE PUBLIC PIERSPike Place Market PDAWashington Convention CenterWaterfront CruisesPeople for Puget SoundSeattle AquariumWaterfront HotelsWestlake ResidentsUniversity District ResidentsUniversity of WashingtonK-12 SchoolsTHE MARINAUptown Residents Bell Harbor MarinaFishermen's TerminalHarbor Island MarinaShilshole Bay MarinaBoating EnthusiastsBell Harbor Conferance AIA Belltown ResidentsBallard ResidentsQueen Anne ResidentsWallingford ResidentsNorth Seattle ResidentsSeattle Sounders FansSeattle Public Art CommunityCornish College for ArtPeoples Waterfront CoalitionSeattle Art MuseumOlympic Sculpture Seattle CenterTHE NORTH ENDRAILROAD WAYThe Port of SeattleMarine IndustriesBallard/Interbay M.I.C.sSeattle Seahawks FansSeattle Mariners FansWest Seattle ResidentsInternational District ResidentsSouth Seattle ResidentsSEPTEMBER 6thFIRST THURSDAY ART WALKLocal artists and community engage in an outdoor art walk installation of temporarypublic spaceSEPTEMBER 7thCOMMUNITY COMMUTEFree ferry rides after 8pm.Stay after work and help island residents complete their installation SEPTEMBER 7thLUNCH OFFVisitors and Workers spend lunch/Friday afternoon working on their installationSEPTEMBER 6thTAILGATE INSTALLJoin sports fans and the localindustry to create a tailgate event like no other prior to a Seattle Mariners vs. Angels game First Thursday walk in Pioneer Sq.Parking DayFarm Days Saturday and SundayCentennial Bike RidePort by bike on Sunday, June 5, 2011.EXPERIENCE IDEASSEPTEMBER 8th-9thINSTALLSEPTEMBER 6th-7thAfter weeks of planningcommunity groups are installing physical design ideas on the waterfront Join the conversation!FESTIVALFARM DAYSShop from Pikes Place Market farmers in stands by the Waterfront. Choose from the season's best berries, greens, herbs, and vegetables.CONCERTSHear local talent as you walk along the waterfront installation Installation event schedule (top)The installation is constructed and exhibited on the waterfront over a period of four days.58 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O Ninvolves and develops knowledge as an inclusive creative process.Success factorsThe purpose of the exhibition is to expand the possibilities of ideas. The self-informing public participation event creates temporary public space and offers the following values: 1. Multiple site perspectives which reveal historical and social context rooted in the power of place.2. Integrated multiple functions and multiple simultaneous perspectives of the site 3. The exploration of possibilities, which is more open then permanent design.A temporary event transcends the conflict inherent in megaprojects; high cost, large scale, significant technical constraints and differing expertise. Designs are investigated and created over a short period of time. The event provides low risk to the process of testing ideas due to the impermanence of the event and the subsequent low level of commitment. It is critical to note that the event is not just about working through individual conflict or a individual design process. Spatial collaboration transcends conventional issues. Since the designs are temporary there is more opportunity to explore different solutions in a non binding way and learn mutually though each iteration. Related ProjectsCurrently there are planning methods which seek to involve public participation in a creative manner on a smaller scale. Co design Laboratories, a progressive research department within Denmark University, uses and develops creative methods of public participation.6 These methods mobilize and engage the public through design games and scenarios such as rehearsing the future. Working on the concept of everyday innovation, the public is engaged creatively.7 There are many other groups using these outreach methods of public participation such as the Detroit Collaborative Center, Project for Public Spaces, and Portlands City Repair Program. Creative public participation is also used to educate and inform the public. Although not necessarily tied to a comprehensive design process, events, such as PARK(ing) Day are successful in establishing an active spatial exploration of urban space which is user generated. PARK(ing) Day initiates public participation through the temporary reuse of metered parking spaces in order to raise awareness to auto dependant urban infrastructure. The event draws a wide range of public involvement and ideas, ranging from the miniature parks to the expression of local character or raise awareness of an important issues. Since the projects conception in 2005, by Rebar, a San Francisco-based art and design studio, the project has sparked the creation of 800 installations in more than 180 cities in 30 countries on six continents.8 These planning methods have worked well for projects with a involved community group or for a generating public interest towards a specific issue, however, there has not been a process which draws the public to participate spatially for the design of a megaproject. This type of spatial collaboration could draw on the power of place to facilitate the opportunity for a reflective public participation. With the Seattle waterfront, a reflective process can strengthen both the publics role and Corners role into a supportive relationship, one of mutual learning and balance.Post EventAfter the event, group input is specifically invited to comment on alternatives and whether any additional attributes should be considered in the design process of the Seattle Central Waterfront Design team. The event establishes an dialog between design and community which is mutually educational. Building upon Corners concept of quick wins, participants become engaged and feel invested in the process in a relatively short period of time. 6. Co design Laboratories, http://codesignklyngen.wordpress.com/ (accessed May 16, 2011). 7. Ibid.8. Parking Day, http://parkingday.org/about-parking-day/ (accessed May 16, 2011). 59In order to continue to balance formal design concepts from the design team and informal design ideas from the public, the event establishes an biannual happening on the waterfront. These ephemeral events have a lasting influence on the waterfronts future. Since both the design team and the public have the opportunity to creatively test ideas, the power of decision-making is redistributed through the biannual open transfer of ideas. Following each biannual event, citizens are better prepared to argue for different design solutions having experienced the educational benefits of the spacial public space design exercise. Participants actively shape and contribute ideas to the evolving design constructed between each biannual event This self-evolving discourse provides a wide collection of current and future knowledge. As an active part of physical design, multiple perspectives creatively test possibilities. The temporary design intervention captures both the formal and informal modes of participation and establishes a self-informing process which has the ability to transcend conflict. The events establishes a strong community connection to the site, which upon design completion, transfers to long term space inhabitation. Ownership is claimed over design process and strengthens social networks for future inhabitation and participation. Potential Public Participation Event InstallationUsers have the possibility to engage and shape the site by testing collective ideasAUTHENTICITY + USER GENERATED DESIGNToday, notions of place and market, expanding information technologies, local authenticity and global consumer culture have intersected to create a nexus of complex relationships. In a time of hyper-capitalism where counterculture has been demystified, culture hijacked to transport commercial messages (and commerce hijacked to transport culture), and all boundaries between high and low design, concept, content, and form have been blurred, how can we create relevant and meaningful and authentic experiences that are purely defined by architecture? Anna Klingmann, 2007. Brandscapes: architecture in the experience economy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1 611. Edward Relph. 1987. The modern urban landscape. London: Croom Helm. 1132. Within this work, I denote place as a built work which is adopted by a community. In contrast, a space functions without a identifiable user group.3. Ali Madanipour. 2003. Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge. 64. Wall 1999, Dovery 1999, Sorkin 1992, Huxtable 1997 Mike Davis 1992, Harvey 19965. Rem Koolhaas Trajectory as a Positive, OMA 6. Michael Sorkin. 1992. Variations on a theme park: the new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang. p xiv7. Madanipour. 