Archive | Public Involvement RSS feed for this section

How to Series: Creating a Community Vision.

26 Jun

Urban designers and planners are passionate about bringing new life to those special parts of the city that have lost their heart and identity. Whether it was through urban flight, a change of industry, or the loss of public transportation, neighborhoods that were once the gems of our cities seem easily forgotten. Urban designers and planners are continuously working to return that glory to our city centers.

As a designer myself, I understand how easy it can be to get swept up in the physical design of a place. Being able to vision what a place will look like and how it will function comes as second nature. However, the most important part of redevelopment is to remember that ultimately design is about people. No matter where you are in the city, that neighborhood, street, or public space belongs to people. It affects how they live their life and it informs their identity. The best urban design should reflect the vision of the community, not a designer’s.

Identifying the vision of a community is easier said than done. People have different dreams, desires, and priorities for their neighborhoods. One of the biggest responsibilities urban designers and planners have is to define a cohesive vision that can guide development. How is this done?

One way to identify a community vision is through a series of workshops with the community. CNU Tampa Bay, the regional group of the Congress for the New Urbanism, had the opportunity to run a Visioning Workshop for Franklin Street in the Tampa Heights neighborhood. Right outside of Tampa’s urban center, this section of Franklin Street was once one of the most popular commercial and retail streets in the City. Served by the streetcar, it was a hub of entertainment. Now, there are a small collection of historic buildings that still define the street among a much larger group of abandoned structures and surface parking lots. A couple of cafes and small local businesses are the highlight of Franklin Street today, and with their commitment to the neighborhood, are starting to bring some life and most importantly passion into revisioning the once bustling street that is so important to Tampa’s identity.

Franklin Street and the Rialto Theatre: Now and Then.

Franklin Street and the Rialto Theatre: Now and Then.

Given the important responsibility of helping the citizens of Tampa Heights to define their vision for Franklin Street was quite a responsibility. We accomplished it through a series of interactive and creative exercises that allowed the community to explore their vision in different ways: discussion, polling, answering questions, drawing and map exercises allowed all participants regardless of their comfort level to be integrated into the visioning process. Here are the steps below for creating a successful visioning workshop.

1) Ask participants how they would describe a place now, and how they would like to describe it in the future. 

These are simple questions that are easy for people to answer that will identify a large group of priorities, concerns, and opportunities for a place.

VisioningBoards

Visioning Boards

2) Ask people what they like.

The majority of people always have an opinion and they love to be able to share it. Sometimes its hard for them to know how to articulate how they  see the appearance and operation of a place. A great way to make this process easier is to create a visual preference polling activity. In this case, we identified urban design elements that are important to placemaking along a street: architectural character, building frontage, building scale, public realm activity, parking options, bike facilities, and street furniture; and provided pictures of many different options for each. Using stickers, participants voted for pictures they liked best for Franklin Street. As you can see below, a very visual and easily understandable result occurs. This allows people to comprehend how others in their community see a place quickly and clearly.

Visual Preference

Visual Preference

3) Identify what works and what doesn’t.

Small group discussion is an effective way to make sure every participant has a voice. In large groups or in public activities, not everyone feels comfortable sharing their opinion. A compelling activity to do in small groups is a table map exercise where participants can identify the positive assets of a place, as well as its biggest opportunities. Participants can mark these on a map and identify the physical location where appropriate. This helps define the priorities of a community and can show insight into those important elements of a place that can serve as a foundation for building a new identity.

Small Groups

Small Groups

4) Ask people to visualize.

For half of the people in the room who have a left brain, creating an opportunity for them to visualize their ideas can be the most effective way to identify the future vision of a place. Whether it’s the design of a street, site, or neighborhood asking people to draw can inspire creativity. Even the most unconventional ideas can identify the most unique design solutions. For Franklin Street, we asked participants what it should look like and gave them a list of potential elements they could include in the right-of-way. While everyone’s designs will be different, common and recurring elements and themes can be identified.

Street Visioning

Street Visioning

5) Report back.

It’s very important that participants in a visioning workshop walk away from the process knowing they have contributed to a meaningful process. Having small groups report back to the larger group about their top priorities for a place is the first step to showing participants that an agreed vision is starting to form. This is also a helpful summary process for urban designers and planners.

