Design First Walters fm qxd 2/26/04 7: 50 pm page I

10 400
residents
These compact patterns of development would take
up only a small proportion of the available land in
the CORE, allowing for several times this amount of
residential growth, while still enhancing the
framework of regional green space for environmental
purposes.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF 
CASE STUDY
This 2002 contract was the largest project we have
attempted using the charrette format, and it proved to
us that the method works for a big site area just as
effectively as it does for a small one. There was one
main difference: for the first time we didn’t plan out
the entire study area and depict it graphically. Instead,
our conceptual strategy for sustainable development –
more compact development around mixed-use cen-
ters as the foci for new and existing neighborhoods
and districts – allowed us to concentrate on key sites
as illustrations backed up by detailed performance
specifications for the remaining land area.
A secondary difference was the lack of a definitive
new zoning ordinance to regulate future develop-
ment. At smaller scales of project with a single
municipality, this is our normal way of working,
making as sure as we can that the conventional gap in
American planning between development plans and
zoning controls is eradicated, or at least minimized.
Three of the subsequent case studies illustrate this
process, but here, with the participation to varying
degrees of six different municipalities plus the other
quasi-public organizations there was no opportunity
for such a document to be produced; in fact it was
contractually excluded from our scope of services.
It was not politically viable for each different, and
quite fiercely independent jurisdiction to accept the
overlay of common regulations.
Accordingly, with the CORE project, we had to be
satisfied with recommending particular types and
examples of zoning for transit-supportive and sus-
tainable development that the partnering cities and
counties could adopt individually, at their own pace.
The implementation of these recommendations is
therefore likely to be inconsistent and patchy. As
noted above under ‘Implementation,’ the one overar-
ching document we did produce subsequent to the
charrette was a manual of General Development
Guidelines for all municipalities in the CORE region
to use as a model for amending their own regulations.
We packed the guidelines with more detail than nor-
mal to make up in part for the lack of clear new zon-
ing regulations, turning them into a ‘lite’ version of
urban design guidelines in all but name. Detailed aes-
thetic guidance was omitted, but site planning strate-
gies, public space design, and environmental
practices were highlighted. If followed closely, these
guidelines would lead development along a clear path
toward greater long-term sustainability. The obvious
problem is that these are only guidelines that recom-
mend; they are not regulations that require. Once
again, implementation might not be consistent across
the different jurisdictions initially. But it’s a start.
The obvious and positive lesson to be learned from
this multi-jurisdictional exercise is simply that it
brought all the regional parties together in a focused
debate about vital issues of community planning and
design. The format encouraged a level of interaction
that was above the norm for the parties themselves
and the general public. By designing prototypical
developments in detail, we were able to allow the par-
ticipants to see the real-life implications of various
options and decisions, and the exciting opportunities
for action. Most participants were converted to the
charrette process and detailed design as an effective
community planning tool. The feedback we received
from the project was that this charrette has become
Walters_07.qxd 2/26/04 7:29 PM Page 171

---

DESIGN FIRST: DESIGN-BASED PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES
172
the model for future collaborative planning efforts in
the CORE. At this scale of working, consensus
around a common process is as important as agree-
ment on the detailed proposals.
We were very pleased at this new level of collabora-
tion and the success of the charrette format, as there
was some skepticism among the parties at the outset.
We were expressly forbidden to use the word
‘charrette’; perhaps this was considered to be a strange
and suspicious foreign term. In all the project docu-
mentation the word ‘workshop’ was used exclusively,
and only in 
this text
have we changed workshop to
‘charrette’ for consistency.
From our perspective the downside of the CORE
project is obvious. The large scope over multiple juris-
dictions meant that we were not able to exert as much
influence over future development as we usually are
able to with a smaller compass. This was frustrating in
an area where much change is needed. We feel we have
laid the groundwork for others to carry forward, but
we’re not entirely sure the challenges will be met with
equal vigor by all participants.
Walters_07.qxd 2/26/04 7:29 PM Page 172

---

Walters_07.qxd 2/26/04 7:29 PM Page 173

---

Walters_08.qxd 2/26/04 7:30 PM Page 174

---