68. Koolhaas.In order to address how a design proposal might support an evolving public participation, I explore the topic of authenticity a sense of place which is authentic and genuine as opposed to inauthentic, contrived or artificialas a critical component for community adoption of urban spaces.1 Authenticity was once the only means of city building. Before modern construction methods, cities were built out of community driven need to integrate the political, economic, social and cultural activities. Public places were built through sedimentationthe process of layering use incrementally into spaces.2 The transition from a system based on close-knit community to one of non-converging networks and anonymity has altered the function of public spaces. Public places still contain some of their historic programs such as markets and event spaces, however these programs have residual roles, secondary to modern conveniences.3 Throughout history the measure for authenticity has remained constant. Within our modern cities, however, public spaces are superficially contrived; city centers are being themed around tourist and entertainment functions.4 Architects such as Koolhaas recognize the traditional sedimentation of a city, which for us is still the model for authenticity.5 As designers, and as users, we perceive authenticity in public space by the historic layering of resident and community use. The disappearance of authentic public space is critical to address; especially when we, as architects and planners, advocate for a denser city environment, which would in turn, require more public space to be constructed. In this chapter I argue that the lack of authenticity within public space design is due to the way we as designers approach the design process. AUTHENTICITY WITHIN THE DESIGN PROCESSThe circumstances that make authentic spaces cannot be replicated. Architectural critic Michael Sorkin explains whether in its master incarnation at the ersatz Main Street of Disneyland, in the phony history of a Rouse market place, or the gentrified architecture of the reborn Lower East Side, this elaborate apparatus is at pains to assert its ties to the kind of city life it is in the process of obliterating.6 Richard Marshall argues the condition in which we find ourselves is not an issue of memory. We have not forgotten how cities were made, rather our ideas of what a city is and how it is put together seem at odds with the way the world works today.7 The current process of development is a linear progressionfrom need to scoping, to conceptual design, to design, to construction, to operation and maintenance. When the development no longer provides a valued need, the space is decommissioned and a new need establishes the beginning of a new linear process. Although this linear process functions with spaces which have strong community commitment and involvement, spaces without such commitment often develop into artificial public spacesspaces which lack authenticity measured by time and use. If a conventual design process lacks authenticity, why are we not changing the design process? Architects such as Koolhass discuss the absoluteness of the contemporary situation we find ourselves in, there is no escaping the artificial in the new architecture, and certainly not in large amounts of architecture being generated at the same time.8 I argue that this matter is not as absolute as we might think. Although time, construction methods, and pace of life have irreversibly defined the way we construct our cities, I believe there is still room for expanding our scope of thinkingespecially during this moment of slowing developmentto work with the realities of planning process, construction delays, and funding limitations by collaborating with the local community. In order to understand the possibilities of changing the conventional design process, I researched user generated design to understand the potential for layering use incrementally into spaces. Within my research, I found there are three approaches to user-generated design in public spaces: 1. Highly responsive architecture-a constantly evolving environment which anticipates building user use patterns, needs, or desires. 2. Self-invention of experience-users become active participants by some factor of contributing to the meaning of the work through their choices. 3. Collaborative design- a mutual effort of designers and community membersIn the following sections I expand upon these approaches with case study precedents.Seattles vertical growth(facing page)In the latter half of the 20th century, Seattle went through a large construction boom and expanded vertically. 62 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NHIGHLY RESPONSIVE ARCHITECTUREThe concept of user-generated design gained momentum during the 1960s, occurring simultaneously with the critique of rationality as a comprehensive and exclusive planning method. During the time, architects began experimenting with technology to provide options for users to control their own surroundings and experiences. The most ambitious of these types of projects was Cedric Prices and Joan Littlewoods proposal for the Fun Palace. The architects collaborated with a wide rage of scientists, sociologists, artists, engineers, and politicians; including Richard Buckminster Fuller, Yehudi Menuhin, Gordon Pask, and Tony Benn. By attending lectures at Londons Institute of Contemporary Art, Price learned of the potential offered by electronic and cybernetic systems. Employing cybernetics, computer technologies, and game theory, Price produced improvisational, constantly evolving architecture.9 Rather than a diagram of architectural spaces, the program of the Fun Palace became an array of algorithmic functions and logical gateways that control temporal events and processes in a virtual device.10 A range of data was mathematically modeled, from visiting patterns, mechanical and architectural considerations, program capacities, to determination of what is likely to induce happiness.11 The resulting web of information is parallel to rhizomatic theories of knowledge developed in the 1970s by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari.12Assembled, the architecture became a type of kit of parts. Enclosures were defined by two scales; small scale spaces with a high degree of servicing such as kitchens, restaurants, workshops and lavatories, and large scale spaces such as auditoriums, cinema and meeting halls. Flexibility was incorporated through the construction and the deconstruction circulation of the constantly adapting architecture. After years of design, the construction was blocked by mid-level bureaucrats in the Newham planning office. Price moved on to construct a smaller scale of the Fun Palace in Kentish Town. Known as the InterAction Centre, Price designed the center as a building with a limited life span of twenty years. Mathews, an architecture critic, attributes Prices designs to situating architecture to the most socially relevant position; not as enclosure, symbol, or monument but as the convergence of site and human event.139. During the time, cybernetics was commonly associated with computers. Wiener pioneered the cybernetics as a model of the natural processes that permit all living things to actively maintain the conditions of life. Price used this concept of cybernetics to design the Fun Place.10. Stanley Mathews. 2006. The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education. 59 (3).11. Stanley Mathews. 2006. Cedric Price: from the brain drain to the knowledge economy. Architectural Design. 76 (1): 4512. Ibid.13. Ibid., 47.Fun Palace Organizational Plan (left)The program was organized by a range of mathematically modeled data.Mathews, Stanley. The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture. 59.Fun Palace Floor Plan (top right)Flexibility is incorporated through the construction and the deconstruction of the adapting circulation. Mathews, 59.InterAction Centre (bottom right)As a scaled down version of the Fun Palace, Price designed the center as a building with a limited life span of twenty years. In 2003 conservationists tried to preserve the building, however, Price adamantly opposed the preservation, and the InterAction Centre was demolished.Mathews, 59.AU T H E N T I C I T Y + U S E R G E N E R AT E D D E S I G N 63COLLABORATIVE DESIGNCollaborative design requires the role of the architect to be the facilitator instead of the sole innovator. As architects began exploring the method of highly responsive architecture, urban designers also began adapting the design process to be more reflective of community interest. Moving beyond conventional public outreach, designers worked with stakeholders collaboratively as a mutual learning process. The temporary design solutions of Muf (UK) explore theses boundaries of participation and design decision-making with art and public place. The project We are artists enable local public artists to actively inform policy making for highly contested spaces.14 As part of the design process, a dinner debate with thirty-two local artists began the dialog of vision and goals. After the event, artist submitted proposals for a series of temporary workshops with local children on a local development site. Four temporary commissions were selected by anonymous peer review. Atelier dArchitecture Autogre (AAA) is another group practicing collaborative design with the local community. Critical of formulaic participatory practice which superficially engages citizens, the group of artists, architects, urban planners, landscape architects, sociologists, students, and residents worked together on ECObox: a five year public space installation which opened in 2001.15 Made from low-tech affordable materials, each module is