6) Process and follow-up.

Urban designers and planners will walk away from the  visioning process with a plethora of information and data. It is their responsibility to make conclusions and identify clear themes on which to help a community build their vision. Depending on the scope of the project and the next steps, these conclusions may the basis for further public involvement or neighborhood events. Or it might be appropriate to publish results publicly in a report, online, or through social media. Either way, there must be follow up steps with members of the community.

A community workshop is just one way to identify a vision for a place. Depending on the scale or goals of a project there might be more appropriate and more extensive processes to reach a conclusion. However, even the smallest scale of design projects should be based off a conclusive direction from the public. A simple workshop with 6 interactive steps is an efficient and very effective way to identify the goals, passion, and vision of people and place.

 

About these ads

Urbanism on Tap: Helping Shape Tampa’s Vision.

19 Mar

The regional chapter of the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU Tampa Bay) and The Urban Charrette have launched Urbanism on Tap, a series of community events in which citizens can engage in constructive conversations about current issues facing the Tampa Bay metropolitan region. Presented in an open-mic format, the events will be a bi-monthly source of free-flowing discussion about how Tampa can continue to grow as a progressive, competitive and vibrant city. Presented in a series of three events at a time, the goal is provide a forum for diverse members of the community to work together to address issues in our city.

Urbanism on Tap

The first series of events called Rival Cities is focused on understanding Tampa’s vision for the future and how that compares to other vibrant communities throughout the country. The first event of the series, held March 12 at the Tampa Museum of Art, outlined the vision recently established by Invision Tampa, a downtown master plan completed for the City of Tampa. Then the mic was turned over to the audience, which included city commissioners, city officials, business owners, designers and interested citizens. They discussed questions like: What do you think about this vision? What’s missing? and How do we start to make it a reality?

Participants had a lot to say, but’s let’s step back and consider why is it important for a city to talk about vision. Economies now span across regions, countries and the globe. Cities play a different role today: Instead of just providing for its citizens, cities must attract new professionals, industries and services that allow it to be on the world economy stage. If a city can’t compete with similar cities, it will lose out on growth and subsequently a larger tax base. Less money in a city means less of an ability to maintain its infrastructure and provide the daily necessities of living. Every city wants to grow, and grow sustainably. Uncontrollable growth can lead to negative effects that plague cities for decades; example in point, the growing suburbs of the last half of century that have left cities and counties struggling financially. So if a city has a vision that will attract the right type of investment, that will lead to the right type of growth that will contribute to the city’s livability and health the city will be a player in the world economy.

So what is Tampa’s vision? According to Invision Tampa, “Center City Tampa will be a community of livable places, connected people, and collaborative progress that embraces and celebrates its river and waterfront.” The plan states that it “should help address and make downtown Tampa the people’s downtown for the next 20 years, responding to the ideas and needs of the community.” In discussing this vision, The Urbanism on Tap team asked event participants to define what these terms mean to them.

Urbanism on Tap participant's definition of the terms included in the Invision Tampa vision statement.

Urbanism on Tap participant’s definition of the terms included in the Invision Tampa vision statement.

Defining the Terms

The Invision Tampa vision statement carries a familiar message to residents of Tampa. The Tampa Downtown Partnership’s Vision and Action Plan and the American Institute of Architects’ (AIA) Sustainable Design Assessment Team: Connecting Tampa Plan established similar visions in 2005 and 2008. Both call for more walkable neighborhoods with local amenities built around a vibrant downtown core with active public places along the riverfront.

The Urbanism on Tap discussion of this vision focused on a strong economy, strong neighborhoods, transportation, urban places/urban design, livability and citizen participation. Visit CNU Tampa Bay’s website to continue the Urbanism on Tap discussion and to see more detailed participant comments on Tampa’s vision. A few suggestions include Tampa’s need for a primary target industry, neighborhoods with communal space that can be accessed by walking, cycling and public transportation, the best technology in efficient mass transit, safe and secure public spaces, and individual responsibility to demand action.

