Assimilation

Collating knowledge and experience with a community body in order to acquire contextual requirements and place people within the design hierarchy.

Through observation and appropriation of a community’s collective consciousness, the architect can start to form a perceptive physicalisation of a world that has certain significance to a community. This principle takes into account the ‘Communication’ and ‘Symbolic artefacts’ strands of the ‘identification triad theory’ and their relationship to communal engagement.

As per the aforementioned second stage of the socio-environmental analysis process, this process allows the appropriation of a perceived world, both for the individual’s benefit and for the purposes of a significant physical intervention. Architectural theorist Meltem Yilmaz discussed the impact of communities on the longevity of identity when stating; “to ensure the protection of socio-cultural traits of identity, as in the case of architectural heritage, requires close co-operation between local communities and the state” (Yilmaz.M, 2006, p.145).

An example of communal integration in the design process that benefited communal identity is Castleford Bridge in West Yorkshire (Fig.8). Designed by McDowell+Benedetti Architects and completed in July 2008, this project “was one of a number of community-led design projects developed as part of the town of Castleford’s regeneration.” (RIBA, 2011, p.8). The aim was to link the north and south of Castleford’s riverside community connecting Aire Street to Mill Lane (Fig.9). During public meetings in local bars, clubs and community centres,

Castleford Bridge

Fig.8 Castleford Bridge (Benedetti Architects, 2019)

Castleford Bridge

Fig.9 Castleford Bridge (Matter Architecture, 2019)

Castleford Bridge

Fig.10 Castleford Bridge (World Architecture News, 2008)

one key question was asked; “how do you want to see your town improved?” (RIBA, 2011, p.8). Once a sufficient amount of consultation had been conducted, two community representatives were chosen by local people to be more closely involved in the project, providing an important connection between the regeneration team and the local community (Fig.10).

Director of CABE (Chartered Association of Building Engineers), who worked alongside the design team and the public, Sarah Gaventa expressed the reception of the project; “Loved and enjoyed, the excellent result of a great relationship between community and architect, it succeeds in pushing the very definition of public space.” (Benedetti Architects, 2019). This approach kept the design team on the project focused on the aims as established by the local community.

If the community are to be involved, the architect must determine the level of involvement with which they would be comfortable. It was author Sherry Arnstein who wrote a journal article on the ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (Fig.11). This breaks down levels of cooperation that communities can achieve during participatory decision making.

This concept is divided into three categories ‘Non-Participation’, ‘Tokenism’ and ‘Citizen Control’ which are split into eight subcategories. If distinctive identities are to be represented effectively, the minimum level of participation must be Level 4 ‘Consultation’ of ‘Tokenism’.

Fig.11 Arnstein’s Ladder (Authors own image) (Based on ‘Degrees of Citizen Participation’ by Sherry Arnstein)

Manipulation and disregard for identity could lead to sub-sects of a place feeling ostracised within their own environment. This ‘non-participation’ does not allow the public “to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable power holders to “educate” or “cure” the participants” (Arnstein, 1969, p.217). To reduce the chances of this, identity management strategies should be followed.

From the architect’s perspective, during the early stages of conception, two social elements should be considered prior to perceiving identity “(a) being a member of a group and (b) comparing treatment of their group relative to other groups.” (Madera, King and Hebl, 2012, p.166). If this management is not considered, it could potentially lead to extremist concentrations of those who wish to preserve an otherwise neglected identity.

However, complete public control may exclude visionary exploration, limiting future vision and physical development. In the case of Castleford Bridge, there was a ‘partnership’ that allowed a level of citizen control to take place during the process. This level of citizen control still gave the architect a degree of flexibility in the aesthetic consideration and materiality definition.