moveable, allowing users to determine their location. Each modules housed different programs such as a garden, kitchen, library, tool bank, and radio station. Initially curated by AAA members, and then by the local community, the installation allows a physical manifestation of democratic spacea communal place transformed by users.14. Muf architecture/art. We are Artists. http://www.muf.co.uk/archives/portfolio/we-are-artists (accessed January 8 2012.)15. Ruth Morrow. ECObox. Mobile devices and urban tactics http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/ecobox-mobile-devices-and-urban-tactics/ (accessed January 8 2012.)Public comments from the We are artists event (top)Thirty-two local artists attended the public participation dinner which began the dialog for vision and goals.Muf architecture/artECObox installation (bottom)Each ECObox module contained different programs such as a garden, kitchen, library, tool bank, radio station. These modules were initially curated by the designers and then by the local community.Ruth Morrow. ECObox.64 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NSELF INVENTION OF EXPERIENCEPublic participation through self invention is rooted within the interactive art movementa genre of art where viewers become active participants by some factor of determining the outcome. Allowing various types of contribution to an artwork, these installations transcend individual mental activity in traditional art. The earliest example of such a piece is Marcel Duchamps Rotary Glass Plates piece.16 Composed of five glass pieces attached to a horizontal spinning metal pole, the artwork movement is controlled by the viewer. When in motion, the glass spins with the metal pole and creates a stroboscopic effect. Since Duchamps piece was created in 1920, significant technological advancements have progressed this dialog between art and viewer. Computer-based sensors, allow artists, such as Scott Snibbe, to monitor temperature, motion, and proximity to elicit participant responses. With Boundary Functions, an interactive floor projection, Snibbe strives to make a medium as emotionally engaging as a movie, but one in which you remain aware of your body and your relationship to othersto communicate a vision of the world where people understand that we are all interdependent.17 This interdependency produces meaning as a continual process. Self invention, as a concept, has influenced architecture since the early 1980s. In 1983, Koolhaus submitted a design competition proposal of a new public park to be built on the fifty-five hectare site of a former slaughterhouses in Paris. Koolhauss submission, composed of five superimposed layers of program, transformed the site into contrasting vertical and horizontal strips; each containing different programs and different placement of structure and vegetation. Lebbeus Woods argues that this architecture allows self-invention to occur. It is a park that would be difficult to experience the same way twicerepeat visits would each be different. For example, if we walk along the strips, we encounter a particular sequence of landscapes and experiences; if we cut across the strips an entirely different sequence of perceptions is discovered.18 In this manner, Koolhaus defines a mutable experience for the users, who can shape their experiences with the site. Shaping experiences with the site can be used as a method of design inquiry. I had the opportunity to see the idea of temporary installation as design inquiry actualized upon completion of my urban planning thesis work. My thesis committee member Nancy Rottle and Kathryn R. Merlino assigned a public interaction installation as part of the Scan/Design Master studio. The installations were specifically aimed at provoking public interaction and education on the waterfront. Over the course of one and a half weeks, students designed, constructed, and exhibited a series of Quick Win Site Expressions. The students installations created a platform for mutable experience. The installations were specifically aimed at provoking public interaction and education on the waterfront. Student formed into five groups with simple instructions, constraints and a budget of $100 for materials. Over the course of one and a half weeks students, designed, constructed and 16. Larissa Bank. Foundations in Interactive Art making http://www.larabank.com/usc/lecture1/index.htm (accessed January 8 2012.)17. Julia Klein. Dont Just Stand There. Brown Alumni Magazine. 2008. 4218. Lebbeus Woods. Another Rem. http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/another-rem/ (accessed January 8 2012.)Duchamps Rotary Glass Plates piece (left)The artworks movement is controlled by the viewer. This machine consisted of five glass pieces with curved black lines attached to a horizontal spinning metal pole. When in motion, the glass spins creates a stroboscopic effectimages of a moving spiral can be seen. Larissa Bank. Foundations in Interactive Art making http://www.larabank.com/usc/lecture1/index.htm (accessed January 8 2012.)Snibbes Interactive floor projection (middle)The interactive floor installation senses the human body. As participants step onto the installation piece, lines outline their body in relation to others. Klein. 42Koolhauss submission for Park de Villette (right)Koolhaus superimposed five layers of program into contrasting vertical and horizontal strips. Each segment contained different programs and different placement of structure and vegetation to allow users to shape their own experience, their own path through the site. Source: Lebbeus Woods. Another Rem. http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/another-rem/(accessed January 8 2012.)AU T H E N T I C I T Y + U S E R G E N E R AT E D D E S I G N 65exhibited a series of Quick Win Site Expressions on Pier 62/63. Each installation engaged various spontaneous responses, including somewhat expected responses such as children engaging the installation for play, or a somewhat unexpected occurrence of a couple posing for wedding photos. The students installations created a platform for mutable experience. Users could shape their experiences and choose their level of engagement. This temporal shaping of place creates a mutually beneficial dialog between the user and the designer. With the design of a public space, there is a tendency to focus on design and management issues rather than what people value about public places.19 User generated design can transcend managerial thinking and focus on supporting place attachment including opportunities for people to engage with others. It can also ensure that the citizens experiences with new urban qualities and designs are considered. This process can create experiences beyond what is initially considered by the design team. Within this work, I propose to reform the design process to be collectively owned. The preceding studies of related precedent have helped develop a conceptual framework that applies to the design of large public places in general and Pier 48 in particular. In the following chapter, I propose the method of collaborative consumption- a sedimentation of public use to provide the programing of the site, which provides flexibility to transcend conventional and present limitations. 19. Public Places. Joseph Rowntree Foundation http://www.jrf.org.uk/work/workarea/public-spaces (accessed January 8 2012.)Quick Win Site Installations (left to right and following facing pages)Over the course of one and a half weeks, five groups of students designed, constructed, and exhibited a series of Quick Win Site Expressions.1. Site observations2. Caught in the Current 3. rePort4. Submerge 5. Home Sweet Waterfront }Local KnowledgeTimeExpert KnowledgeFuture Users}Need }Operation & MaintanceConstruction}}}Public DesignEvent DesignConceptual Planning Framework}Operation & MaintanceConstruction}}}Public DesignEvent Design }Operation & MaintanceConstruction}}}Public DesignEvent Design }Operation & MaintanceConstruction}}}Public DesignEvent DesignArchitectsEngineersPublicStakeholdersCity Council PlannersMETHODOLOGY The true issue is not to make beautiful cities or well-managed cities, it is to make a work of life. The rest is a by-product. But, making a work of life is the privilege of historic action. How and through what struggles, in the course of what class action and what political battle could urban historical action be reborn? This is the question toward which we are inevitably carried by our inquiry into the meaning of the city.Raymond Ledrut Speech and the Silence of the City in Gottdiener, Mark, and Alexandros Ph Lagopoulos. 1986. The City and the sign: an introduction to urban semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press. 