The next installment of the Rival Cities series will examine other cities that are Tampa’s direct competition on the global economy stage. Invision Tampa mentions San Diego and Charlotte as cities to emulate for their expertise in economic development and transportation livability, respectively. While Charlotte is no doubt a competitor, we can look a little closer to home: Orlando is perhaps our largest investment competitor with similar industries, climate, population and geography. Stay tuned to CNU Tampa Bay and The Urban Charrette for the announcement of the date of the next Urbanism on Tap event, as well as an announcement of which cities we consider Tampa’s rival cities.

Spoiler Alert

The first Urbanism on Tap event established that the lack of mention of Tampa’s streetcar in the Invision Tampa plan is a missed opportunity for achieving a more efficient mass transit system, which was identified in the Invision Tampa public involvement process as the most important thing the city must do. As one of the oldest streetcar systems in the U.S. revival of streetcars, Tampa’s system has suffered a lack of funding and political support that systems like Portland (just one year older) have enjoyed. Since their inceptions in 2002 and 2001, respectively, Tampa has remained at 2.7 miles, while Portland has grown to over 9 miles.

The word cloud from the Invision Tampa Issues and Opportunities Report (November 2012) that shows the public's input of what the city must do over the next 15 years.

The word cloud from the Invision Tampa Issues and Opportunities Report (November 2012) that shows the public’s input of what the city must do over the next 15 years.

While the Invision Tampa plan mentioned cross river transit and an urban form that could support it, it didn’t set forth a vision for a mass transit system that would bring competitive investment to Tampa, as well as serve the desires and needs of the community. Some more food for thought? Rival cities like San Diego, Charlotte and Orlando have invested in premium transit — San Diego in a streetcar, light rail and commuter rail; Charlotte in light rail and a streetcar; and Orlando in commuter rail. Transit talk and discussion around Tampa’s streetcar will certainly be a topic of conversation at the next installment of Urbanism on Tap. Stay tuned.

Tampa TECO streetcar

Erin Chantry is an urban designer and executive committee member of CNU Tampa Bay, the regional chapter of The Congress for the New Urbanism. She is also the author of the urban design blog, At the Helm of the Public Realm. With a BA in architecture, an MA in urban design and an MS in urban planning, she has expert knowledge in New Urbanism, LEED for Neighborhood Development, and how sustainable city planning and urban design can be used as a catalyst for redevelopment.

Erin’s Google+

Guest Post: “Invisioning Tampa” Through Public Involvement

7 Jul

Hi everyone! I hope you had a wonderful July 4th holiday. I apologize for being a little MIA this week. I was busy studying for the LEED-ND exam, which I thankfully passed this morning. While I had my head buried in prerequisites and credits, my fellow designer, Garrett Honeycutt wrote a great piece about his experience with a prominent public involvement project funded by HUD in Tampa: Invision Tampa. Enjoy!

Tampa recently began a planning process to create a master plan for Tampa’s city center. The area in consideration stretches from downtown to Ybor and up Nebraska Avenue. This planning process includes a major public involvement aspect, which allows Tampa’s residents to get involved and share their ideas about how to improve the community. The public involvement process includes public meetings at the convention center, neighborhood walking tours, and two websites—one of which is designed to allow the public to share their own ideas.

Invision Tampa area

The Invision Tampa study area. (Image: Invisiontampa.com)

The first experience I had with the planning process began at the main web page, invisiontampa.com, where I watched a video of Mayor Bob Buckhorn speak about the plan and how it would include the public perspective, “…we need your thoughts, your ideas, your experiences, and your voice,” said Bob. So, I perused the website and followed the links to read about the project, and how to get involved. Under the ‘get involved’ link is where I discovered the Mindmixer website. The title reads, “Inspire Your Community Through Virtual Idea Sharing.”

youinvisiontampa.com, the idea sharing website, was created by a company named Mindmixer whose websites are designed to encourage public participation using a points system based on participation. The points are given to users when another person agrees with their idea, when the user posts an idea, when the user comments on someone else’s idea, and when a user seconds someone else’s idea.

