It's no secret that a lot of public engagement is worthless—or worse. It's not just that much of it is lazily designed to check off a box on a list of requirements—though that's true. It's not just that there's a built-in power imbalance, in which public feedback tends to overrepresent groups with a lot of access to and familiarity with the political process—older, wealthier, whiter, and more politically engaged residents. Though that's true too. — Strong Towns
Often the public surveys on a public space, new building proposal, town center, shopping area, a local roadway, housing, etc., involve meaningless questions and public input via the neighborhood workshops, hearings, and other means of conjuring up political support for the projects already decided on the developer's and the public agency's agenda.
This article was written by Daniel Herriges dated September 9, 2020, illustrates the often meaningless process with photos of citizens working with cardboard models if they are seasoned design professionals.
15 Comments
This is known as the illusion of community input.
The last time I engaged in one of these it was a series of meetings with town officials over the course of six months to gather community input on a large commercial development.
The community soundly opposed the scale of development based on numerous issues. The head of planning and zoning agreed to cap the development at 90,000 sf.
Everyone felt like we had actually accomplished something until the news reported the approval of a 180,000 sf commercial development.
Community input is only for show, the real purpose is to lull the public into a false sense of security while the tank treads of progress are greased.
For reference this particular head of planning and zoning gave a big presentation about the failure of 1950's zoning - specifically commercial corridors along highways - a few months before implementing exactly that zoning.
The one way this works, is communities to leverage their part, and create CBAs.
How does that work - is it built into the zoning code?
In Minneapolis, typically the neighborhoods have a lot of say, when both sides are reasonable, the cba can work well. But no, it's not part of zoning per se.
I've never met a reasonable developer.
Yeah, it’s probably best to have the elites and the technocrats decide what’s best for us.
The article is not suggesting that either, read it.
As a private citizen, who has time for attending such community input events? You will always see the same (kind of) people, the NIMBY pensioners with all the time in the world and an axe to grind...which, if you ask their opinion or feedback will only get you so far.
As a professional I hate these kind of events even more, they're organised just to tick some boxes and get on with it...
If they would only hold more of these meetings before anything gets going, at a time and place so a wider range of people can attend to harvest better input and ideas beforehand, the community will feel properly heard and the projects will probably improve.
The question is how much sensitivity and exposure designers have to the site and the people involved, to social issues in general, to other sources of knowledge that might make their projects productive and meaningful. It is not hard to imagine narrow designers wholly enclosed in esoteric matters, whatever is de rigueur.
Designers work for developers, not the other way around.
The substance of the essay is interesting, and I like the thesis. The title is an attention-grabber, but not accurate. It in no way argues to stop asking the public what they want-- only to ask different and better questions.
Still... it got me to read the piece!
the reality is developers and their lackeys already do ask soft questions like the above, as leading questions to support a design they’ve already decided to engage in a kind of trendy faux-community engagement. Still, the public doesn’t know what they want until a good design is presented. Unfortunately there’s so little of that as well.
Interestingly from talking with other folks in the city, my sense is that moving these sorts of community meetings online during pandemic has had one benefit, namely to increase number of folks participating. Though just anecdotally from the meetings I've attended over last year it isn't clear to me that the overall demographic mix has measurably shifted.
Ok.... CBAs can be fine as communities are stakeholders that are effected by actions of developers but there is a line that needs to be drawn because the community, in general, are not necessarily licensed as Architects.... well most of them won't be and it would be unlawful for them to be dictating architectural design.
Once they are dictating architectural design then there is no Architect of Responsible Charge that will have responsible direction, control, and supervision over the architectural services and the work produced.
totally agree with the critique of the kind lazy engagement epitomized by 5-point scale surveys. really figuring out what the public wants is damned hard - it's an obligation even sincere political representatives struggle with. expecting developers to get it right themselves is unreasonable and unrealistic. i don't have an answer because i don't think there is one. the public isn't an entity and doesn't have an opinion. you can find whatever you want in there if you know how to look.
personal rant: i hate after every gd flight or hotel stay [which haven't been many lately...] getting a series of plaintive email requests for my valuable opinions on their service, as measured by 35 neatly categorized themes, followed by space for unprompted comments. one-sided feedback is pure crap. if i don't know who i'm complaining to i have nothing to say.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.