|
Charrettes
These master plans and their subsequent codes and
guidelines are produced most effectively using the
charrette format – intensive design workshops usu-
ally lasting four, six or eight days. The term ‘charrette’
is derived from the French word for the ‘little cart’
used to collect the final architectural drawings
prepared by students at the nineteenth century
Parisian École des Beaux Arts. The students worked
CHAPTER SIX
●
URBAN DESIGN IN THE REAL WORLD
145
Walters_06.qxd 2/26/04 7:25 PM Page 145
in different locations around the city, usually in the
ateliers of their professors, and when they heard the
sound of the little cart’s iron-rimmed wheels echoing
on the cobblestone streets, they knew their design
time was almost up. The sound and the imminent
arrival of the cart induced frantic, last-minute efforts
by the students to complete the drawings. The term
has since evolved to mean any fast-paced design
activity which is brought to a conclusion at a fixed
time.
But a word of warning! The term ‘charrette’ is mis-
used extensively by planners who tend to call all
manner of public meetings, even those of only a few
hours duration, a ‘charrette’. A true charrette, by
contrast, lasts at least a few days, and is defined by
reaching a definite conclusion, marked by the pro-
duction of a complete set of drawings. The charrettes
that produced all but two of the case studies, lasted
between four and eight days. This emphasis on the
production of definitive detail drawings in a short
timeframe also distinguishes our charrette process
from the British Action Planning format described in
such excellent publications as
The Community
Planning Handbook
(Wates, 2000). The way we organ-
ize a charrette shares some characteristics of the
‘Design Fest’ described by Wates, but we structure
the event to include aspects of several other methods
outlined as alternative and parallel activities under
the British model.
The concentrated focus and definitive end product
of a true charrette is invaluable, and provides a much
better method than the slow drip feed of community
meetings once a week for several months. These
lengthy enterprises, though worthy, drag the process
out, lose momentum and end up being a burden on all
involved. By contrast, an eight- or nine-person design
team, working 12–14 hours a day for four days, can
rack up the equivalent man-hours for one single plan-
ner laboring on the problem all day, every day for three
months. And the brainpower increases exponentially!
With this level of intensity, and by working out in
design detail the most awkward and hotly debated
problems, we get as close as we can to common agree-
ment about contentious issues. But not everyone is
going to be happy. Our aim is not necessarily consen-
sus; in every development or redevelopment scenario
there are going to be some winners and some losers.
Our main objective is always to minimize the disad-
vantages to individuals and groups within the com-
munity while capitalizing on the potential for overall
civic improvement. Therefore one of the main fea-
tures of the charrette process, as we illustrate further
in Chapters 7–11, is the synchronous process of
debate, design and demonstration.
The charrette also has an important educational
function in this regard. Many revered urban places
across the western world were created by order of a
king, duke, Pope or some other autocratic ruler.
Creating good design in a democracy is much harder,
for while everybody’s opinion is valued, not all citi-
zens may be equally informed, or fully understand
the true circumstances concerning a community. The
open forum of the charrette, with all its drawings and
plans, provides a good, condensed learning opportu-
nity for citizens about important issues affecting their
community.
Our case studies illustrate what is achievable by
using design charrettes to stimulate public involve-
ment, and we would restate our conviction that
democratic debate is vital in all types of design
processes about making urban places. Design done in
secret, carried out behind closed doors by experts
who are happy in their conviction that they know
best, has proved a recipe for much bad urbanism,
from ubiquitous and faceless urban renewal schemes
in cities worldwide to London’s high-profile Canary
Wharf in the Isle of Dogs (see Figure 5.3). In our
process, the only work not carried out in public are
those tasks required as preparation for a charrette,
such as economic analyses of existing development
and statistical projections about future growth, an
environmental analysis of a fragile area of landscape,
or the collation of demographic data. Before we start,
our charrette team also works with each municipality
to produce full and accurate mapping of the area to a
large scale, showing all roads and streets, large and
small structures, topography, tree mass, and property
boundaries.
Even when being fully committed to public partici-
pation, it’s easy to overly romanticize the positive
role of the public in these processes. In our experi-
ence, several people come to these public events to
complain, and in a few extreme cases to stop the
process from even taking place. These folk are from
the ranks of the NIMBYs and BANANAs (Build
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)
brigades; they come to talk, not to listen and least of
all to hear. Many have made up their mind about
issues usually on the basis of half-truths, myths and
downright falsehoods circulating about the particu-
lar project in question. Often public opinion is in
direct opposition to good planning and design sense,
and we work to overcome these obstacles of
ignorance.
DESIGN FIRST: DESIGN-BASED PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES
146
Walters_06.qxd 2/26/04 7:25 PM Page 146
Several key Smart Growth principles are almost
guaranteed to generate opposition from community
groups and neighborhood associations. As we have
noted earlier, these usually involve higher-density
mixed-use and infill developments that introduce
new buildings, new residents and visitors into an
existing neighborhood. Citizen groups often pay lip
service to such Smart Growth ideas in general, but
maintain that they’re not right for
their
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