114-34 67In an attempt to define the design process of an authentic public place, I pose a set of alternative approaches to public space design that might help us develop more responsive approaches for designing with community. As a civic space, the focus of redeveloping Seattles waterfront should be directed on crafting evolving public participation for the purpose of community long-term space inhabitation. Public places are works of life. The success of these places is often measured by community use and adoption over time. Determining ultimately whether a design will become successful is often beyond a designers control. Furthermore, within the conventional design process, it is difficult to gather community opinion outside of stakeholders, and impossible to gather opinions of future users. Instead of a purely solution driven response, I argue for open-endedness within the design process itself; for architecture to facilitate incremental sedimentation of program proposed by a local community. It is important to note that the need to address the current and future residents is critical within the Pioneer Square Neighborhood. The neighborhood is currently undergoing significant change. The surrounding South Downtown neighborhood currently has seventeen proposed projects. One of which, the Stadium North Lot, will develop 718 residential units, 410,000 square feet of commercial office space, and 16,000 square feet of retail space on a site of 3.85 acres.1 Due to this and other large development projects, the neighborhood population will grow significantly. With this growth, the need for a public place to provide a place for the community will inevitably increase.2 To address this need for place and adaptability, I propose that the architecture becomes the site of collaborative consumptiona sedimentation of use providing instances of incitement and spaces for negotiation and dialog between the local community and the design team. Such a collaboration would engage the multiple levels of the individual, group, organization, community, city, and region, and transcend the inherent disconnection between the vision of the designer and the public which will use the space in the future. This chapter builds upon my research with a proposal for a design process to support a self-evolving form of public participation.I recognize the potential of the power of place as an open-ended self-evolving processinclusive to current as well as future participants. Earlier in this work, I proposed a series of biannual events, which inform the site over time by the sedimentation of program. These ephemeral events harness the potential of power of place and have a lasting influence on the waterfronts future. The events establish a cyclical process, which temporarily claims ownership over the design process. During each event, participants are given the opportunities to offer ideas in a spatial waya different approach from conventional public consultation. Strengthening social networks for future participation, current and future participants become engaged and invested in the process. Instead of imposing a solution on the site, the architecture defines the areas where this sedimentation can occur. Through this process, design practice and public participation collectively articulate a balanced process, which can then define site activities. In order to work within the timeframe of a thesis project, I designed a simulation to act as a proxy for the series of public participation events. In the simulation, a pair of dice is rolled three times for each biannual public participation event. Each combination of dice signifies one program desired by the community. The rolling of dice communicates different perspectives, outside my own will as a designer, and provides 1. Stadium Towers: Project Summary. North Lot. http://www.northlotdevelopment.com/stadium_towers.html (accessed Feburary 20, 2012.) 2. Public involvement is often limited to participatory planning events where viewpoints from stakeholders are gathered in between design iterations; usually in initial phases of information gathering from the public or much later in the process for approval. Information collection in the initial phases of the process may or may not contribute to decision-making. 3. Manzo, L. C. Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20, no. 4 (2006): 336Self-evolving design process diagram (facing page)With the design of a public space, there is a tendency to focus on design and management issues rather than what people value about public places. User generated urbanism transcend managerial thinking and create an open-endedness within the design process itself for architecture to facilitate incremental sedimentation of program proposed by the evolving community.Swimming PoolSeattle Saw Mill MuseumPioneer Square Historical Preservation MuseumHistoric Boat Launch RestorationExcavated pier addition as part of Underground TourPioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking AreaViaduct Artifact MuseumArtist Live/ Work StudiosArtist Large Installation SpacesFirst Thursday event Community SpaceSkateboarding surface4Culture Art Support FacilityWoodworking Collaborative Shop Scuba Diving CenterFood Cart SpaceFishing AreaExpansion of Seattle Water TaxiWinter Ice Skating RinkPublic boat docking Tailgating surfaceSwimming PoolSeattle Saw Mill MuseumPioneer Square Historical Preservation MuseumHistoric Boat Launch RestorationExcavated pier addition as part of Underground TourPioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking AreaViaduct Artifact MuseumArtist Live/ Work StudiosArtist Large Installation SpacesFirst Thursday event Community SpaceSkateboarding surface4Culture Art Support FacilityWoodworking Collaborative Shop Scuba Diving CenterFood Cart SpaceFishing AreaExpansion of Seattle Water TaxiWinter Ice Skating RinkPublic boat docking Tailgating surfaceSwimming PoolSeattle Saw Mill MuseumPioneer Square Historical Preservation MuseumHistoric Boat Launch RestorationExcavated pier addition as part of Underground TourPioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking AreaViaduct Artifact MuseumArtist Live/ Work StudiosArtist Large Installation SpacesFirst Thursday event Community SpaceSkateboarding surface4Culture Art Support FacilityWoodworking Collaborative Shop Scuba Diving CenterFood Cart SpaceFishing AreaExpansion of Seattle Water TaxiWinter Ice Skating RinkPublic boat docking Tailgating surfaceSimulation method for public participation (facing page)In order to work within the timeframe of a thesis project, a dice simulation to act as a proxy for a series of public participation events. In the simulation each member of my thesis committee roles a pair of dice once to signify one program desired by the community for each biannual public participation event. 68 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NSwimming PoolSeattle Saw Mill MuseumPioneer Square Historical Preservation MuseumHistoric Boat Launch RestorationExcavated pier addition as part of Underground TourPioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking AreaViaduct Artifact MuseumArtist Live/ Work StudiosArtist Large Installation SpacesFirst Thursday event Community SpaceSkateboarding surface4Culture Art Support FacilityWoodworking Collaborative Shop Scuba Diving CenterFood Cart SpaceFishing AreaExpansion of Seattle Water TaxiWinter Ice Skating RinkPublic boat docking Tailgating surface1/9 ProbabilitySwimming PoolSeattle Saw Mill MuseumPioneer Square Historical Preservation MuseumHistoric Boat Launch RestorationExcavated pier addition as part of Underground TourPioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking AreaViaduct Artifact MuseumArtist Live/ Work StudiosArtist Large Installation SpacesFirst Thursday event Community SpaceSkateboarding surface4Culture Art Support FacilityWoodworking Collaborative Shop Scuba Diving CenterFood Cart SpaceFishing AreaExpansion of Seattle Water TaxiWinter Ice Skating RinkPublic boat docking Tailgating surface1/36 Probabilitya possible pattern of community adoption and use. For the sake of testing this method against a reasonable amount of time which would allow the funding and construction of a new pier, I have chosen to simulate ten events beginning with 2012 and ending with 2030. Over the course of the simulation, these events actively shape and contribute programmatic ideas for the site. The rolled dice provide a sense of what the community desires at a given time and also provides feedback over time. For example, if a dice combination is rolled again in the simulation, this communicates that the community is demonstrating a need for this program to expand. With the simulation, I focus on local community programs rather than general waterfront uses for two reasons. (1) In order for the site to be adopted by community in the future, I argue local community programing should be prioritized over general waterfront uses. (2) I also assume that the Waterfront Core Framework Plan will provide the majority of general waterfront uses. I have designed the simulation accordingly. Rolling a combination of two different dice has a greater probability then rolling the same number on both dice. The dice combinations that have a greater probability of being rolled support local community programs. Dice of one kind propose programs for general waterfront use, typically found on urban waterfronts. By shifting probability toward local community programs, I prioritize local community uses to shape the site. Through this simulation public participation is transformed into an active part of physical design and strengthens local social networks for future participation. For this sedimentation to occur, the architecture