As of now, there are 286 users who have shared 455 ideas total on 26 different topics. The ideas people have been posting revolve around transportation, economic development, housing / retail / entertainment development, neighborhood connectivity, parks, and street design. Right now the most popular idea-post in the most popular chat room, under the most popular topic, is about urban design and urban housing. The first couple of sentences from JoAnne F1’s post reads: “If I had a magic wand for Tampa I would wave it twice. Once for more urban housing and revitalized downtown neighborhoods and another to help everyone understand that good urban design must be a priority for our city.”

So far, JoAnne F1 has had 20 seconds, and 11 comments from other users around Tampa. A lot of the comments are about the idea of creating minimum density zones in and around the city center in order to create high enough densities to support local business and public transportation, as well as encourage redevelopment in surrounding, low density ,neighborhoods.

Some of the ideas I posted became popular as well, and some are now marked as “Under Consideration.” The idea under consideration with the most Seconds that I posted is titled “Encourage Restoration of Buildings Along Franklin Street.”

It reads: “We should give incentives to renovate historic buildings along Franklin Street and encourage economic diversity in order to continue to create a kind of pedestrian oriented outdoor mall. We should also extend the street-car line up Franklin Street north of the new CAMLS building.”

Historic Franklin Street Tampa

Tampa’s Franklin Street (Image: All Posters)

Another idea I posted, which received a lot of Seconds but was not labeled Under Consideration is titled “Boats Along Bayshore.” It reads, “Sometimes I look out over Tampa Bay from Bayshore Boulevard and imagine sailboats coming in from the Caribbean to port. If Tampa had a youth sailing club and facility, across from Tampa General Hospital where the vacant boat docs are, the already dynamic Bayshore atmosphere would become even more so. Tourist would come from all over to see the longest continuous water front walkway in the world. Lets enhance Tampa’s great atmosphere along Bayshore with a youth sailing club.”

This and the previous idea were just two of the 11 ideas I posted, proving the website to at-the-least, catch my attention.

Boats Hillsborough Bay Bayshore

Boats in Hillsborough Bay along Bayshore (Image: Garrett Honeycutt)

In addition to the websites, the new master plan process reaches out to the community through walking tours. The walking tours were two-in-one public involvement meetings organized around the Tampa Bay area and promoted on the InVision website. The first part being a walk around the area of discussion, and the second being an idea sharing charette about the area in question. These walking tours were created for 8 different neighborhoods around Tampa: Ybor Heights, Tampa Heights, North Downtown, Old West Tampa, the Channel District, North Hyde Park, Historic Ybor, and Seminole Heights.

Personally, I attended the Channel District neighborhood walking tour, which proved to be very useful for collecting the public point of view, but not very effective at answering some of the more nitty-gritty questions. What are the limitations of the new master plan? Would it be possible to develop the land directly on the channel even though it is currently privately owned by the ship yard? Could the city give some type of incentive to convince the port it would be more profitable for them to develop the land into housing and retail than it would be to keep it as a ship yard? Questions like these seemed less interesting to the tour guides than questions about the public realm. Perhaps these ideas would be addressed at the final leg of the public involvement aspect of the InVision Tampa master plan, the Knowledge Exchange meetings.

The Knowledge Exchange meetings were held at the convention center and were designed to alternate between lectures from AECOM staff and table exercises from the audience.

At the Knowledge Exchange on May 30th sitting at a table 15 minutes before the meeting, Pete Sechler, the project manager and a principal at AECOM, asked me what I think should be priority for Tampa’s downtown master plan.

So, remembering my experience at the Channel District walking tour, and how developing private lands seemed to be more challenging than some other opportunities for improvement, I suggested that we should determine how difficult each idea would be to implement, in order to help rank priorities. He must have thought that was a good idea because he mentioned it and our conversation when he spoke to the room. He also spoke generally about how the project has been coming along with the website feedback and he talked about the success of the walking tours , then he said how important it was for us to get the word out and come to the next Knowledge Exchange meeting. The other speakers were very interesting and the table exercise were pointed and engaging.

