Toronto City Planning has, on several occasions, recommended the use of a “Charrette” or “Design Charrette”. This was recently recommended in connection with the development of a North Downtown Yonge Street Planning Framework. A one-day event was held on 2011 September30 as a part of developing that Planning Framework. It was called a “Charrette” and a representative cross-section of stakeholders were invited to participate.
The National Charrette Institute (
http://www.charretteinstitute.org/) is perhaps the authoritative body on what should happen at a Charrette. They define a NCI charrette as:
-
At least five consecutive days, allowing three design feedback loops
-
An open process that includes all interested parties
- Focused on producing a feasible plan with minimal rework
In my experience with the Delphi Method, Future Search Conferences, and Open Space Technology Sessions , the common characteristics is the presence of strong and repeated feedback loops. The feedback loops, and only the feedback loops, allow the participants to see the impact of their thoughts and their concerns on the end product. It's what generates real buy-in to that end product.
The reason for three feedback loops is relatively easy to understand for anyone who has participated in one of these events. During the first cycle, everyone comes forward with their ideas unchecked by almost any but their own personal concerns. Seeing the impact of those unconstrained thoughts encourages the participants to moderate or refine their position. The second feedback loop is when convergence begins. It's confirmed during the third feedback loop. And should convergence not happen during the second loop, a clear bifurcation will appear during the third feedback loop.
The recent Toronto City Planning “Charrette” was really mis-labeled. It included no feedback loops and contained no hint of how the participants' concerns might shape the eventual planning framework. It was a pure stakeholder input session. “We” provided the input, “they” took it away to do with it as they will. The obvious danger in this is that “they” will inevitably be selective in the concerns which they use in shaping the planning framework. Too often this kind of stakeholder input session is used by “them” to elicit the input which “they” want to use in shaping their conclusion.
The Toronto City Planning “charrette” was better than nothing. It did give stakeholders an opportunity to present their ideas, but no one should pretend that the stakeholders are really involved in development. In some ways, it's understandable that City Planning would not want to do the work required of a real Charrette. They have very limited resources and a real Charrette is a lot of work. It also exposes their professional development work to public scrutiny. Many professionals find such exposure to be quite uncomfortable.
What to do about this? Open Space Technology is the most promising alternative. It doesn't depend on hard working professionals. Yes, an Open Space Technology facilitator is necessary. And, yes, the call for the session needs to be carefully crafted. But there is none of the extensive planning required to prepare for a Charrette. In the course of a two-day Open Space session the stakeholders could formulate their own North Downtown Yonge Street Planning Framework. It's a step the the North Downtown Yonge Street neighbourhoods should seriously consider. It would give us a real voice.
Print
Email