must spatially define areas where this sedimentation might take place. In order to understand the best opportunities, I have examined physical site of Pier 48 and the current design constraints that impact the site, through three scales: the shoreline scale, the neighborhood scale, and the intervention scale. Simulation program probabilityLocal community programs are prioritized over general waterfront uses and are given a higher probability in the simulation. Shoreline scale plan (facing page)The plan illustrates the past major alterations of the shoreline edge. M E T H O D O LO GY 6918901924201218551946Central Waterfront Core Framework PlanCentral Waterfront Framework Plan ElementsNSHORELINE SCALEPast development has repeatedly altered and fortified the edge of the shoreline, walled the urban environment from the water, and created an inhabitable edge for ecology and residents. In addition to the shoreline fortification during the 20th century, major construction adjacent to the shoreline has moved mass quantities of soil, which has impacted soil quality and intensified seismic instability. Shoreline fortification, degraded soil quality, and seismic instability continue to impact the physical site of the Seattle waterfront. The design approach must address these challenges.N250 500 100070 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NBainbridgeBremertonPotential Extension to Port TownsendKingstonVashonPotenial Extension to TacomaWest SeattlePioneer Square Presevation DistrictView Corridor Main St.View Corridor Washington St.View Corridor Washington St.N50 100 200 BainbridgeBremertonPotential Extension to Port TownsendKingstonVashonPotenial Extension to TacomaWest SeattlePioneer Square Presevation DistrictView Corridor Main St.View Corridor Washington St.View Corridor Washington St.DOWNTOWNLimited access to waterfrontLack of waterfront visual accessVIADUCTWaterfront visual access No physical access to waterfrontUNDERNEATH VIADUCTNear physical access to waterfrontWaterfront visual accessALASKAN WAYPhysical access to waterfrontWaterfront visual accessNo access to waterPIER 48Physical access to waterfrontWaterfront visual accessOpportunity for access to waterNEIGHBORHOOD SCALEAs a national historic district and a local preservation district, the Pioneer Square Preservation District is protected by ordinance and design guidelines. While the district area itself is protected, the surrounding area faces drastic growth with seventeen large development projects currently proposed. One of which, the Stadium North Lot, will add 718 residential units to the areaa significant addition to a district which currently has a population of 5,323 residents.4 With this population growth, the need for a public place to provide space for the community will inevitably increase and must be able to adapt to future community needs. In this area of the waterfront, topography does not restrict waterfront access. However lack of visual connection and of a local community destination separates the neighborhood and the waterfront space. I claim Pier 48 offers a unique opportunity for a different approach toward the urban edgean approach which enables a multitude of thresholds and connections between the shoreline and neighborhood urban development. 4. Pioneer Square / International District 2011 Neighborhood Profile, Metropolitan Improvement Districts Business Development & Market Research team, in cooperation with the Downtown Seattle Association. http://www.downtownseattle.com/files/file/Pioneer%20Square%20and%20International%20District.pdf (assessed May 23, 2011 )Neighborhood access to the waterfrontAlthough in this location of the waterfront, topography does not restrict waterfront access, lack of visual connection and of a local community destination separates the neighborhood and the waterfront space. Neighborhood scale plan (facing page)The plan shows the historic district boundary, major circulation routes, and locations of artist studios/galleries located within the neighborhood. INTERVENTION SCALEPier 48 was chosen specifically for the physical attributes of the pier and the contextual opportunities. The pier is located within the Pioneer Square district, as defined by James Corner, and is in close proximity to the stadiums and the ferry terminal. This surrounding area was once the original center of Seattles maritime trade. Adjacent to Pier 48, extending from the foot of Yesler Way, was once the site of the Yesler Mill.5 Located on the site, the Washington Street Boat Landing was built in 1920 to house Seattles harbormaster. The current pier structure was built in the mid-1930s to serve a variety of shippers. Bought by the Port of Seattle in 1950, Pier 48 was the terminal for the Alaska Marine Highway System Ferries and later accommodated summer steamship service to Vancouver, B.C. from 1967 to 1989. After the steamship service ended, several events activated the warehouse space on the pier, including the first Northwest Bookfest event and Kurt Cobains Live and Loud Concert in 1993. In the late1990s, the warehouse was demolished due to structure concerns. Pending possible expansion of the Washington State Ferry Terminal to the north, the stripped pier is currently offered through WSDOT as 14 acres of Maritime Lease/Development.6 Currently the site has contains few programed activities. During the winter, the pier functions as a holiday parking lot. During the summer, the West Seattle Boat Taxi transports passengers from the historic boat launch to West SeattleSeacrest Park. The pier structure will be used in the future for staging during the demolition of the viaduct.5. History Link, Point 9: Skid Road Meets the Sea, foot of Yesler Way: Pier 48,. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=cybertour.cfm&fileId=7056&frame=9 (assessed February 23, 2011 )6. Port of Seattle, Pier 48, http://www.portseattle.org/business/realestate/flyers/c_lease_p48.shtml (assessed February 23, 2011)Historical and current use diagram The plan and photographs depict the site and the sites surroundings over time. Prosch Seattle Views Album, Vol. 2, c1870-1910, University of Washington Libraries. Mildred Tanner Andrews. 2005. Pioneer Square: Seattles oldest neighborhood. Author2011 18822011 1822 1882 1882201118821880s1970 1890sOriginal shorelineWashington Street Boat LandingSite of Yesler MillPier 48N50 100 200 74 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NEnvironmentally, the site contains the only section of the waterfront which has shallow water, and the opportunity for a potential aquatic habit and beach. Since the site has the opportunity for a beach, I argue the best use of the site would be to provide this beach, as previous designers have also proposed. As part of the collaborative consumption method, I define the area where sedimentation will occur on two distinct areas of the site. The first will be constructed as part of the beach, situated on the northeast corner of the site. This location has the potential to anchor into the community and provide programmatic functions adjacent to the pedestrian ferry terminal. The second area is at the end of a new pier structure. For this structure, I propose extending the view corridors of Main St. and Jackson St. into the water. Changing the circulation path into a loop allows for a different ways of approaching the pier, and various levels of engagement. For example, the pier structure could be used simply for the informal use of circulation, or for a more formal visiting of the programs on the pier. Within the intervention scale, I define the areas where sedimentation of use should occur and I test this concept in the following chapter.Top view of site conceptual model (facing page)In this concept I have changed the pier circulation path into a loop, and defined the area where sedimentation will occur on two distinct areas of the site. Photographs of the existing site conditions looking west (top) and north (bottom)Presently a holiday parking lot, the photographs depict the close proximity to water and downtown.M E T H O D O LO GY 75N25 50 10076 Washington St.Main St.Jackson St.-2-0-3-0-4-0-5-0-6-0-7-0 STORM OVERFLOWCOLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTIONOF PIER 48To stop understanding architecture as unique and singular objects, autonomous and isolated buildings, definite and finished products, big machines for consumption, and start to understand it and produce it as a strategy, a process, a system of relations, a process in which both time and the user take part, spaces whose essential matter is energy, an atmosphere for feelings and perception, a work acting symbiotically with natureJM Montaner. Contemporary Architecture Systems. Ed. GG Barcelona 2008 77Washington St.Main St.Jackson St.