So, between the news coverage with Mayor Bob Buckhorn, the two websites, the walking tours and the Knowledge Exchange meetings, I feel the master plan process was very successful in hearing the people’s point of view. In all there were 485 ideas contributed, from the Mindmixer site about how to improve Tampa’s city center, virtually hitting every aspect conceivable. I feel the public involvement process was a big success and the Tampa community should feel their ideas were at least taken note of. However, as successful as the process was, there were some frustrating limitations, almost as if the people in charge could not tell us the truth, the bad news, what usually happens with master plans once all the big ideas the public had become hopeful of achieving are spilled out and left in the hands of whoever. What happens next? Are the people who had high hopes for Tampa achieving big ideas through this master plan just getting their hopes up only to be let down?

One of the speakers at the Knowledge Exchange meeting saw Chattanooga Tennessee’s downtown planning process from beginning to end, and he emphasized how much time these things take, it was a common theme in his speech.

He saw Chattanooga riverfront development-plan implemented, changed, redesigned and implemented again for over 30 years into what it is today, and again, he said these things take time—information that would have been helpful on the walking tours, and information that should have been emphasized throughout the whole process.

So, I guess, if there is any criticism to Tampa’s master planning process so far, it would be that the public should be made more aware and better educated about how these things work and how exactly change happens. The public should not only know where the funding for the master plan came from, but also and more importantly where the future funding will come from in order to make these grand, but equally necessary, changes to Tampa’s city center into realities. The planning staff should be more informed and equipped to answer these tough questions, or if they are capable of answering the tough question they should not be discouraged to share incite with the public. The walking tours should have been more give-and-take, designed to gather public opinion and inform the public about what types of changes are likely to come sooner through the planning process and which changes would take more time, and how much time different ideas usually take, and what kind of ideas may just simply be out of the question.

If the intent was to inspire the public without discouraging, or discriminating between ideas, I feel the Mindmixer website did a sufficient job in doing this, and that the walking tours should have been a little more informative.

In all, the entire experience was fun and collaborative, but I wish it were a little more informative. I am hopeful and excited to see where the InVision Tampa master plan takes us from here.

Garrett Honeycutt has a Bachelor of Architecture from Florida Atlantic University and works as a designer in the Urban Design and Community Planning Team at Tindale-Oliver & Associates in Tampa. 

Semantics: Redevelopment vs. Regeneration.

21 Jun

I received my urban design and planning education in England, which sometimes leads to little, yet awkward, misunderstandings. It has been a slight challenge to get comfortable in the drastic differences between the two planning systems, but mostly I have made peace with the translations. However, one term: regeneration, which is often substituted with redevelopment in America does not sit well with me. People see my specialization: “Urban and Regional Regeneration” and they ask me, “what is regeneration? Is like redevelopment?”

The answer is yes, and no. They overlap quite a bit, and while the number of anomalies are few, they are so distinctly different, that the terms are more dissimilar than at first glance. In its simplest form, to redevelop, is to develop again, which implies doing it over completely. While regeneration most directly means “rebirth or renewal” of something, implying that the entity remains throughout the process. In my experience these simple definitions distinctly describe the difference in the urban planning context.

The American Planning Association (APA) defines redevelopment as “one or more public actions that are undertaken to stimulate activity when the private market is not providing sufficient capital and economic activity to achieve the desired level of improvement. This public action usually involves one or more measures such as direct public investment, capital improvements, enhanced public services, technical assistance, promotion, tax benefits, and other stimuli including planning initiatives such as rezoning.

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) defines regeneration as “a holistic process which aims to reverse the economic, social and physical decline of places where market forces alone will not suffice. The planning process provides the opportunity to enhance the role and capacity of communities as well as balancing community, business, environmental and individual needs. Effective regeneration requires active and meaningful long-term community engagement and involvement, as well as changes to the physical environment.”

The slight difference in definition is that redevelopment focuses on monetary investment and physical changes. Regeneration focuses on the existing community and “social decline” of a place, equally with the economic and physical factors. It even goes further to say that it addresses “holistically,” “individual needs.” Of course there are many redevelopment projects that do address the community, but because the APA distinctly says that “the private sector may initiate redevelopment projects without any active public involvement beyond the government’s traditional regulatory role,” I would argue that it is not enough to measure against the social investment of regeneration.

Perhaps the distinct difference in the responsibility to act directly on behalf of existing residents versus the primary goal of monetary investment is that England’s planning system is much larger and more politicized (and therefore receives more federal funding.) Of course, this comes with its own hindrances, but in this case social decline being put on equal footing is well worth what some call the overreaching arm of the government. While in America, gentrification might be seen as an inevitable and therefore an accepted side effect of redevelopment, in England, I would argue it is seen as sometimes inevitable and therefore tragic side effect of regeneration.

To illustrate this point, let me give you an example of the power behind a true regeneration project: Angell Town in Brixton, London.

Angel Town, Brixton

Angell Town Brixton Estate - Improvements

The urban design and physical improvements made at Angell Town Estate.

Problem (courtesy of Rudi):

  • Lack of public space for social interaction – derelict communal areas were unused.
  • The garages provided were dark and unsurveyed, and therefore, never used.
  •  The estate was perceived as crime ridden as the multiplicity of bridges and walkways provided ideal escape routes for criminals, often from outside the estate itself.
  • Litter accumulation resulted from removing the bridges (which gave access to the waste removal pick-up points), in an attempt to reduce crime
  • The estate came to epitomize neglect and decline
  • The estate became stigmatized a sink estate.

Solution – A summary of simple urban design changes:

  • The first main part of the scheme involved re-orientating the existing deck-access housing into a more “normal” street format, based on terraced dwellings which related to the street through individual entrances.
  • Each dwelling was given an individual, recognized identity (surveillance on the street was improved, as windows now faced directly out
  • Terraced housing replaced the monotonous, unsafe corridors of entrances.
  • The pedways, which were perceived as unsafe, were removed so that the houses could be extended to face on to the street.
  • New central grassed areas were defined as focal points for the houses. These areas were separated from the new vehicular perimeter roads by railings, enabling children to play, away from the danger of traffic and dogs.
  • The un-used garages on the ground floors were replaced with shops and community facilities, such as a bar, cafe, workshops, and even a recording studio in one area – to provide the previously, much lacked social amenities. This design measure also helped transform dark and bleak spots into animated facades of street level activity.

Instead of looking at this place, and only seeing its problems, the urban designer, planners, and architects looked at them as opportunities to build on the strong community that had lived there for decades. The project improvements didn’t eradicate every trace of the place that had become their home, but committed a large investment to renovate the buildings they could and design the new ones to complimented the existing so well you had to look hard to tell the difference between the two. Members of the community could still look and see where they came from, in other words, it still felt like home, but most importantly they could look again a little harder and see their bright future. This might sound like I’m laying it on a little thick, but the success of this regeneration stunned so many nationwide, and contental-wide, that intense project documentation occurred, including resident interviews. The members of the community realized what so many times planners don’t: they looked to their physical environment to define their identity. With the existing bones of the original Angell Town Estate still in existence, they easily correlated the physical improvements to be improvements in themselves.

This outstanding result came from an intense and time-consuming community consultation process (another distinctly different term than public involvement). The lead urban designer was so involved with the community that he actually lived there are the weekends in a flat. While this is rare in either country, it certainly is to be commended.

Perhaps the most powerful item in Angell Town now are the benches that poetically are made from the rubble from the demoed parts of the old buildings, caged, with a stone seat atop them. People can actually sit on the physical representation of what was destroying their community: a poorly designed public realm. This was recited by residents often as what made the biggest difference to them. Don’t ever underestimate the power of poeticism.

Caged Rubble Wall

Caged rubble representing moving forward to a healthy and safe community.

I will let you make your own observations and would love for you to share them on this blog. But I invite you now to look at redevelopment projects that have occurred in similar conditions (public housing sites) in America:

So, what will it be redevelopment or regeneration?

Magnolia Street New Orleans Louisiana

The Magnolia Street homes that were demolished even though they were listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its significance as an early federal housing effort in New Orleans….replaced with “traditional” suburban housing. (Images: CoLab Radio and McCormack Baron Salazar)

Mission Hill Boston Design

What does it say to a community when you eradicated everything that was their home and build it back with sub par architectural crap? (Mission Hill, Boston) (Images: Affordable Housing Institute)

Erin’s Google+

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,236 other followers