-2-0-3-0-4-0-5-0-6-0-7-0 STORM OVERFLOWWhen architecture acts as a facilitator for user-generated program rather than a solution to community needs, different priorities and inform the design process. For example, if a site requires programmatic ideas from the community, rather than simply requiring community approval of a project, the priority becomes how might we, as designers, provide the platform to gather these ideas. Bearing this in mind, I propose a self-evolving design process with community involvement clearly affecting the decision-making process. I strive to strike a balance between the detail a structure requires in order to be built and open-endedness to how the structure might adapt over time through community adoption. This open-endedness within my approach is more responsible and more conservative with resources than conventional public space projects. Rather than spend resources to bring a project to an absolute solution (and redo this process in 50 years) I propose the method of collaborative consumptiona sedimentation of user generated program. With this method, architecture facilitates the incremental growth of a public place, shaped over time through community efforts. In this chapter, I test this method with an architectural proposal. Through the method of collaborative consumption, I propose that over time, programs are expanded/contracted by biannual public participation events. In order to show how the architecture facilitates the sedimentation of use, I first introduce the design principles behind the highly responsive intervention, before I discuss how public participation has informed the structure. DESIGN PRINCIPLESConnectivityIn order to support current and future connectivity, sight lines are preserved for visual connection to and through the site. Washington Street and Main Street remain as unobstructed view corridors for way finding and waterfront visibility. The structural ribs of the pier form preserve these site lines. Between these ribs, program can sediment and spill into the surrounding topography. Exhibition Sections reveal the topography formed by wrapping the structural ribs with a wood skin. Built onto a steel pile and concrete slab, the glulam and wood skin structure is able to adapt for various programs, inviting the local culture to sediment uses. Established on existing networks, programs can organized according to constraints. They can expand or shrink in size within the ribs of the structure or expand beyond these ribs into the open courtyard. Since the site has no distinct center it can operate in a wide range of configurations. It can over time, produce new functions and find new ways to perform. RegenerationStormwater is collected and cycled through a series of rain gardens along Alaskan Way. This runoff collection system captures and treats water from two stormwater overflows; lowering the likelihood that untreated overflow from the site is introduced directly into the Puget Sound. Upcycling of materials is crucial for ecological regeneration. The existing pier is deconstructed. The concrete from the original pier is distributed across the site forming the path and structure for the rain gardens. The wooden piles from the original pier remain, marking the different levels of the water from the changing tides. In order to explain how this structure expresses sedimentation from multiple public participation events, I describe the design decision-making that occurred in response to several public participation events.Washington St.Main St.Jackson St.-2-0-3-0-4-0-5-0-6-0-7-0 STORM OVERFLOWDesign proposal (facing page)The design intervention evolved from a balance between site constraints and a series of user generated programs proposing cultural and recreational programs. Connection/Circulation diagramThe circulation path is altered into a loop and connects the view corridors of Main St. and Jackson St. to the water.Exhibition structure diagramThe ribbed structure allows program to develop onto, between, and beneath the exhibition topography, blurring boundaries between inside/outside. Program diagramPrograms can expand or shrink in size within the ribs of the structure or expand beyond these ribs into the open courtyard. Regeneration diagramCollected stormwater is cycled through a series of rain gardens along Alaskan Way. 78 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N2016Adjacent to the Pioneer Square Preservation District and the Colman Ferry Dock, Pier 48 has a potential to open up as a gateway and a connection to ongoing monthly art walk events. As the only section of the waterfront which has shallow enough water levels for the beach to be constructed, this opportunity is realized. Stormwater is collected and cycled through a series of rain gardens and a salt marsh. The scale of biannual interventions fluctuate and respond to current events. During the 2012 and 2014 biannual events, the sedimentation area is limited the beach, to prepare for the pier construction in 2016. At these events, the public indicated a need for a saw mill museum, large installation spaces, a winter ice skating rink, a connection to the underground tour, and the restoration of the boat launch. In response to site constraints and these user-generated programs, four rain garden pavilions are constructed for large installation spaces for artists and a temporary ice skating rink during the winter. Next to these pavilion, the historic boat launch structure is restored and renovated with a subterranean connection to the Seattle Underground Tour. Food cart space forms along the public path framing the constructed beach. Site analysis for 2012 (top left), in 2014 (top right), and 2016 (bottom) The diagrams identify site constraints and public participation event outcomes.Pier 48 in 2016 (facing page)From the beach, framed by pavilions and food carts, the construction of the new pier structure can be viewed.C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N O F P I E R 4 8 7980 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N2022Ephemeral public events provide flexibility within the design process and offers potential for transcending conventional limitations and constraints. For example, within the next 5 years the Colman Ferry Dock will be reconstructed. To aid the reconstruction efforts, Pier 48 could become a temporary ferry platform. Extending the city fabric beyond the constructed shoreline, the public right of way connects Main St. and Jackson St. in a loop marking the new circulation of the site. While the site temporarily functions as ferry terminal, this loop connects and establishes the site as a gateway to the city from the water. Neither corrective nor prescriptive, the structures allows program to develop onto, between, and beneath the exhibition topography, blurring boundaries between inside/outside. By 2022 a number of programs have sedimented onto/beneath the constructed topography of the pier. Some programs, such as a woodworking collaborative shop, occupy sheltered areas beneath the topography. Others, such as a swimming pool, form in the valley in-between sheltered areas. Site analysis for 2018 (top left), 2020 (top right), and 2022 (bottom) Public participation events identify temporary uses of the pier structure.Pier 48 in 2022 (facing page)With construction of the two layers of pier structure complete, visitors can experience the waterfront and the many programs on the site with different circulation paths.C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N O F P I E R 4 8 8182 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N2030At each stage of sedimentation, the openness of the site supports multiple experiences and engages users to become involved in the next stage of design and programming. By 2030 a number of cultural and recreational programing have been sedimented onto the site. The structure has evolved from a series of user generated programs proposing these programs and site constraints. By providing opportunities for social interaction and giving users the ability to shape what happens on the site, the architecture facilitates community growth and responds to changing community needs over time. Site analysis for 2024 (top left), 2026 (top top right), 2028 (bottom right), and 2030 (bottom right)Public participation events identify uses of the pier structure.Pier 48 in 2030 (facing page)A number of cultural and recreational programing have been sedimented onto the site. Local residents and tourists gather in the large community space, open for a First Thursday art walk event. C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N O F P I E R 4 8 8384 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NSeattle Saw Mill MuseumPioneer Square Historical Preservation MuseumPioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking AreaArtist Live/ Work StudiosArtist Large Installation Spaces4Culture Art Support FacilityWoodworking Collaborative Shop Food Cart SpaceFishing AreaExpansion of Seattle Water Taxi2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030The design proposal offers one possibility for one specific simulation. If this project process was actualized, different programs and ideas would evolve from the design process. With this particular simulation, a large number of artist and historic programing was advocated through community events. In response to this simulation, the architectural form takes shape over time through the sedimentation process of user-defined program. These ephemeral events have a lasting influence on the public space. The events establish a cyclical process, which temporarily claims ownership over the design process and ensure a dialogue between the community and the design team. Public spaces that look good but fail to provide adequate amenities or connections to existing social and economic networks will result in sterile places that people just do not use. The process of collaborative consumption builds on existing networks and transcends this disconnection by offering multiple formal and informal ways to engage with the site. Visitors become active participants by some factor of determining the design outcome. Allowing for various types of contribution, the public space transcends individual mental activity into collective consumption. Simulation OutcomeThis particular simulation offered a large number of artist and historic programing from which the design evolved.C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N O F P I E R 4 8 85Seattle Saw Mill MuseumPioneer Square Historical Preservation MuseumPioneer Square Architectural Photograph Gallery Kayaking AreaArtist Live/ Work StudiosArtist Large Installation Spaces4Culture Art Support FacilityWoodworking Collaborative Shop Food Cart SpaceFishing AreaExpansion of Seattle Water Taxi2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030Plan (facing page) The floor plan reveals the potential for sedimentationunderneath and between the structural ribs. Listed in chronological order and based on the time of construction, the plan illustrates the layered connections between the neighborhood to the water from the simulation time frame of 2012-2030.Scale: 1/128= 1-0 Sections A-H The sections show the potential for different programs with different space requirements underneath and between the structural ribs. The high and low tide is denoted by the boundaries of light grey. Scale: 1= 200ABCDEFGH+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tideABCDEFGH+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tideABCDEFGH+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tideABCDEFGH+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide +0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tide+0street level-6-0high tide -23-0low tideH G BCDF E A1110151417171716 161616 1613 3 1 5 2 2 2 2 7 9 8 8 4121918 611 FIRST THURSDAY COMMUNITY SPACE10 VIADUCT ARTICFACT MUSEUM 15 PIONEER SQUARE PRESERVATION MUSEUM14 WOODWORKING COLLABORATIVE SHOP17 ARTIST LARGE INSTALATION AREA16 ARTIST LIVE/WORK LOFTS13 SWIMING POOL 3 SALT MARSH 1 BEACH 5 UNDERGROUND TOUR EXTENSION 6 FOOD CART SPACE 2 RAIN GARDEN 7 BOAT LAUNCH RESTORATION 9 WINTER ICE SKATING RINK 8 ARTIST LARGE INSTALATION SPACE 4 SEATTLE SAW MILL MUSEUM12 PUBLIC BOAT DOCKING1918 SEATTLE WATER TAXI/ PUBLIC BOAT LANDING19 PHOTOGRAPH GALLERYN 32 64 12888 C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O NCONCLUSIONAs part of my proposal, I sought to design a process which could be adopted into the current planning process. This model is similar to the concept behind James Corners process of orchestration and quick wins, however, it also seeks to educate and engage the public through spacial interaction and the power of place. Through this model, public participation can transform the balance of decision-making by establishing a self-informing process which has the ability to educate the public and openly transcend conflict through physical design and installation. Through this collaboration, the design process invites values to be examined and debated. Multiple perspectives creatively test possibilities while strengthening social networks for the public space inhabitation as well as future participation.By exploring a self-evolving design process with community involvement clearly affecting the decision-making, I found that such a design process requires a different type of design thinking. Part of the challenge was designing a structure, which could be flexible and open to future sedimentation of program, while also reflective of the programs demonstrated as user needs by the simulation. This type of design process cannot center on an individual architectural icon fixed in time, but instead must focus on the potential and flexibility of the site through the passage of time. It is not my intention to claim that this particular design or design process could solve all the issues with the Seattle Waterfront. Through researching and exploring many iterations of architectural form, I realized that there are many possibilities for further exploration. Other events, models, and simulations could be explored which balance the relationship between formal and informal public participation and the design team vision. I conclude that this method and others which progress the role of public participation within design decision-making are important for designers, planners, and the public to contemplate in order to create public places for the local community.Design explorations Several architectural forms were explored with different simulations.C O LL A B O R AT I V E C O N S U M P T I O N O F P I E R 4 8 8990 Arnstein, Sherry R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July (1969): 216-224.Allen, Stan, and Marc McQuade. 2011. Landform building: architectures new terrain. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Mller Publishers.Andrews, Mildred Tanner. 2005. Pioneer Square: Seattles oldest neighborhood. Seattle: Pioneer Square Community Association in association with University of Washington Press. 7 Arnstein, Sherry R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, 220.Background City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Om-projektet/Bakgrund/ (accessed May 8, 2011).Bank, Larissa. Foundations in Interactive Art making http://www.larabank.com/usc/lecture1/index.htm (accessed January 8 2012.)Berner, Richard, Seattle 1900-1920: from boomtown, urban turbulence, to restoration. Seattle, Wash: Charles Press. 1991, 14Bhatia, Neeraj. 2011. Coupling: strategies for infrastructural opportunism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Breen, Ann, and Dick Rigby. The New Waterfront : A Worldwide Urban Success Story. [London]: Thames and hudson, 1996.Brown, Lance Jay, David Dixon, and Oliver Gillham. Urban Design for an Urban Century : Placemaking for People. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.Central Waterfront Citizens Advisory, Committee. The Central Waterfront Master Plan : Portal to the Pacific. Seattle, Wash.: The Committee, 1994.Cragg, Amy M. A Study on the Design of Emptiness : An Open-Ended Pier Space on Seattles Central Waterfront. Master Thesis, University of Washington, 2005.City of Seattle. Alaskan Way Seawall Replacement Project - Financial Plan Summary. January 14, 2010.City of Seattle, Toward a Sustainable Seattle, Seattle Comprehensive Plan, January 2005. City of Stockholm, Annual Report, City Executive Office, 2009.City of Stockholm, Stockholm City Plan, The City Planning Administration, 2009.Checkoway, Barry. Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect. AIP Journal of the American Planning Association. 60, no. 2 (1994): 139Corner, James. A Discourse on Theory I: Sounding the Depths Origins, Theory, and Representation. Landscape Journal, 9, no. 2. (1990): 61-78Corner, James. Projection and Disclosure in Drawing. Landscape Architecture. 83, no. 5 (1993): 64-66Corner, James. Recovering Landscape : Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Corner, James. Field Operations. Architectural Design, 69, no. 7-8 (1999): 52-55Corner, James. Not Unlike Life Itself: Landscape Strategy Now. Harvard Design Magazine, no. 21 (2004): 32-34Corner, James. Waterfront Seattle Event at the Aquarium, February 17th, 2011. http://waterfrontseattle.org/ (accessed March 18, 2011).Davidoff, Paul. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31, no. 4 (1965): 331-38.Desfor, Gene, and John Jorgensen. Flexible Urban Governance. The Case of Copenhagens Recent Waterfront Development. European Planning Studies, 12, no. 4 (2004): 479-96.Design Firm Selected For Seattle Central Waterfront Project. KIRO Seattle. http://www.kirotv.com/news/25102908/detail.html. (Assessed March 15, 2011) Elliott Bay Seawall Project, City of Seattle Department of Transportation, http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/seawall.htm (Assessed October 15, 2010)Ellin, Nan, A Vulnerable Urbanism, Re-envisioning Landscape/Architecture, Catherine Spellman (ed.), Barcelona: ACTAR, 2001Enemark, S. Spatial Planning System in Denmark. The Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors. Copenhagen, DK. (2002).Eskenazi, Stuart. Familiar landscape lured Scandinavians. Seattle Times. November 4, 2001. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/seattle_history/articles/scandinavians.html (accessed Aug. 10, 2011)Federal Highway Administration, Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. July 2011.Flyvbjerg, Bent. Rationality and Power : Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998Flyvbjerg, Bent, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. Megaprojects and Risk : An Anatomy of Ambition. United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Gastil, Raymond. Beyond the Edge : New Yorks New Waterfront. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.Gehl, Jan, and Gemz, Lars. Public Spaces, Public Life, Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press & the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Publishers, 2004.Hall, Thomas, and Martin Rrby. 2009. Stockholm: the Making of a Metropolis. London: Routledge.Havneparkens historie. Kobenhavns Kommune. http://www.kk.dk/Erhverv/TilladelserOgBevillinger/VejeOgPladser/arrangementer/Pladsguide/IslandsBryggeHavneparken/ParkensHistorie.aspx. (Assessed April 22, 2011)Harvey, David. A brief history of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. History Link, Point 9: Skid Road Meets the Sea, foot of Yesler Way: Pier 48,. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=cybertour.cfm&fileId=7056&frame=9 (ssessed February 23, 2011 )Hopkins, Lewis D. Urban Development : The Logic of Making Plans. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.Hou, Jeffrey. 2006. Hybrid Landscapes: Toward an Inclusive Ecological Urbanism on Seattles Central Waterfront. Getting Real: Design Ethos Now. ACSA 94th Annual Conference, Cheng, R. and P. J. Tripeny, (Eds.). March 30th to April 3rd, 2006. Salt Lake City, Utah.Isitt M. 2009. At last, a solution for Slussen: Fosters simple vision proves a winner. Architectural Review. (1949).Kalvebod Brygge Architecture News Plus. http://www.architecturenewsplus.com/projects/783 (Assessed April 22, 2011)Kilb, Hans, and Gitte Marling. 2005. The 21st-century welfare city: Aalborg + Copenhagen, Denmark. Architectural Design. 75 (6): 50-55.Klein, Julia. Dont Just Stand There. Brown Alumni Magazine. (2008): 42-43Klingmann, Anna. 2007. Brandscapes: architecture in the experience economy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 1Koolhaas, Rem. Trajectory as a Positive, OMA 2006.Ledrut, Raymond Speech and the Silence of the City in Gottdiener, Mark, and Alexandros Ph Lagopoulos. 1986. The City and the sign: an introduction to urban semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press. 114-34Lindgren, Bernt. Liberty City, Slussen. http://www.slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=251:frihetens-plats&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011).REFERENCES 91Lindgren, Bernt. Slussens future at risk Slussen. http://www.slussen.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:slussens-framtid&catid=1:aktuella (accessed May 8, 2011).Lund, A. Andersen, H. T. and Clark, E. Creative Copenhagen; Globalization, Urban Governance and Social Change. European Planning Studies. 9, no. 7 (2001) 851-869.Mandate and Process, City of Stockholm. http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Stadsbyggnadskontoret/Oversiktsplan/Uppdrag-och-process- (accessed May 1, 2011).Manfredi, Michael. Lecture Oct 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJH_bLPKOAU&feature=uploademail)Madanipour, Ali. 2003. Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.Mattern, Shannon. Plurality in Place: Activating Public Spheres and Public Spaces in Seattle, Invisible Culture 6 (Fall 2003)Mathews, Stanley. 2006. The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education. 59 (3).Mathews, Stanley. 2006. Cedric Price: from the brain drain to the knowledge economy. Architectural Design. 76 (1): 45Manzo, L. C. Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20, no. 4 (2006): 335-350Ministry of Environment. Planning Act LBK 883, 2004, Ch. 1, Part 1. Montaner, JM. Contemporary Architecture Systems. Ed. GG Barcelona 2008Morrow, Ruth. ECObox. Mobile devices and urban tactics http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/ecobox-mobile-devices-and-urban-tactics/ (accessed January 8 2012.)Muf architecture/art. We are Artists. http://www.muf.co.uk/archives/portfolio/we-are-artists (accessed January 8 2012.)Nielsen, Thomas and Kacob Norvig. WP 8, Case study analysis. Policies related to de-concentration of economic land-use in Denmark. Spatial De-concentration of Economic Land Use and Quality of Life in European Metropolitan Areas (SELMA) 2005. Ostrom, Elinor. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Review 92 (1998):1-22Plan Process, City of Stockholm. Planning http://www.stockholm.se/TrafikStadsplanering/Stadsplanering/Planprocessen/ (accessed May 1, 2011).Project Milestones, City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Om-projektet/Bakgrund/Projektets-milstolpar/ (accessed May 8, 2011).Port of Seattle, Pier 48, http://www.portseattle.org/business/realestate/flyers/c_lease_p48.shtml (assessed February 23, 2011)Public Places. Joseph Rowntree Foundation http://www.jrf.org.uk/work/workarea/public-spaces (accessed January 8 2012.)Edward Relph. 1987. The modern urban landscape. London: Croom Helm.Saieh, Nico, Copenhagen Harbour Bath PLOT. Arch Daily. http://www.archdaily.com/11216/copenhagen-harbour-bath-plot/ (Assessed April 22, 2011)Sandercock, Leonie, and Peter Lyssiotis. Cosmopolis II : Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. London; New York: Continuum, 2003. Seattle . Office of Intergovernmental Relations, Mayors Recommended Design Guidelines for the Central Waterfront Project Street Vacations. Seattle, Wash.: The Office, 1992.Slussen - a fairy tale but happily ever after? Stadsbyggnad , Swedish Municipal-Industrial Society No. 5 2010 http://www.stadsbyggnad.org/2010/10/slussen-%E2%80%93-en-saga-utan-lyckligt-slut/ (accessed May 1, 2011).Slussen Swedish Municipal-Industrial Society No. 5 2010 http://www.stadsbyggnad.org/2010/10/slussen-%E2%80%93-en-saga-utan-lyckligt-slut/ (accessed May 1, 2011).Slussens history City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/Om-projektet/Bakgrund/Slussens-historia (accessed May 8, 2011).Sorkin, Michael. 1992. Variations on a theme park: the new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang.Stadium Towers: Project Summary. North Lot. http://www.northlotdevelopment.com/stadium_towers.html (accessed February 20, 2012.Suzuki, Makie. Urban Waterfront Design for Coexistence : Connecting People and Water on Seattles South Lake Union. Master Thesis, University of Washington, 2006.Tate, Dennis. The City of Memory : An Urban Design Case Study of Seattles Central Waterfront District as Contextual Linkage between the Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market Historical Districts. Master Thesis, University of Washington, 1980.Taylor, William J., Parks Seattle . Dept. of, and Recreation. Aquatic Environment Technical Report : Redevelopment of the Seattle Aquarium and Waterfront Park. Seattle, Wash.: The Dept., 1995.Technical life, City of Stockholm, http://www.stockholm.se/Fristaende-webbplatser/Fackforvaltningssajter/Exploateringskontoret/NyaSlussen/In-English/Technical-life1/ (accessed May 8, 2011).Umemoto, Karen and Suryanata, Krisnawati. Technology, Culture, and Environmental Uncertainty: Considering Social Contracts in Adaptive Management. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 25, no. 3 (2006)US Corps of Engineers, Elliott Bay, Washington. Shore Protection and Storm Damage Reduction, Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis August 2003, 6US Corps of Engineers. Seattle District. Environmental Assessment Elliott Bay Seawall, WA March 2006.US Department of Defense. Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers. Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Elliott Bay Seawall Project, Seattle, WA. Federal Register. Vol. 75. No. 103. May 28, 2010Vale, Lawrence and Warner, Sam Bass. Imaging the city: continuing struggles and new directions. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. 2001.Walters, David. Designing Community : Charrettes, Master Plans and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2007.Warwicker, John. The floating world: Ukiyoe [a tomato project]. Gttingen: Steidl Mack. 2008.Wilkinson, Paul F. Urban Open Space Planning in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Leisure Studies 7, no. 3 (1988): 267-285Woods, Lebbeus. Another Rem. http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/another-rem/ (accessed January 8 2012.)Zalewski, Barbara. Islands brygge: fra skepsis til succes. [s.l.]: Nostra. 2004. 92 The production and completion of this work could not have been accomplished without the support of many individuals. I would like to first thank my thesis committee. Gundula Proksch taught me how to think about graphic representation and gave me support and encouragement throughout my graduate education. I am indebted to Dan Abramson for his many careful readings and for his intellectual generosity. I thank Nancy Rottle for her advice and discernment throughout the research and design process.This project was supported at different stages by a number of scholars, design professionals and friends, who generously shared their knowledge and time during the research and design review process. For discussions and support, I thank Alex Anderson, Katie Bang, Wyn Bielaska, Todd Bronk, Greg Brower, Peter Cohan, Lee Copeland, Heather Dietz, Shannon Eldredge, Christine Gannon, Elizabeth Golden, Jason Henry, Gabe Hogness, Nicole Huber, Robert Hutchison, Mike Jobes, Laura Lenss, Kelly Rench, Ryan Kennedy, Brad McGuirt, Brian McLaren, Matt Martenson, Rachael Meyer, Guy Michaelsen, Andy Mitton, Cary Moon, Jonathan Morley, Joshua Morrison, Vandita Mudgal, Bob Mugerauer, John Owen, Karen Smith, Steve Shea, John Stamets, Liz Stenning, and Ron Turner.

Recommended

View more >